Yep! Thats the one.

It clearly states there are two methods of release at the moment (caused by the ambiguity of EASA "Rules" which are then left to NAA interpretation for methods of compliance).

It is also quite obvious that many airlines would like to reduce the amount of well paid engineers and mechanics they have. If they could employ more lower paid, locally trained, personnel to become "Appropriately Approved Personnel" they would save a fortune.

My understanding of this method is that many personnel could carry out tasks without supervision leaving an "Engineer" to release the aircraft as the "Approved Personnel" state/sign they have completed their tasks. (Honest Guv'nor)

IMO many wheels have fallen off due to lack of supervision.

I have no doubt that, if left without argument, EASA will once more opt for the lower standard.

This is the end, my friend.
 

The harsh reality for people and organsiations who wish to lower the standards of certification via a company approval or authorsiation, is that Engineers who have an Authorisation endorsed by an NAA, have a broader range of knowledge and experience, due in no small part in having to go through a truely independant approval system with no commercial axe to grind. Without an independant internationally recognised qualification, company approved people do not have the experience to fully withstand the wide variance of commercial standards and pressures encountered in the normal aviation workplace.
They will be making decisions that will ultimatly destroy familys, aircraft, companys, and the general publics hard-won confidence in Aviation.
This is not the Brave New World of aviation that we wish to see unfold now or at any time in the future. I have been shocked to the core with this news of the proposed EASA TOR.

Its not the TOR that's the problem - taken by itself the terms of reference are completely inoccuous and no-one could argue with the content. Its TGL 41 thats the problem. You can get a copy if you have a subscription to IHS. but that's hardly in the public domain.

Whats the document reference on IHS. I cant seem to find it ?

Neither can I. Have you a copy you can email, Blacksheep?

Trying to find a copy, so I can host it for all to see.

I have followed this thread for some time.

I fully understand why you would be up in arms with your regulators decision to water down the qualifications you have worked all you working life to attain.
I too agree on this point.

BUT

With JAA/EASA system in place there is no mechanism to transfer my qualifications gained outside of Europe to be used in Europe on European registered aircraft. As every inquiry I have made has been met with go back the beginning do the basics and then redo my type training on the grounds that it is inferior. I have completed an Airbus VACBI course to the highest level (5) and found it complete rubbish compared to other type training I have received I was amazed that this could pass for type training. I hope you understand I felt fairly insulted when told my other type training was inferior.

Perhaps with the changing of the rules a person such as my self with over 20 years experience may seek employment in Europe as I have been well and truly shut out up to now.

Just a different perspective :ok:

Bolty,
Fair point, CASA are pretty much the same though aren't they?, but the EASA/JAA system does allow an amount of freedom of movement betweeen the contracting European states. There is also a certain amount of protectionism built into any system to keep at least some of the jobs in-country.

But more to the point of this thread - Do away with a licensing system in Europe, and sure enough the non-US aligned countries will follow suit eventually. I seem to remember there was a big hurragh in Oz just about LAE's not signing for a transit on the LCC 737's coz the flight crew were doing it only a year or so back......where this is going would be no licensed staff anywhere near the aircraft!

And totally off topic, I think VACBI is universally regarded as the biggest load of sh1t going cunningly disguised as a type course. I too spent my 9 weeks in VACBI hell.

Bolty,
It is a great shame that the CASA licence is not accepted by EASA on the basis of a multi-choice exam covering air legislation and any other major differences (as was the case in the UK a few years ago). I think I've mentioned before that I got a CASA Group 20 based on CTC, my BCAR Section L (this was 1996) and company authorisations.
I have in front of me a leaflet from CASA outlining their Maintenance Regulation project. Believe it or not, CASA intends to model its system - for the large part - on EASA! I think it should be the other way around!:ok:

Any progress in finding Draft TGL 41?

Its not even listed as a draft in my access to IHS.

Ah! I see we are beginning to get a grip on my comment concerning the rules being "in the public domain." :hmm:

Even if you pay for a subscrpition to IHS you still have a problem finding our what the rules actually are. Even EASA don't know.

Anybody else been having fun with EASA'a latest Airworthiness Directive? The one that we were told about through Airbus Industries two days after it became effective and which still isn't shown on the EASA website... :confused:

The one about displays on the A320 series? Mentioned on homepage but cannot find it on the list!

Now you can see how understaffed EASA may be too!

By the way; Just because Airbus says an SB is important doesn't mean the regulatory authorities think the same - its happened before - don't hold your breath.