PPRuNe Forums - What is an RAF Engineer?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - What is an RAF Engineer? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/606875-what-raf-engineer.html)

I trained as an Electrical Fitter (Air) and was subsequently changed into an Aircraft Fitter (Elect) then left the RAF and became a UK CAA Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. The latter designation being equivalent to my former status as an RAF Senior NCO. Since then I advanced to Incorporated Engineer through the RAeS by a review of experience followed by examination and interview. So now I'm BSc; I.Eng; MRAeS. But I'm still not considered an Engineer throughout the EU.

As for the European Doctorate, I once worked with a German Doctor of Engineering (Ingenuier) who knew less about airworthiness than the average UK CAA LAE. He was an academic engineer who was as much use in Technical Support Services as teats on a bull.

Corporal Bayliss was an Engineering Technician, a very honourable and respectable occupation and would no doubt have risen further up the ladder had he not died in such unfortunate circumstances. Let's remember that many a pilot had placed their lives in his hands, whether they realized it or not: lets not disrespect him.

Olympia is not entirely correct. Whilst an exemplifying qualification for CEng will be a recognised (by the relevant "institution") 4 year degree, it is possible to achieve Chartered status via a Career Learning Assessment undertaken by the relevant "institution".

As a retired CEO of one of these "institutions", I would not use the term "closely guarded", rather suitably protected and transparently regulated!

Quote:

Originally Posted by seer557 (Post 10094027)

Well that route may well exist. I've never met anyone who used it, have you?

In the good old days (fifty years ago) one could get chartered status with an HNC with endorsements but that was closed off in the 60's I think. I totally disagreed with that at the time, knowing as I do now that there are too many rather poor 'officers' and not nearly enough good SNCO's in industry these days. As a retired Chief Engineer I saw too many people during my career with degrees who did not meet my idea of what a professional engineer should be capable of. The engineering profession is seriously unbalanced now, and too many 'graduates' are finding it hard to get jobs befitting their nominal educational qualifications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olympia 463 (Post 10094082)

Well that route may well exist. I've never met anyone who used it, have you?
.

Yes I did. See my#39

Quote:

Appendix A GUIDE TO ASSESSING LICENSED AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS

1. REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION

1.1 The following information will be used by members to guide them with the assessm
ent of applications for registration (see Section 2 of the Registration Handbook).

2. ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN (EngTech)

2.1 Applicants must hold:

•A valid EASA Part-66 Cat A licence plus current company authorisation on two aircraft types (held for a minimum of 2 years), OR

•A valid EASA Part-66 Category B3 licence plus two type ratings or a group type rating (held for a
minimum of two years

Note: The Cat A licence is not type rated. Major maintenance does not require a Cat A licence so it
would not be proper to set the authorisation on one type as a comparable standard. Some companies
use the Cat A licence to underpin the authorisation in Base (major) maintenance but this is not in the
EASA requirements. The key issue is that a Cat A, even when authorised for Certificate of Release to
Service (CRS), can only certify for work that applicants carry out themselves, no supervisory role. The
B3 licence covers simple light aircraft of limited complexity).

3. INCORPORATED ENGINEER (IEng)

3.1 Applicants must hold:•A valid EASA Part-66 Cat C licence with type rating and at least 1 current aircraft authorisation for base maintenance release, OR

•A valid EASA Part-66 Cat B1/B2 licence with type ratings and 2 aircraft authorisations for line maintenance or one aircraft authorisation for major maintenance and demonstrate a supervisory function in their current role (including proof of management training, Health and Safety, Diversity etc).

3.2 A valid licence from Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong may qualify the applicant on an Individual assessment basis–see para 4.3.
(Note: Applicants with the licences listed in para 3.1, issued by the Competent Authority of an EU Member State
are deemed to be equivalent to those with the exemplifying qualifications for IEng registration, for example an accredited Bachelors or Honours degree in engineering or technology).

4. CHARTERED ENGINEER (CEng)

4.1 Applicants should hold a valid EASA Part-66 Cat C licence where it has been granted on the basis of a degree that is acceptable to the Society. A valid license from Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong may also qualify the applicant–see para 4.3. In addition, all applicants should be working in a management position.

4.2 Applicants with a valid EASA Part-66 Cat B1/B2 licence who have qualified for an EASA Part-66 Cat C licence without a degree can still be considered for CEng-see para 4.3.

