PPRuNe Forums

Engineers & Technicians In this day and age of increased CRM and safety awareness, a forum for the guys and girls who keep our a/c serviceable.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th Dec 2011, 16:39   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: middle east
Age: 30
Posts: 8
Snoop EASA Part 66 related question and would appreciate a mean of contacting EASA

Hello everyone,

I've tried to contact EASA on their general inquires email but it's either gonna take forever OR they just weren't interested into replying me, therefore obviously if you have a mean of contacting them please help.

I'm an EASA TB1.1 graduate.My question is regarding the 6 weeks OJT requirement.

1.Can I complete my OJT in any 145 AMO or does it have to be approved by my previous 147 MTO.

Question 2 is only in the case where answer to Q1 came negative.
2.Between the 6 weeks experience requirement and the 2 years experience licensing requirement, do I have to them in this order? or could I start logging experience for my license and postpone my OJT until a more convenient timing.

I'd appreciate any help or clues.

Kind regards,

Last edited by rookieaviator; 17th Dec 2011 at 18:12. Reason: The previous was written in a hurry and wasn't clear enough
rookieaviator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Dec 2011, 18:27   #2 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,413
The peroration below was written in answer to the first post by the OP!

You are not alone in having this stunt (perhaps "criminal fraud") pulled on you by Part 147-approved Maintenance Training Organisations (MTO)......at least one British College was doing the same up to last year to my knowledge, on its own courses and ones it facilitated in another College, and perhaps still is.

The position is that if the EASA Part 147-approved MTO provides a fully-approved B1.1 course (see below), you should receive an EASA Basic Training Certificate (assuming you pass all the exams and assessments). The work experience then needed before you can apply for a licence is 2 years (apart from exceptions such a ex-military). Your BTC and log-book are what's needed.

Otherwise it's 5 years work experience, plus passing all the Module exams without any Practical training or assessments, or OJT. Your Module Examination Pass Certificates and log-book are what's needed.

To be fully-approved, a B1.1 course MUST be 2,400 hours minimum instruction, including 1200 hours Module subject teaching and exams, 800 hours of Practical Skills training in an approved training workshop, and 400 hours On-the-Job Training. The OJT must be structured and supervised, and cover all areas of the aircraft. It must be done under the Part 147 school's general management and supervision, under a contract between it and the Part 145 MRO to facilitate the OJT.

The difference in work experience requirements is because the extra 3 years is in lieu of the Practical and OJT that the fully-approved course includes.

It appears that the course provided by AA was not fully approved, because it did not include the OJT, quite apart from any other failings that you hint at. If that is so, then to be able to apply for a licence you will now have to carry out 5 years work experience. And in that case, not only is doing any OJT pointless now, but so was the Practical you probably did. (Pointless only from the rule-book point of view; probably very useful to learn the skills!)

If AA sold you a fully-approved B1.1 course, you did not get what you paid for. You should demand recovery of all the fees paid, plus compensation for the waste of time and effort. Do not accept a reduction just for the OJT; the rest of your money was also wasted on a course that was useless to you, and you now have to do 5 years work experience. You could have passed the Module exams during the 5-years by home study and just sitting the exams.

AA is regulated by EASA, I believe, not by any NAA as it is outside Europe. You should write formally to them (There is a Director of Training, or some such, Marcel Kompare last time I was there), but don't expect any coherent or prompt reply. Your best friend is a good lawyer in Australia to recover your money and get compensation as well.

Good Luck.

PS Start logging your work NOW, get every entry signed off properly, and try and compile a log as far back as you can, if you can get it signed off by the right people. You are going to need this, whatever happens..

Last edited by Capot; 17th Dec 2011 at 19:08.
Capot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2011, 09:12   #3 (permalink)

Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,157
Have a look at AMC 66.45 (d)
Bus429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2011, 14:04   #4 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EDDF
Posts: 110
EASA Part 66 related question and would appreciate a mean of contacting EASA


The EASA is not in charge for this!

You must solve the problem with the school or your NAA, like the UK-CAA!
easaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Dec 2011, 15:20   #5 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,413

The OP's first post (before it was edited) mentioned that the school in question is in Australia. It is EASA approved for Basic Training, which is what his complaint/query is about.

It comes under the direct jurisdiction of EASA, not the Australian CAA, just as an MRO in Austrialia would.

It's immaterial; EASA would probably do nothing in any event; it's a commercial dispute really.
Capot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Dec 2011, 21:25   #6 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EDDF
Posts: 110
I did not see the "original" message.
Anyway, as far I know, the school in Australia has been approved by the DGAC of France. In this case it would be the DGAC/OSAC should be addressed and not the EASA!
easaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Dec 2011, 15:50   #7 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,413
Hmmm, not sure about that. The French DGAC cannot, if I have it right, issue an EASA approval outside France (unless contracted by EASA to do so on its behalf, which would be unlikely in Australia as opposed to a Francophone country), and as far as I know there is no such thing as a purely French approval (for a Basic Training School at least) in the sense that there once was before the French signed up to EASA along with everyone else.

Or is France operating 2 parallel regulatory systems? Anything's possible.
Capot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Dec 2011, 18:36   #8 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: EDDF
Posts: 110
I was told that they were approved by the DGAC, maybe they were only audited by the DGAC.
As you can see, there are a lot of different countries being approved by the DGAC!
Delta Air Lines USA, Embraer Brazil, Israel, Jordan, Russia ....
easaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Dec 2011, 13:49   #9 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 140
The legal responsibility for approving organisations is split between EASA and the Member States. Except for design organisations, which are all approved by EASA, the Member States are responsible for issuing approvals to organisations located within their territory. EASA is responsible for issuing approvals to all foreign organisations not located in the EC. EASA contracts the oversight of many of the organisations under their responsibility to the Member State competent authorities. EASA will always issue the approval certificate for the organisations that they are legally responsible for. EASA can also take responsibility for the approval of production organisations located in a Member State if requested to do so by that Member State. Basic Regulation (EC) No 218/2008 Article 20 refers.
happybiker is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:51.

1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1