THE

Tech Log
Issue 305/January 2008

INSIDE:
/EU Transport Committee Meeting
/To Flybe or not to Flybe?
THE TECH LOG

Contents

Objects of the
Association

Editorial

Accountable Manager, Too Risky!

EU Transport Committee Meeting

Association Notices

10

Legal Assistance for Members

13

Changes to
Annual Leave Entitlement

16

To Flybe or not to Flybe?

18

Member Notices

21

Strategic Review of CAA

22

Calling all EX-SLAET MEMBERS

26

Recruitment

27

For more information on the following, please contact the

Office Administrator:
Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers
Membership Application Form
Advertising Rates
Registered Office: Bourn House, 8 Park Street, Bagshot,
Surrey GU19 5AQ. Tel: 01276 474888. Fax: 01276 452767.
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.alae.org
Please inform the registered office above of any change of details,
address, telephone number, etc as soon as possible to ensure you
continue to receive your copy of The Tech Log.

To promote the
Professional Status of
Association Members.
To represent Members in
their workplaces.
To represent Members of
the Association within
the Industry.
To strive to improve the
standards of safety in all
aspects of aircraft
maintenance and
operation.
The ALAE welcomes
contributions to The Tech
Log, but reserves the right to
amend them where necessary.
All contributions, whether
they bear the names, initials or
pseudonyms, are accepted on
the understanding that the
author is responsible for the
opinions expressed and that
they do not necessarily reflect
or comply with those of the
publisher or editor. Although
every care is taken, the
publisher and editor cannot be
held responsible for loss or
damage to material submitted.
Whilst every care is taken to
ensure contents are accurate,
the publisher and editor
assume no responsibility for
any effects arising from errors
or omissions. Acceptance of
material is not a guarantee of
publication in any particular
issue, since space is at a
premium.
Designed & Produced
by Mypec Ltd
The Old Pottery, Fulneck,
Pudsey, Leeds LS28 8NT
0113 255 6866
[email protected]
www.mypec.co.uk

THE TECH LOG

appy 2008 to all our Members

and readers and especially
to all our new colleagues
in Flybe!
As you will see from inside this issue, we
won the ballot for recognition at Flybe
and so we start the New Year with
another recognition agreement under our
belt. We are pleased that they voted so
decisively for ALAE and so we say thank
you and welcome.
The past year, for us, has been
tremendous. The hard work we have put in
to secure the recognition rights with
easyTech and Flybe has seen our
membership soar. Of course there have been
many new Members from other companies
too and we believe this success is due to the
fact that many, within aircraft engineering,
are becoming more and more disenchanted
by the lack of representation they are
getting from the mainstream unions and
they now consider their interests are best
served by an industry specific union.
We cannot afford to sit on our laurels just
yet, there is still too much to do and we
need help to do it. The recently closed
nomination period did not yield any new
Members to the EC or a replacement
Treasurer. What do we have to do to get
some of you interested in taking an active
role in the Association?
Whilst last year was a good one for us it
wasnt the case for the Government and
Airbus. The common theme between them
for their misery was procedures. The
Governments HMRC lost two discs with
the personal information of 25 million
people on them. The correct procedure
relating to who was allowed access to this
information and to copy it with

[H]

THE TECH LOG

Editorial

encryption, then dispatching it in a secure

manner wasnt followed.
Once again, the Government has been
caught up in a cash scandal. It appears that
secret donations have been made in a manner
that is against Labour Party procedures,
thereby also rendering it unlawful. Whether
this non-compliance was by design or
ignorance is yet to be determined.
Airbus hit the headlines by hitting a blast
wall with an A340-600 at Toulouse. The
aircraft destined for Etihad Airways was
having pre-delivery runs carried out. The
wheels were not chocked; the engines were
at a high setting and the aircraft accelerated
from standstill into the wall of the test pen.
The end result was devastating and five of
the nine people on board were hospitalised.
These incidents serve to provide a timely
reminder to us all. Whatever you are doing
but especially when working on aircraft,
do so in accordance with the maintenance
procedures and company procedures.
Have a happy and incident-free New Year.
Keith Rogers
General Secretary

Accountable Manager,

Too Risky!
The risks associated with being an Accountable Manager in
aviation maintenance are only acceptable if the regulations are
written and implemented to ensure no ambiguity exists.

