Shortage of Maintenance Technicians
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realise the same can be said for nurses or dental techs, but they are not allowed if I'm right to prescribe drugs, simply administer them, that added responsibility and the larger wage packet is the regime of doctors and dentist...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
So are Licensed engineers these days. (Educated to degree standards). Are those nurses in RAF service not officers? I see nurses more along the lines of paramedics with a lot of autonomy, but I could be wrong.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortage of Maintenance Technicians
A techie with a few years service can walk into the oil and gas industry and earn between 60-100k PA I work 14-16 days a month (a week here a week there) I can live wherever I want in Europe as all travel costs are met. Generous expenses etc. Beats grafting for 12 hours on a nightshift with the threat of a working weekend for no recompense. If I work a full weekend it's an extra £800. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed my RAF career but, it will not be able to retain personnel when technical trades are in demand in industry.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They binned it OAP and now you get the same flipping burgers in the mess as you do servicing and signing off aircraft.
Educated to degree standard
An aircraft engineer NCO has the same level of responsibility as an licensed aircraft engineer, signing aircraft as serviceable. But do not get the accreditation (and therefore the pay) for it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
An aircraft engineer NCO has the same level of responsibility as an licensed aircraft engineer, signing aircraft as serviceable. But do not get the accreditation (and therefore the pay) for it.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 21st May 2014 at 21:18.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A NCO wouldn't ever be responsible for Issuing a Certificate of Airworthiness.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
A Certificate of Airworthiness is issued by the CAA on the say of the nominated Engineer under a Section L licence under BCAR's.
Under EASA the Certificate of Airworthiness is none expiring and is backed up by the ARC that is filled out by the CAMO and a copy is forwarded to the CAA for their records, this re validates the CofA which is invalid without it.
Military terms for a CAMO
http://www.maa.mod.uk/approvals/camo_approvals.htm
Which I would seriously doubt is an NCO
BTW, I am one
Under EASA the Certificate of Airworthiness is none expiring and is backed up by the ARC that is filled out by the CAMO and a copy is forwarded to the CAA for their records, this re validates the CofA which is invalid without it.
Military terms for a CAMO
http://www.maa.mod.uk/approvals/camo_approvals.htm
Which I would seriously doubt is an NCO
BTW, I am one
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what Nutloose means. However you can not compare the roles. What is undermanning. I work alone at a line station covering all trades on several large aircraft types. I would hate to guess how many airforce personnel would be needed to cover the same role.
Main difference is my company does not differentiate between aircrew and engineers. We are given the same status.
My experience of the airforce was that there were two Wings on a station. Ops wing and Admin wing. Out of sight were some other people, but they were dirty and oily so can be ignored.
Until ENG WING is seen as equal to the other two then productivity will always be low.
Main difference is my company does not differentiate between aircrew and engineers. We are given the same status.
My experience of the airforce was that there were two Wings on a station. Ops wing and Admin wing. Out of sight were some other people, but they were dirty and oily so can be ignored.
Until ENG WING is seen as equal to the other two then productivity will always be low.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, out here is not all wine and roses.
HOWEVER, when I saw the writing on the wall in '03 and binned it I had a great deal of guilt over abandonment. what I have seen since has totally changed my mind.
sadly all you who are left in - still trying to do more with less each year are the ones I now feel sorry for.
If you are still enjoying your time then stay - if not then find that magic button on JPA.
Any technical industry will interview ex TG 1&2. but make your experience relevant.
as a rule I, and the other people I recruit with dont give a monkeys about you being the treasurer of the hammond organ appreciation society, the employer want to know:
1. will this person fit in with my team
2. will this person "add value" to the business bottom line
3. will this person cause me extra stress or will they take workload away
4. will this person self motivate and crack on or will they skive.
if you do leave focus on what you can bring to a company, do your homework.
I always liked to hear somoene else share their slightly OCD way of organising theirr toolbox, and the fact they'd spend the last 15 mins tidying any mess up, theirs or not.
