Merged: NPRM0604ms and Flight Engineers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: NPRM0604ms and Flight Engineers
Like most LAMEs I have major problems with the intent of NPRM0604MS.
The ALAEA (of which I am a member) has now come out with a number of sample objections, most of which I agree with. However one I find totally professionally offensive. That is the sample statement, "I object to the inclusion of Flight Engineers in NPRM 0604MS as there are only a small number of them still licensed as F/Es."
Steve can you explain why if even only one FE remained, why you would object to us doing what we have always done? Have we reached a time in this country where if you are part of a small group of survivors of any occupation, you deserve to be professionally wiped out and if so who sets that limit? Whats more, who then does the FE job? Surely you don't want at this late stage to hand it over to pilot FEs?
It may have escaped your attention, but every Australian Flight Engineer I've ever met in my now 40+ years as an FE has had an extensive AME/LAME history prior to becoming an FE and most were and or are current LAMEs. Indeed CASA accepts FE duty as experience for keeping a current LAME license. During their FE career there has always been a requirement for an extensive system and documentation knowledge which equals the level of LAME knowledge.
Steve by all means encourage everyone to object to any problem NPRMs, but don't attack professions who aren't LAMEs just for politics.
Wunwing
The ALAEA (of which I am a member) has now come out with a number of sample objections, most of which I agree with. However one I find totally professionally offensive. That is the sample statement, "I object to the inclusion of Flight Engineers in NPRM 0604MS as there are only a small number of them still licensed as F/Es."
Steve can you explain why if even only one FE remained, why you would object to us doing what we have always done? Have we reached a time in this country where if you are part of a small group of survivors of any occupation, you deserve to be professionally wiped out and if so who sets that limit? Whats more, who then does the FE job? Surely you don't want at this late stage to hand it over to pilot FEs?
It may have escaped your attention, but every Australian Flight Engineer I've ever met in my now 40+ years as an FE has had an extensive AME/LAME history prior to becoming an FE and most were and or are current LAMEs. Indeed CASA accepts FE duty as experience for keeping a current LAME license. During their FE career there has always been a requirement for an extensive system and documentation knowledge which equals the level of LAME knowledge.
Steve by all means encourage everyone to object to any problem NPRMs, but don't attack professions who aren't LAMEs just for politics.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 16th Dec 2009 at 04:40. Reason: To distinguish between this thread and an earlier one
Objection to CASA NPRM 0604MS
Just had a look at CASA's Notice of Proposed Rule Making 0604MS.
Emailed my objections to CASA and to local Federal Member.
In my view it stands to undermine and weaken the quality and safety of aircraft maintenance in this country, not to mention the effect it may have on the careers of AMEs and LAMEs.
If you have similar view, I urge you to email your objections to CASA before this Friday 18 December.
Comments?
Emailed my objections to CASA and to local Federal Member.
In my view it stands to undermine and weaken the quality and safety of aircraft maintenance in this country, not to mention the effect it may have on the careers of AMEs and LAMEs.
If you have similar view, I urge you to email your objections to CASA before this Friday 18 December.
Comments?
Sir Humphrey: What these objectors don't seem to understand, Minister, and you will see they have a median age over 50 so they obviously have a vested interest in the status quo - what they don't understand, Minister, is that this is Worlds Best Practice. And if it is the best, Minister, surely it is a Good thing?