The Accountable Manager

is being pushed between a
rock and a hard place. At the
moment the odds are stacked
against him in the event of a
tragedy. He will stand alone
when the corporate
manslaughter charges are
brought against him.

nfortunately EASA is bowing

to commercial pressure by
allowing effective Aviation
regulations that are currently
being drafted by the Agency to be
compromised. Available loopholes in
methods of compliance are growing as
more and more money managers force the
industry to seek out the cheapest method of
application in all aviation related areas due
to relentless cost cutting (ref Daily Mail
28 Aug 2007).
Maintenance is invisible to all but those
directly involved, therefore it easily lends
itself as a natural soft target and the trend in
standards and safety is worrying. The most
astonishing fact is that the European
aviation agency and the various member
state transport ministers will not stand
strong against the might of industry and
commerce. Their reasoning is that the
statistics show air travel to be safe. This fact
appears to give cost cutters the right to
amend the rules until the cheapest method
of maintenance is found. Trial and error
until the lowest acceptable practices are

[U]

THE TECH LOG

discovered; the problem with this, of course,

is that it will cost lives. What is continuously
overlooked by the money men and others is
the basic fact that the high safety statistics
were achieved because of high standards and
levels of investment and not in spite of them.
Licensed aircraft engineers are one of
those critical safety stops that are currently
being targeted. This independently
qualified specialist often stands alone
against the incessant cost cutting and
should only certify an aircraft as safe to fly
once all required maintenance has been
performed to a satisfactory standard. In
theory they should have the full support of
the company behind them, but in practice
they are considered the enemy of large
profits. In the past 30 years there have been
three failed attempts to remove this
specialist from industry altogether.
Industry, however, has healed its wounds
and is now coming from a different angle.
Demographic trends dictate that in the
next 10-15 years the airlines will lose a vast
amount of experienced engineers to
retirement, yet industry is not investing in
THE TECH LOG

training a new generation to the highest

levels. It is actively working on lowering
the standards bar to such a level that
numbers will be met at the expense of
quality which by default affects safety.
History, unfortunately, dictates that the
money men wont listen and it will take
several tragedies similar to the Helios
disaster before regulations are tightened and
industrial bodies such as the Association of
European Airlines are controlled in a way
that the public expects and count on. The
railways are a recent tragic example of what
happens once the cutbacks take effect.
The Accountable Manager is being
pushed between a rock and a hard place. At
the moment the odds are stacked against
him in the event of a tragedy. He will stand
alone when the corporate manslaughter
charges are brought against him. There will
be no sign of the main players who drove
standards down being brought to justice as
they will have been long gone. United we
stand, divided we fall. This part of the
regulation is clear, one may even suggest
quite clever.

EU Transport
Brussels 29 November 2007

To be fair to the EU, one of

the main concerns that led to
their refusal was that in todays
media climate any company
wrongly identified as having
safety issues would probably not
survive the media scrum.

n the last issue of The Tech

Log we mentioned that Ms
Olga Koumartsioti (Legal
Advisor
EU
transport
Committee) had suggested a meeting in
Brussels to try and solve some of the issues
that both ALAE and AEI have been raising.
Well that meeting took place on 29
November 2007 in Brussels and in
attendance were: Mr Salvarani, EU
Commissionaire, Mr Henrotte, EU
Representative, Ms Olga Koumartsioti,
Legal Advisor EU transport Committee, Mr
Francesco Banal, EASA Standardisations
Director, Robert Alway, ALAE Chairman
and AEI SSCC representative, and Fred
Bruggeman, AEI Secretary General.
The meeting commenced by exchanging
views on the subjects already discussed
during congress, for example the 1000 audit
findings uncovered during 2006 by EASA
standardisation teams. The main issue we
had here was the amount of findings and
the lack of transparency on both the
findings themselves and the progress being
made to resolve them. According to our
information
the
majority
remain
uncorrected and, in fact, during a recent
EASA Advisory Board (EAB) meeting Mr
Banal informed the EAB that just over 50%
of the findings have been brought to a