I wanted someone to tell me how they would bring me a permanent solution rather than XYZ is F****ed
Above all decide what route you want your career to take and what industry you want to be in.
then go for it. - oh and stuff like Using a computer on a CV is pretty pointless.
HOWEVER, when I saw the writing on the wall in '03 and binned it I had a great deal of guilt over abandonment. what I have seen since has totally changed my mind.
sadly all you who are left in - still trying to do more with less each year are the ones I now feel sorry for.
If you are still enjoying your time then stay - if not then find that magic button on JPA.
Any technical industry will interview ex TG 1&2. but make your experience relevant.
as a rule I, and the other people I recruit with dont give a monkeys about you being the treasurer of the hammond organ appreciation society, the employer want to know:
1. will this person fit in with my team
2. will this person "add value" to the business bottom line
3. will this person cause me extra stress or will they take workload away
4. will this person self motivate and crack on or will they skive.
if you do leave focus on what you can bring to a company, do your homework.
I always liked to hear somoene else share their slightly OCD way of organising theirr toolbox, and the fact they'd spend the last 15 mins tidying any mess up, theirs or not.
I wanted someone to tell me how they would bring me a permanent solution rather than XYZ is F****ed
Above all decide what route you want your career to take and what industry you want to be in.
then go for it. - oh and stuff like Using a computer on a CV is pretty pointless.
The other slight difference is where an NCO will cover one or possibly two types at a time, my licences cover me on hundreds of types of engines and airframes.
Alone a basic EASA licence, whether A,B1 or B2 entitles you certify precisely 'nothing' !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
True, I was probably being a bit too generic, yep I have the groups on my licences ( plural as I still hold a section L too ) A, B1 Piston and Turbine and C. But then an NCO would tend to do type courses as well, so I was trying to show the differences.
I was around in 1973 when the Military Salary was introduced. The main mantra for introducing pay banding was "consequence of error" says it all really. I remember at Scampton, O.C. Catering and O.C. PSF were particularly loud in their criticism of banding. It got to the stage where O.C. Eng. got all the doubters to spend a morning on the line, in the hangar and the NBS bay etc. They were heard to say that after a few hours first hand, it was obvious why TG1/2 were paid more than their guys.
Gents,
The Civvy regulatory set up is almost entirely different from military. the only things that really link them are the disciplines (pilot, engineeer air trafficer) and how they physically work.
From an engineering PoV I knew how aeroplanes and helicopters worked when I left the RAF - but how they are Manned, Managed and Regulated is (unfortunately) still very different indeed - except for a few newer types.
One sign of "Officer Creep" and the proposed maintenance management differences was this:
Most Mil 145 personnel that I met in my last job tried to equate a Form 731 to a EASA Form 1.
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!
It would have required a F/L or S/L to sign something Serviceable because the levels of authority given to a EASA Part 66 Licenced, Type Rated and company approved engineer are in the main equivalent to S/L and in many cases to W/C.
Not many WC's that I knew could do a Check A!
A friend of mine noticed the difference in responsibility levels when he dropped in one night as his unit (RAFAT) were at my local airfield.
The last time he saw me I was a Sgt Rigga; This time I was a quality engineer on-call and I was very busy that evening discusssing a Lightning Strike on a 146 somewhere in europe and trying to get it back to UK for repairs while he eat his Dinner (and mine went cold).
As a QA Eng it was up to me to sort out the regulatory requirements, flight restrictions and get the required permissions in and notifications out, approve the OEM concessions for use and then brief the crew on the operational restrictions...aaannnd breeeethe.
The Civvy regulatory set up is almost entirely different from military. the only things that really link them are the disciplines (pilot, engineeer air trafficer) and how they physically work.
From an engineering PoV I knew how aeroplanes and helicopters worked when I left the RAF - but how they are Manned, Managed and Regulated is (unfortunately) still very different indeed - except for a few newer types.
One sign of "Officer Creep" and the proposed maintenance management differences was this:
Most Mil 145 personnel that I met in my last job tried to equate a Form 731 to a EASA Form 1.
