I went to a seminar many years ago, organised by the CAA to introduce the prospect of EASA licence introduction as well as us reps from various UK airlines, and maintenance companies, a senior person ( possibly now deceased) from ALAE was there. I was member of ALAE at the time. Anyways, each time one of us airline reps asked a question, regarding BCAR A8-13 privileges and conversion to EASA format, said person would jump up and say "we ( A8-13 certifiers ) weren't licensed so what right did we have to ask questions....the only licensed engineers in the room were those holding type ratings... an lwtr was not a license"

I cancelled my ALAE membership next day in disgust at this lack of inclusion on the part of a senior member of ALAE

Ttfn

Small point of order here please. You forgot to include one sitting on the fence and another being in complete agreement, whilst being the exact opposite and working out how to gain financially at the expense of everybody else ….;)

@Ivor toolbox ...I recall the " the LWTR vs TR Licence " debate " ( euphemism ! ) carried on for a rather long time in the minds of some. Recall a letter, kindly published in full, in "Flight " from a recently retired QC gronk who, in his own immortal words, opined how he enjoyed "slipping them a crippler " when interviewing LTWR holders. Clearly would have been in his element certifying teradactyl's

This little tucked away thread is quite interesting.

@Krystal and Ivor what is the point you are trying make? We don't need licences or everyone should have one free? I genuinely can't find the point in your posts.

@ivor: A senior member of ALAE turns up at a seminar and defends his members position. Isn't that what he is supposed to do? Taken in context of the time (I am guessing somewhat it wasn't just pre EASA, it was possibly pre JAR). Are you aware that the original european proposal was actually called JAR-65 and was completely free of licences? Are you aware that the CAA in the early 1970's trialled an unlicensed system and incidents went through the roof? Personally I prefer higher safety standards.

@krystal: what are you saying, that you are so good you don't need a realty check every now and then or are you an experienced mechanic who believes he should have a licence for free but isn't prepared to work for it?

These sort of posts highlight whats wrong with the internet in my opinion. I think if this was a normal discussion between people in a room there would be much more depth to the conversation.
Internet promotes false outrage, a false belief in actual intelligence levels, short online tempers. Just love "I don't a need a lecture comments". Often made (but not always) by people who actually do need a lecture.

LWTR: Licence Without Type Rating. A holder has satisfied the requirements for the issue of an aircraft maintenance engineer's licence but hasn't a specific type rating. The basic licence wasn't given away in a cornflake packet as you know; it was tougher than any type exam I've sat because the questions could come from anywhere in CAIPs.
When I held a new BCAR LWTR in 1986 it was common practice for CRS approvals to be issued to competent non-type-rated licenced engineers by the QC department.

What is of concern to me, amongst many things EASA, is the way in which Cat A engineers are given more and more approvals stretching the boundaries of their privileges, not so noticeable in the UK but on mainland Europe some operators are taking the mick. Back in the early days of JAR66 the ALAE along with AEI reluctantly accepted the idea of a Cat A as a compromise, if they hadn't the licence was gone and it would be Company Approvals only. We need to challenge the Cat A privileges issue where ever we see it going wrong in our workplaces. I think the Cat A is not such a bad thing so long as it is kept under control, most of the Cat A's at my Company are studying for their B licences and the Cat A experience they are getting is doing no harm.

I took my first CAA LWTR exam (A&C Turbine Helicopters) at Southall College of Technology in 1989 completing 150 vote-for-joe questions (with negative marking for incorrect answers) and four written questions. The pass mark was 75% (90% with negative marks)

Having passed that, I was called for my CAA interview at the old Heathrow office. The surveyor marched me down into a room in the cellar where I sat at a desk with a pencil and paper on it facing the surveyor, a blank wall and a tall, grey steel locker. The "interview" lasted 4 hours, with no rests, during which the guy literally went through a copy of the Section L for helicopters (which included supersonic intakes and exhausts) and I had to draw and calculate electrical circuits and draw control system diagrams to show my understanding of each subject as they were asked. On leaving the room I sheepishly asked how I'd done - "You'll do" he said. A heavy envelope landed in my hallway some 6 weeks later.

