JAR 66 TYPES
 

Is it true that types cannot go on to a JAR66 license unless they were done at level(2 or 3?) at a JAR147 approved training facility? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As far as I understand it all types ratings are done on company approval.

Please correct me if I am wrong!!

Yours "in between nervous breakdowns" HeliEng

I have recently encountered this problem. I attended an aircraft type course at the manufacturer over in the states. Unfortunatly the manufacturer is'nt JAR147 so when I applied to the CAA for a type rating on my JAR66 licence, I was refused.
The CAA kindly informed me that all I have to do is obtain the course sylabus, and with the aid of my companies quality dept demonstrate to the CAA how this meets the requirments of JAR147.
If that did'nt pi55 me off enough, the b*****s charged me £81 for the privilege!
Sometimes I wonder if its worth the effort to get yourself licenced.
I knew I should have been a postman.

Quoting Mr. A. Wells, CAA Engineering Licensing Department, letter dated 09. November 1999: " The submitted certificates were not correctly certified by your referee, in that some of the certificates need proof from the respective training schools that the training was carried out to ATA 104 Level III specification standard and the certificates need endorsing to that effect. The required evidence may be in the form of a detailed letter from your quality department giving the rquired information."

All my certificates have been reissued by the respective training departments, upon my request, with the required information.

It is a very time consuming matter, all in all, it took approximately 15 months for the last reissued certificate to return. In 1999 I paid £192 for the JAR66 CAA AML conversion and every time I received a reissued certificate I applied for the type rating endorsment ( Stupid me ). The CAA hit me for every application with £75 each. To date, I have 13 type ratings on my CAA AML ( 13 x £75 = £975 ) Total cost so far, including the conversion fee £1167 and I did not even get something to put the AML into.
:eek: :eek:

[ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: Noted ]

Hello colleagues, your problem with licence is just with UK CAA.
We have new licence here in France and it came very fast. It is all new here for me because before now we are with company authority for France only, now we can apply in all JAR countries, it is very good for all.
Please can somebody advice on jobs in europe with airlines for avionic system specialists and how much money we bring.
Thank you.

There are a couple of answers to this question.
Firstly, you can have 'protected rights' on authorisations held prior to June 1st. These can be added to a JAR 66 licence but there may be restrictions (say if you were only a & c under section L), then your JAR 66 licence would show limitations on the types on your licence. This is providing, on your licence conversion, your QA dept submitted the standard letter format the CAA have requested. All QA depts should be aware of this.
Second part: For new 66 type ratings (on your 66 licence) the course must have been presented by a JAR 147 organisation that is approved to teach the requisite course. You can only apply for a 66 type rating against a manufacturers course (manufacturers cannot apply for JAR 147 at this time!) if the course has been audited by a JAR 145 organisation and that 145 organisation verifies the course content is appropriate to the 66 licence requirements. (This has serious implications for organisations such as 'flightsafety international' who do training on behalf of manufacturers but are not JAR 147 approved.)Only when the type rating is endorsed on your 66 licence can the QA dept of a JAR 145 grant company authorisation on the aircraft type they wish you to work on.
Hope this helps, I believe it to be the current situation but Roy Burdon at CAA Gatwick is the man with all the answers !!

Could someone please explain how ANY of this benefits safety, performance or capability? :confused:

This is typical governmental b@ll@cks. There is only one thing worse than one government agency trying to run a show, and that is dozens of them!

If an Operator or Repair Station created a new Operations or Inspection programme along the lines of any of this ill considered JAR nonsense - they would be shut-down and their certificates REVOKED (by the same agency creating this disaster)!

The people involved have no concept of the real world of Aviation, and sit, removed from the Aviation business, in offices, and attending meetings, surrounded by others of their kind!

I can't believe the total disaster that every part of this regulatory change has become. Every month some equally surprising (alarming?) revelation is gleaned. When is it all going to end?

There appears to be no consideration given to the value of a system that was proven to work. Instead some new layer of beauraucracy is rolled out to replace the proven and competent existing systems that are in use.

In the creation of any new system, considerable attention must be given to the intricacies of the interaction between the various rules, systems and methods. In any new system, there will always be some areas of conflict, and a little time and consideration will need to be taken to realign the necessary components.

It appears though, that the creation and implementation of the JAR system and mechanism has revealed unparalleled and unrivalled levels of incompetence by the parties concerned. I would further suggest that the JAR system would be unable to pass ISO 9002 qualification due to about every conceivable problem that has been observed in every facet of their operation; (tell me they haven't achived ISO certification?) :eek:

I can state confidently, that I now understand less about the JAR system now, than a year ago. It is never ending disaster.

