Astor

[Weebl]

A Snec potentially will be able to F@ck the whole Engineering heirarchy up because he has his ticket and will have the right to tell them to poke it, with the Law on his side.

Hmm, technically (and in reality) Snecs can tell anybody to poke now. I have and will continue to do so if I feel a situation is unsafe. The only difference is, currently under RAF rules somebody in the hierachy can give you a bit of paper with his signature on it that you can sign in accordance with, or he can just sign it himself.

Strangely though, when you request just such a bit of paper, your opinion suddenly seems to carry much more weight.

 

[Talk Wrench]

It is actually 6 months full time college and 12 months working in a Part-145 environment.

I would put the figure closer to 2 years total before you are signing off jobs.

Why is it only 6 months full time college?

Will the successful candidate be exempt from having to take certain modules to make it this short?

TW

 

[Talk Wrench]

Hmm, technically (and in reality) Snecs can tell anybody to poke now. I have and will continue to do so if I feel a situation is unsafe. The only difference is, currently under RAF rules somebody in the hierachy can give you a bit of paper with his signature on it that you can sign in accordance with, or he can just sign it himself.

Strangely though, when you request just such a bit of paper, your opinion suddenly seems to carry much more weight.

Wasn't suggesting that SNCO's don't have any poke, what i mean is that a licensed engineers signature is valid on a CRS where limitations on the aircraft have been made where as An Eng O' will have absolutely no poke whatever.

A licensed Engineer is God, King and Queen as far as any commissioned type will find out.

 

[fileeth]

If the Part-66 'B' Licence is being stidied at Barry College ICAT does that mean that the 'selected' personnel will also get the BSc in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering.DT_Xtremez_17:

There's going to be shortage of volunteers then isn't there!!!!DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[Talk Wrench]

If the Part-66 'B' Licence is being stidied at Barry College ICAT does that mean that the 'selected' personnel will also get the BSc in Aircraft Maintenance Engineering.DT_Xtremez_17:

There's going to be shortage of volunteers then isn't there!!!!DT_Xtremez_15:

No. The BSc degree is a seperate 4 year part time course that has an AML attached to it if that makes sense. If you just do the straight license course modules, then all you will get is a license.


Effectively, if you took the ICAT route, you study for both your AML and Degree in parallel.


TW

 

[Dirty Harry]

Talk Wrench makes some good points.

6 months is a very short space of time to learn and pass all the modules. Any Part-147 approved training organisation, Barry included, has to provide a minimum number of hours tuition for any Part-66 licence courses that they run. This is usually in the order of 2 years full-time and is a requirement of EASA and the CAA. No exceptions to the rule, including military personnel.

As a Licensed Aircraft Engineer you will have more responsibility and authority than any Sgt, Chief, FS, WO, JEngO, SEngO and OC Eng put together. Which begs the question, will there be a need for all these people on the Sqn other than for administrative purposes? With a few LAE's in place, there be a lot of SNCO and EngO I/C leave passes and parades! A handful of SAC’s and Jnr Tech’s to work as mechanics is all that’s required.

 

[POB]

6 months is a very short space of time to learn and pass all the modules. Any Part-147 approved training organisation, Barry included, has to provide a minimum number of hours tuition for any Part-66 licence courses that they run. This is usually in the order of 2 years full-time and is a requirement of EASA and the CAA. No exceptions to the rule, including military personnel.

Just a though, are they chosing SNCOs becuase they can assume a level or prior knowledge? Accredited Prior Learning (APL) works for other courses, might it be that that is keeping the course to 6 months instead of the 2 years?

 

[Dirty Harry]

POB,

I see your line of thought but it doesn’t work like that I’m afraid. APL might work for other courses but it doesn’t wash in the eyes of EASA or the CAA with regards to Engineer Licensing. Under the old BCAR Section L system, folk were exempt certain elements of the multi-choice examinations because it was deemed they had already ascertained a sufficient level of knowledge. Since the introduction of Part-66 military personnel no longer qualify for exemptions.

I still argue that the system needs to be reviewed. Military folk educated to BTEC standard should qualify for certain exemptions such as Maths, Physics and Aerodynamics as these subjects have already been covered in greater depth than the knowledge requirements for Part-66.

You can draw on certain elements of your RAF training and experience to speed up the learning process for the trade based modules, but there are a lot of areas which will be totally alien. Which goes back to my original question of why the need to be a SNCO? A SNCO will have no real advantage over an experienced Cpl or J/T because in essence everybody will be learning new subjects from scratch. There is this misconception in the forces that rank means knowledge. As such only certain folk are eligible for particular duties. One huge disadvantage with this system, it holds others back and doesn’t allow them to realise their full potential.

It is actually 6 months full time college and 12 months working in a Part-145 environment.

I would put the figure closer to 2 years total before you are signing off jobs.