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!
It would have required a F/L or S/L to sign something Serviceable because the levels of authority given to a EASA Part 66 Licenced, Type Rated and company approved engineer are in the main equivalent to S/L and in many cases to W/C.
Not many WC's that I knew could do a Check A!
A friend of mine noticed the difference in responsibility levels when he dropped in one night as his unit (RAFAT) were at my local airfield.
The last time he saw me I was a Sgt Rigga; This time I was a quality engineer on-call and I was very busy that evening discusssing a Lightning Strike on a 146 somewhere in europe and trying to get it back to UK for repairs while he eat his Dinner (and mine went cold).
As a QA Eng it was up to me to sort out the regulatory requirements, flight restrictions and get the required permissions in and notifications out, approve the OEM concessions for use and then brief the crew on the operational restrictions...aaannnd breeeethe.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Mil 145 personnel that I met in my last job tried to equate a Form 731 to a EASA Form 1.
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!
I went from military aviation to civilian aviation and back to military (as a civvy) and the differences really hit you. The 731 is next to useless in its current form (no pun intended). The Form 1 is used by the civilian technician to verify the items serviceability and it is retained with the documentation to ensure full traceability. F731's can be raised by most Suprervisors/NCO's. There is no register and the 731 usually gets discarded when the item is fitted. When a new item arrives from the manufacturer, the stick on label on the box is considered suitable documentation. I've noticed that a couple of manufactures/repairers, notably Fokker, still include a Form 1 with their products to the military. Good on them.
And don't start me on batch numbers/GRN's as the military stubbornly refuse to adopt them. In civilian aviation, every nut, bolt and o-ring can be traced back to manufacture. The military still chuck stuff like that into "C stores" bins. If the manufacturer identified a problem, there is no way to trace the defective items.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Vendee, I probably should have worded my above post 27 better to explain a Nominated Engineer and a CAMO more often than not are a Licensed Engineer.
I can totally understand your concerns over paperwork, though to be honest I wish EASA would finally settle down instead of chopping and changing everything.
I can totally understand your concerns over paperwork, though to be honest I wish EASA would finally settle down instead of chopping and changing everything.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vendee, I probably should have worded my above post 27 better to explain a Nominated Engineer and a CAMO more often than not are a Licensed Engineer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,069
Received 2,938 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
No, but he could be at about 24 yrs old.
I was using rank because that in the RAF use to be used to define responsibility, I cannot remember the figures, but an SAC could carry out something like 50% of task unsupervised, a JT 75% and a Corporal about 100% hence in theory equivalent to a licenced engineer, minus the legislation part, which as pointed out is about senior engineering officer equivalent or OC Eng Wing......... But that was when the highest rank on a Station used to be the Groupie Staish.
I was using rank because that in the RAF use to be used to define responsibility, I cannot remember the figures, but an SAC could carry out something like 50% of task unsupervised, a JT 75% and a Corporal about 100% hence in theory equivalent to a licenced engineer, minus the legislation part, which as pointed out is about senior engineering officer equivalent or OC Eng Wing......... But that was when the highest rank on a Station used to be the Groupie Staish.
VENDEE:
"And don't start me on batch numbers/GRN's as the military stubbornly refuse to adopt them. In civilian aviation, every nut, bolt and o-ring can be traced back to manufacture. The military still chuck stuff like that into "C stores" bins. If the manufacturer identified a problem, there is no way to trace the defective items"
Do we know each other? I was having that struggle as I left a secret Norfolk base.
"And don't start me on batch numbers/GRN's as the military stubbornly refuse to adopt them. In civilian aviation, every nut, bolt and o-ring can be traced back to manufacture. The military still chuck stuff like that into "C stores" bins. If the manufacturer identified a problem, there is no way to trace the defective items"
Do we know each other? I was having that struggle as I left a secret Norfolk base.
Batch no/GRN - bane of my life for the year I was in Production Control at Marshalls, especially due to wastage on the capstan lathes, and trying to get matching replacement material from Rolls Royce.