Note: This is not a reflection of the people on the receiving (working) end of the regulatory authorities. The systemic failure of this system lies at the very TOP of the organisation, that allowed a system so inherently flawed, to be adopted and implemented. :mad:

Cyclic welcolme to Europe. Perhaps Gilles can tell us how to obtain a french JAR 66 Licence ie what, and how many exams are needed before a French engineer is given a JAR 66 B1. I would be very interested Gilles. :rolleyes:

For the licence we do not do an exam. It is just a piece of paper to prove that we already have company authorization for the aeroplanes we have worked on. We already have done exam each time when we make the course before we get issued authorization for the aeroplane. It is just a JAR requiremnt to give us B2 licence to make it standard across all of Europe. Some people have B1 and B2 but most avionics just get B2.

The requirements of JAR 147 for a training school are so high that there are not going to be many around.With money for training given extremely grudgingly, even the large carriers will have problems meeting this standard.
Also with the recurrent training requirement you can see now why anyone recruiting is only interested in people who are absolutely current or even newly qualified guys. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GILLES HAS PROVED WHAT A COMPLETE FARCE OUR INDUSTRY IS TURNING INTO.

WHEN I FIRST LEFT THE RAF I GOT A JOB AT FIELDS AIRCRAFT SERVICES. A CHAP WHO HAD BEEN A MILKMAN ONLY 4 YEARS BEFORE GOT PROMOTED TO A INSPECTOR IN THE ENGINE SHOP, THIS REALLY PISSED ME OFF CONSIDERING THE TRAINING I HAD DONE AND HE HAD NOT.

THIS EUROPE THING AND THE MILKMAN SOND LIKE SIMILAR SCENARIOS. HERE WE GO AGAIN!

What is your problem Pen It Off! ??.

How Gilles got his licence convertet, is the same way I got mine convertet.

As Gilles said, he has already done the necessary tests and exams for his national licence and ratings, so why should he have to go thru that again, "just" because it gets convertet to a JAR 66 ?.

With respect to Gilles, the problem is...
While the French had no licenensing system it was not a problem as the French could only work in France, now with the advent of JAR 66, they could not be expected to start from scratch and gain a license, so they got given the full whack.
Now the problem is they can work anywhere.
A friend of mine with CAA licenses recently got turned down for a job as he did not have a full JAR66 licence, the job went to a Scandanavian who got 'given' a full JAR66 license by his authorities, meanwhile my friend is still studying for his JAR modules,
this is the part thats unfair.
I could take this JAR lark if it was a level playing field and everybody had to do the same to obtain an equivalent qualification.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/magg.gif

This is not correct, when we make the course,every week we have one examination about the aeroplane subject. After the end when we apply for authorization we make an interview with QC. This is more serious than the JAR examination. In England you make one examination at the start of your career then with authorization after this and no examination, why must we begin again?

Well Gilles, every type course that I have been on has involved examinations after every module and a final examination covering the whole aircraft and engines. This is then followed by an examination by the company Q/A department before any type authorisation is given. BUT, before one can attend type courses one has to hold at least a licence without type for which we have to sit examinations both written and oral that are set and adjudicated upon by the CAA. We are not just given a licence as it would seem that you and your other European counterparts have been. This is clearly NOT a level playing field.

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: HiSpeedTape ]

The channel certainly seems very wide.

I am really getting sick of this pissing and moaning from you British.

Nobody on this side of the ocean is just "given" a licence.

I was a fully licenced and qualified airframe/powerplant/avionics before JAR and I now have a JAR66 B1/B2.

So I have nothing more and nothing less than before JAR.

Except perhaps now my licence is recognized around Europe, and maybe even in Britain too.

But I wouldnt be too worried about us Europeans taking your jobs. Who in their right minds would hire us under-qualified guys with licences from a vending machine, when their have all of these superior local boys.

Techman http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/angel3.gif

As high speed tape said, all the courses I did involved exams but as we were already fully licensed they were of a lower standard than the license exams. In fact they were mostly open book or 'heavily subsidised' exams because of the fact that we were already qualified. Presumably your exams were also weighted in favour of the company providing them.
The license exams were however beyond reproach.

I totally agree with everything that has been said about this JAR 66 fiasco.Once again the Brits get stitched up as always when it comes to anything to do with Europe.Techman you havn't mentioned how you converted your licence.The current system that appears to have been adopted by other European Authorities is totally differant from the CAA and that is why the Brits are pissing and moaning.The playing field is definately not level and seems to be gradually getting steeper the further it stretches across Europe with the lowest point in the UK. :mad:

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: rightstuff ]

Don't think we can blame our JAR colleagues for being ready for this and having a smooth transition.Most of them have been compliant for years and their companies and airlines have had teams to handle licensing issues and have made it very easy for their people to convert and have absorbed charges.
As usual, U.K. companies have done nothing and our CAA are trying to extract every penny they can out of it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :confused:

Rightstuff - stop whingeing. You have plenty of time to study and you've done the course.
Personally, aside from the cost, I'm happy with my converted JAR 66 B2+C.

BTW, rightstuff - can I borrow your copy of book 1 of your electrical course notes? Someone out here needs to copy it. Will be returned asap. :D :p