Speaking from experience as ex RAF now a multi-type rated LAE, 6 months is nowhere near long enough to successfully study for and pass all the exams, full-time education or not. Also having gone through the hurdles of getting the civil experience, licence issue, undertaking type courses and getting the type ratings put on my licence, 2 years before you are signing off jobs is being very optimistic.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Just a though, are they chosing SNCOs becuase they can assume a level or prior knowledge? Accredited Prior Learning (APL) works for other courses, might it be that that is keeping the course to 6 months instead of the 2 years?

Regardless of time served or level of training received, from an SNCO to an SAC (T) or JT or even a commissioned bod, they will be classed the same by the CAA and EASA. i.e, unlicensed and therefore unqualified.

I know it sounds harsh but that is the reality. If you want to be a certifying engineer, then you need your license. Military experience counts for nothing. Although it can be used to reduce the qualifying period for license issue if agreed by the CAA on an individual basis. E.g, a 10 year time served avionic bay wallah will more than likely have to complete the full 5 year live civil aircraft experience criteria, where as a squadron boy will possibly only have to complete 1 year civil experience.

I am an ex cpl tech and got my HND whilst in the mob.Put on top of that 10 years on live aircraft and it counted as nothing. I still had to go right back to basics, start from scratch and complete each module. I was already working as an unlicensed tech in a 145 environment so was okay on that respect.

6 months seems as though SNCO's may be getting exemptions from the basic modules (1 to 5). (only a possibilty I hasten to add) WHICH IS ILLEGAL under EASA rules.

Also, coaching candidates to pass an exam as opposed to actually learning the subject and then taking an exam is also ILLEGAL.

In the Civ world, there is no rule bending. Fact.


if anyone can expand on this "6" month course then please do as I am very intrigued.


TW

 

[matkat]

Gents let me clarify something. If a SNCO (or other rank) has a 66 license this will not give him an authority above that of OC eng wing or any other manager, in any part 145 the management structure is such that the licensed(or un-licensed) engineers have to report to line or base managers who then report to the accountability manager the only exeption to this is the QA manager who reports directly to the accountability manager.So in essence:
Engineer-engineering manager-accountability manager or in military (mil.145)
snco(or licensed engineer) -OC eng wing-Stn commander.Before any ask what Mr Staish has to do with engineering the answer he does not have to have anything he is just the figurehead.
T
alk wrench, you know as well as I there is no way that the CAA will bend the rules if anything they will be unwilling to even reduce the civil requirement in actual fact I can not see how this can ever happen the time scales being presented are fantasy.

 

[suewilldo]

I am pretty sure that ASTOR is a civvy aircraft. it might have a few add ons and painted Mil colours and do a good job, but, does it need Licensed engineers for release to service on a day to day basis.



TW

....isn`t this a thing that is visible in the sky at night and when you see a shooting one you make a wish?? lmaoDT_Xtremez_31:

 

[Talk Wrench]

....isn`t this a thing that is visible in the sky at night and when you see a shooting one you make a wish?? lmaoDT_Xtremez_31:

Thanks for the "fluffy" input there SueWD DT_Xtremez_31:



TW

 

[Rigga]

Well, Actually....

A B1 or B2 Licence, with relevant experiance in an appropriate maintenance environment AND after completion of a Type Rating Course, will gain certification rights for releasing an aircraft to service from LINE maintenance.

All your Sengo's, with Degree education in a Science subject, and with the relevant experience in an appropriate maintenance environment, AND after completion of a Type Rating Course, are probably going to get C Licences which gain the right to Certify Release to Service after BASE maintenance.

Go figure.....

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

I was under the impression that in order to qualify for a C cat licence you had to be B qualified, hold an honours degree in an engineering based subject and have relevant experience. There will be no rule bending from the CAA toward the military so the Sengo's etc will have to get studying as far as I can tell. I'm sure Dirty Harry will be along to correct me if i'm wrong however.

 

[Rigga]

Can't quote for the MIL 145 but for EASA - to qualify for a C Licence you can either:

Have a B Licence and a minimum of 5 years certifying CRS' experience in a relevant maintenance organisation
or

have degree qualifications in an engineering or science subject acceptable to the Authority/Agency.
or

Eight years experience in a similar role acceptable to the Authority or Agency

To be a SMI/CRS signatory you also need to have the FIRST Type Rating Course under your belt AND demostrate that you have completed a suitable variety of maintenance tasks (EG across the ATA Chapter List)

Obviously the SengO route will be easier for RAF officer types as they should already have the degrees required and can get the work experience in hangars throughout the RAF.

IMHO the B Licenced guys/Snecs won't get to C until there is a shortgae of Officers willing to put names to paper and actually release airplanes without seeing all the work done and willing to place a "Dirty Fingerprint" on the dotted line.

I feel a system like this will seriously degrade the role of SNCO's in the fact that officers will release aircraft from minor and major checks - not SNCO's as has 'traditionally' been the case.

