To all pilots is your safety at risk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all pilots is your safety at risk
guys please take an interest as this concerns you as much as the lames in regards to whom is certifying your GA A/C in regards to the casa nprm on certification by LAMEs
quote
Yesterday the ALAEA attended CASA's Maintenance Standards Sub-committee
meeting where a report on the status of that proposal was given.
At this stage CASA has received 111 replies and their primary assessment
is that there are three main areas of concern and these are:
* The 3 yr training period and minimum age requirement of 18 years
to hold a licence
* Complexity of the proposed system compared with the existing
CAR31 arrangements
* The need to change from the existing system at all.
The ALAEA requested that due to the online response method being
unavailable during the period for submissions that an extension be given
for those that missed the 5 June deadline.
CASA apologised for the inconvenience caused by this and have offered to
accept and include any comments on the NPRM if they are sent to them.
The contact details are mailto:[email protected]"] or
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Home
Details of the NPRM can be found at
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0804MS
The details of the ALAEA position can be found at
http://alaea.asn.au/CMS/plainText/No...ME%20Licencing
quote
Yesterday the ALAEA attended CASA's Maintenance Standards Sub-committee
meeting where a report on the status of that proposal was given.
At this stage CASA has received 111 replies and their primary assessment
is that there are three main areas of concern and these are:
* The 3 yr training period and minimum age requirement of 18 years
to hold a licence
* Complexity of the proposed system compared with the existing
CAR31 arrangements
* The need to change from the existing system at all.
The ALAEA requested that due to the online response method being
unavailable during the period for submissions that an extension be given
for those that missed the 5 June deadline.
CASA apologised for the inconvenience caused by this and have offered to
accept and include any comments on the NPRM if they are sent to them.
The contact details are mailto:[email protected]"] or
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Home
Details of the NPRM can be found at
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NPRM 0804MS
The details of the ALAEA position can be found at
http://alaea.asn.au/CMS/plainText/No...ME%20Licencing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Wobbles your links are a MESS. I tried to modify them so they would work..and actually got reasonably close with the last one...at least it goes to an ALEA webpage...had a win with the CASA one above it...maybe one of the email addys works now but not sure...one certainly doesn't seem to
I suggest you keep it simple and dispense with the pretty colors.
Further as this is truly GA centric I'll move it to General Aviation & Questions with an expiring link.
I suggest you keep it simple and dispense with the pretty colors.
Further as this is truly GA centric I'll move it to General Aviation & Questions with an expiring link.
Why can't flying operations take this approach?
I am only a few pages into the NPRM (and there is only half a bottle of Red left) but this statement jumped out at me:
My most heartfelt gratitude to Roger Verney and the others at AMROBA for getting this point into the regulator's thick corporate skull.
Isn't it sad that operator representatives can't have the same influence? AOPA please take note of all that you squandered
3.3 Reasons for change
3.3.1 The maintenance requirements of small aircraft are distinctly different from those
of large aircraft and aircraft in airline operations.
3.3.2 A licence structure that would be common to both sectors is regarded as
impractical and would impose unjustifiable cost burdens on the Aerial Work and
General Aviation sector
3.3.1 The maintenance requirements of small aircraft are distinctly different from those
of large aircraft and aircraft in airline operations.
3.3.2 A licence structure that would be common to both sectors is regarded as
impractical and would impose unjustifiable cost burdens on the Aerial Work and
General Aviation sector
Isn't it sad that operator representatives can't have the same influence? AOPA please take note of all that you squandered
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes AMROBA a very effective organisation made up of professionals who have the interests of Owners and Operators at heart, as distict from a rag tag bunch of PPL and SPL who only care about themselves.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposal does have some merit. My main concern is how the introduction of these changes will effect the pay scales within the current GA LAME sector. Common sense would say that a system where it is easier for qualifications to be had and therefore more qualified workers available would reduce the need to pay decent wages. Supply and demand. Remember in most cases GA Lames don't earn anywhere near what there airline counterparts do. The airline Lames have the ALAEA going in to bat for them and although Membership to the ALAEA is open to ALL Lames, not many within GA are members. The GA LAME scene seems to be a very fractured one where there is no single voice (eg ALAEA or similar) to speak on behalf of the GA workforce. If no one replies/complains/aggrees with these NPRM's then they will be passed and LAMES will be left with their "spanner" swingin in the breeze.
JS
JS