After that, I did another three CAA LWTRs and subsequent interviews - the last interview (Large Aircraft) being about 20 minutes (with a coffee) I am now a B1.1, B1.2 and B1.3 licensed QAM for parts 21J, 21G, M and 145. It is my job to make sure that the guys and galls we employ are "competent"...and I do.

I'm sure there was an, obviously, unwritten rule that the surveyors would make the initial issue of an LWTR as difficult as possible and for obvious reasons. Thereafter, progressively less so. I was asked, as were many others, to draw various diagrams from CAIP's which was "fun " and to complete circuits whilst explaining what the various components did. Interestingly, there was very little on AGS standards.

Ah, the infamous negative marking. ! I am intrigued however as to why, with your background, you didn't get a dispensation for " the vote for Joe " questions. There was mandatory Air Leg, four written and for me 60 of the latter. However, I'm also aware people of similar experience didn't get the dispensation for reasons that were never really made clear to them

But, I was a member of ALAE ( as well as SLAET at the time) so.... it was my interests too that he should have been defending. It was pre JAR btw as you rightly surmise ; he was trying to argue that we A8-13 certifiers were less safe , some of us pointed out we were members, only to be ignored.

Ttfn

But, I was a member of ALAE ( as well as SLAET at the time) so.... it was my interests too that he should have been defending. It was pre JAR btw as you rightly surmise ; he was trying to argue that we A8-13 certifiers were less safe , some of us pointed out we were members, only to be ignored.

Ttfn

Likewise for me, ex RAF rigger, 8 essays (4 trade, 4 legislation) plus the infamous multi choice . I was given to believe at the time that it depended on what you had spent part of the last 2 years of your service working on, whether you qualified for the reduced multi choice, you had to have worked on live aircraft, and preferably one with a civil equivalent.

I was lucky, was able to take a part time work experience job with a locally based operator, working on G reg aeroplanes (their chief engineer was one of my neighbours)

After the written exams there was the wait for the letter....either telling you that you had failed...or inviting you to apply for the oral board. 4 or 5 hours in an office at Gatwick, the final question I had was " what does an engineer do when he first receives his new licence" ; which I answered, but my brain was too addled by this time to work out it was a way of letting me know I'd done OK.

Ttfn

In general terms they were less safe the statistics proved it. Of course in amongst all that there were some very good certifiers. It has been a source of debate for some time. Industry doesn't want to accept the truth as it would increase costs and they successfully lobby NAA's to keep this discussion off the radar.

Draw your own conclusions from several events. Back in the late 60's the CAA proposed a non licensed system. Legislation was submitted to make the change. When the A8-13 certifer trials ran in the late 60's early 70's incidents increased significantly. This resulted in the formation of ALAE and they successfully fought to keep the licence. The government official statement at the time was that the increase in incidents was not because of the A8-13 certifiers but because of the introduction of the 747.

My own personal experience of european unlicensed systems is that they are definately less robust, open to abuse and result in more incidents. This may be due to culture I don't know. For me safety without compromise comes first, therefore licence.

Union's for Aircraft Engineers .......................
Best Summary I could give, Back in the day. They wanted to push for a reduction in the working week from 40 Hours to 35 Hours. Due to their astute bargaining skills and foresight. The paid 1 hour lunch break turned into 1 hour unpaid. The union thought they did a great job. Enough said...............................

Utter nonsense. Which union, which company, which year?

Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (AUEW) was Pre 84 before they had the big internal union bust up between the internal branches. No interest in licence staff. all pulling in different directions internally, was a right mess.
EDIT - Thinking back it was a 45 Hr to 40 Hr week.

I keep paying my ALAE fees but I recognise that, apart from receiving fees, Prospect has no interest in us at all.

you still didn't mention the company. If it was pre 84 and it is true, naming shouldn't be a problem.

The reduced multi choice was a double edged sword,if the oral examiner had your multi choice answers in front of him he would go for your weak points.If he didn't he would go through the lot.
In 1982 my first attempt at a Section L LWTR I was an ex RAF J/T rigger and had only worked on fighters & bombers but I got the dispensation and duly failed my oral.