Only my opinion, mind, in ignorance of the MIL 145.

 

[Rigga]

I think I ought to point out that A, B and C Licences are not graded on progression through the Licence scheme, but are independant of each other and can be obtained in their own right.

A CAT A Licence is for a self-certifying mechanic who cannot do anything other than his own work after being specifically trained for each and every task.

A CAT B licence is for a Certifying Technician (EASA's Word , not mine) and once type trained and approved can do almost everything within the scope of his trade (B1 or B2) but cannot release and aircraft after Base Maintenance Checks.

A CAT C licence once Type trainied and approved can ONLY release aircraft after Base Mainteance.

 

[Dirty Harry]

My understanding was that the Cat C licence can be obtained via one of two routes, these being:

3 years experience as a B1 and/or B2 certifier within a Part-145 approved maintenance organisation.

or

Graduates holding a Degree that is deemed acceptable to the CAA. A person qualifying for a Cat C licence via this route will not be entitled to a Cat B1 or B2 licence unless the requirements for those categories are met.

So in essence, it is possible for SEngO’s to obtain a Cat C licence via the graduate route. However, unless they get the books out like the rest of us and pass all the B licence exams, they will not be entitled to a B1 or B2 licence. They must also have 3 years experience in a civil aircraft maintenance environment which must include 6 months observation of base maintenance tasks. Military hangar work on military aircraft is not recognised by the authorities. In fact, I doubt very much whether the EngO's role is recognised since it is 'hands off'. I cannot see the RAF sending their SEngO’s to a Part-145 maintenance organisation for 3 years.

The role of the Cat C licence holder within a base maintenance environment is purely managerial/administrative and to issue the block CRS at the end of the check. A B1 or B2 type rated LAE can apply to have Cat C put on his licence after 3 years without the need for additional training, exams etc. In fact, most engineers employed in the Cat C base maintenance role are B1 or B2 type rated LAE’s who also hold Cat C.

GFF you are correct, there will be no rule bending by the CAA to reduce the experience requirements, waiver examinations or speed up licence issue. Also, the full-time course and 6 month timescale to study for and successfully pass all the examinations is as matkat said, laughable.

 

[Rigga]

DH
You say:

"Military hangar work on military aircraft is not recognised by the authorities."

I know what the EASA 145/66 says but what will happen for the MIL 145/66?
I would assume (in ignorance of reading the facts) that MIL Specs will probably include MIL training and organisational facilities. I would also assume that the MIL 145/66 would allow MIL aircraft maintenance practices and experiences and perhaps for a shorter qualifying period?

"The role of the Cat C licence holder within a base maintenance environment is purely managerial/administrative and to issue the block CRS at the end of the check. A B1 or B2 type rated LAE can apply to have Cat C put on his licence after 3 years without the need for additional training, exams etc. In fact, most engineers employed in the Cat C base maintenance role are B1 or B2 type rated LAE’s who also hold Cat C. "

As I said, ONLY CAT C holders can release aircraft from BASE Maintenance and they are supported by B Licenced guys. If the CAT C currently has a B1 (Not a B2) as well that is fine. In future you will see sole CAT C "Engineers" as they qualify.
Again, in my opinion, I think this is a bad idea from the aspect of Job Erosion, this role is currently (?) the sport of SNCO's not officers.
This also brings an aspect similar to "Commercial Pressures" to the signatory. There will be "Military Pressures".

Enough... G'nite.

 

[BillyBunter]

Well if its civvies working it how the hell they supposed to operate in the regions of the world where there is bad people ?

Maybe i missed the train on this one

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Just seen the volunteers list (SGT – however Cpl on the PSL can apply) for three engineers 1 heavy 2 ligths – 18 months training (Sept 07 – May 09) to get your B licence, then 6 months of type training and conversion then onto the real thing – closing date 13 Aug 07 see orders for Email address and further info

- Good luck for all those applying DT_Xtremez_30:

I WISH I had not been on leave. I never saw it before on the trawls and it was very quick in the cut off.

However why has the RAF got only 1 B1 engineer. THIS IS NOT FOR A POST ON 5 SQN. I reckon that it is for the base maintenance of the Sentinial R1 to converget he mil standard of 145 of this maintenance to the JAP when the aircraft is release back into the MAE. Why a SNCO??? Because of the experience that such a bloke is likely to have ( and as I haven't seen the trawl, I don't know what the other critieria was) and that he is has done the two weeks of sh*te at Tossford that had made him aware of such things that are only unofficial OJT if he had come across it as a Cpl / J/T etc.
All the depth maintenance is going contracted, however the service still has to be involved. (tell me about it, I have to do the convergance of DMS to MAE requirements in CMU, It is absolute BOLLOX)

Before the LAE's that look at this forum fire back at me, I am only too aware what they had to do to pass the JAR 66 modules as I'm doing them. Electrical and Electronic Fundermentals are doing my head in...