4.3 All applicants without the exemplifying (i.e. accredited) qualifications for registration will need their
formal and informal education assessed by the Society’s Individual Assessment Panel (see Section 3 of the Registration Handbook)

https://www.aerosociety.com/Assets/D...Appendices.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by NutLoose (Post 10093301)

The simplest route would have been to gone back to the old JT rank badge that was an inverted Lance Jack stripe, I too went your route. Nominated Engineer went when we changed over, but I still retain my Section L licences, the way things are going we may need them again lol.

I was using Form 458 about 3 years ago....PAOC use BCARs and CAP 360 still!

Quote:

That would be your great grandfathers certificate? he would be a bit young to be signing his own.

Oops! That should have been marriage certificate :O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator (Post 10093221)

In the pre-Binbrook stations there were three wings, Flying Wing, Admin Wing and Technical Wing. The boss of the later was the Senior Technical Officer.

And OC Supply 'controlled' all of them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacksheep (Post 10093999)

Corporal Bayliss was an Engineering Technician, a very honourable and respectable occupation and would no doubt have risen further up the ladder had he not died in such unfortunate circumstances. Let's remember that many a pilot had placed their lives in his hands, whether they realized it or not: lets not disrespect him.

Wot 'e sez!:ok:
ian16th Former Cpl/Tech.

No one has disrespected him. As far as I am concerned he was an engineer, the debate just moved on to what the rest of the world considers as an engineer.

After all the RAF describe the role he was carrying out as an engineer

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/r...an-mechanical/

Quote:

There are also opportunities to undertake instructional duties or expand your skills in the role of an Aircraft Ground Engineer who provide aircraft engineering support when the aircraft is deployed.

I've got a certificate somewhere that calls me a Chartered Engineer, and two degrees in it. I'm probably an engineer.

I have occasionally been known to put on overalls and maintain aeroplanes, and I have another bit of paper somewhat that calls me an "inspector" - I tend to think of that as acting as a technician.

But, I've frequently worked with current or ex service technicians / engineers, or people with CAA Engineering licences who have an incredible knowledge of aircraft systems, diagnostics, and problem solving that leaves me with my degrees standing.

If it suits them, or anybody else, to call those people Engineers - I have absolutely no problem with it.

But I remain deeply sarcastic about the word being used to describe somebody who has done a 3 week course on how to service photocopiers.

G

Oh I wouldn't say that about Photocopier engineers! - they do actually earn their title and many ARE electronics degree engineers!

I would debate whether washing machine fixers are engineers.

However, the start of this discussion was not really about qualification, but how the BBC described the Cpl. The public at large (and the RAF and BBC) are the people that call all technical things 'engineering' and that's where this debate should be targeted: At perceptions which the RAF and BBC seem to publicise more than anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer (Post 10095704)

Genghis' view gets my vote :ok::ok::ok:

(and yes I also think I may be an engineer: BSc, CEng, FIMechE)

I have to admit I've read this thread with a degree of amusement and even a little nostalgia . Way back in the mid 1950's, yes way back then, we were called Mechanics.
As a brand new National Serviceman after just three months training at RAF Melksham training school I was classed as qualified Electrical Mechanic (Air).
I was then let loose on every aircraft flying from South Cerney and later, Little Rissington flying schools.
Everything from Meteors, Vampires and Provosts to Canberra's passed through my grubby little hands and I progressed from AC1 through LAC to SAC.
It was around that time we had a red-faced Junior Technician appear with his upside down stripe.
So that's it, not engineers, mechanics. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gr4techie (Post 10093165)

You could ask if Engo's are even Engineers?... They just sign the paperwork for Lim's and ADF's.

Never seen one get their hands dirty doing an engine change (unless they're ex-rankers)

Aren't they tech admin?:rolleyes:

The criteria above for the IEng and CEng says if I was ever bothered, which I am not, that I am qualified as one, I will sleep at night now knowing, did a rough tally of the individual aircraft types on my Part 66 B1 and Cat C licence and gave up at 1100 plus LOL

I even actually managed to fix the works Photocopier as well when it stopped copying :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvechurch (Post 10095788)

As a 'mechanic' you could only carry out an 'inspection' unsupervised.

If you carried out any repair work (cleared a snag), an NCO* had to check/supervise your work and oversign the F700.

* The red faced J/T, with an authorising chit from the Station EO could oversign. This was a way to save paying him Cpl's money!
I had such a chit. It was punted as being a probationary period. One dared not reject it, as it would jeopardise getting the eventual promotion to Cpl.