[I]

THE TECH LOG

Committee
meeting
successful conclusion. That, however, still
leaves close on 50% unresolved.
I have to unfortunately report that the
general feeling from the EU participants
was that we were behaving in a manner
tantamount to scaremongering by claiming
that the audit findings are a safety issue.
The EU maintains that all findings are
being dealt with as prescribed by the
regulations (see slide overleaf).
That said, ALAE believes it is not
unreasonable to expect that all 2006 audit
findings should have been dealt with by
November 2007. We will leave you to decide
on whether the EU claims that everything is
within the prescribed time limits matches the
limits presented in the EASA slide.
ALAE believe, that the extremely slow
rate of progress needs to be urgently
corrected as it sends out the wrong message
to the member state, NAAs. This is one of
the reasons why AEI and ALAE have been
demanding more action on a desperately
needed, effective standardisation process.
Furthermore, the EU was not prepared to
grant our wish of improving transparency
by releasing the audit reports so that we
could draw our own conclusions on the
state of the level playing field. To be fair to
the EU, one of the main concerns that led
to their refusal was that in todays media
THE TECH LOG

climate any company wrongly identified as

having safety issues would probably not
survive the media scrum. The information
will, however, be distributed among
member states.
On a positive note, there have been some
significant rule changes which will give
EASA/EU the right to financially penalise
states and organisations that fail to
implement the regulations correctly.
We also had a lengthy discussion on the
subject of confidential reporting systems,
particularly the failure to protect the
reporter. The EU assured us that the law
was on our side and they would take an
extremely dim view of any operator not
implementing and abiding by a confidential
system. To fire an employee for raising an
occurrence report would be considered a
serious breach of EU regulations and acted
upon. After much discussion the EU
accepted that there may be a lack of trust in
the system and asked for our support in
getting the message out that there have been
significant changes to the law which offers
additional protection to the reporter. In
order to ensure that serious cases are dealt
with, the EU and EASA promised to act on
items brought to them by us. Mr Banal
(EASA) assured us that reports received
from us have been dealt with by them

during the auditing process. In fact, serious

issues will result in additional audits.
There were still large differences of opinion
on some subjects, particularly as both the EU
and EASA were confident that there arent
really too many issues because the European
safety record is so good. When compared
with Africa for example, the EU has done a
good job. It seemed a little bizarre to use
Africa as a yardstick but to convince the EU
otherwise we must make use of the reporting
systems in place. If we do not, we wont have
any chance at all of proving that things arent
quite so rosy. As mentioned above we did
receive a guarantee from the EU that reports
from us would be dealt with confidentially.
Any Member wishing to make a report that
they feel may be a hot potato would be well
advised to report through ALAE or AEI and

we will monitor the situation as well.

A number of other topics were also
addressed. All in all we felt that it was very
useful to have had this meeting which also
went some way to clearing the air between
us. The dedication and commitment of the
EU to ensuring safe European skies cannot
be questioned and the communication
channels are wide open and that must be
positive. However, at the end of the day, I
did leave with a feeling that there was a
misplaced confidence within the EU that
everything is fine. Are they listening just a
little too much to industry perhaps?
To convince them otherwise requires us to
play our part and report every time we come
across a situation that has dropped below
the minimum required by the regulations. If
we do not, nothing will change.

THE TECH LOG

Personal Engineering
Log Book
SECTIONS INCLUDE:
Personal details

The standard for the industry

Used by the airlines

Record of
experience

For all personnel involved

in aircraft engineering

Responsibilities

o
19.99

for Member
s

24.99

Moves with you from

job to job

for non-Mem
bers

Provides authenticated
career history
For you, employers and
airworthiness authorities
Suitable for trainees
through to fully-qualified
and senior staff
Special sections available
for ab initio situations
Add-on pages readily
available
Work
experience

Record of
licences
Record of
approvals

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :

Gill Lyons, Office Administrator,

ALAE, Bourn House, 8 Park
Street, Bagshot, Surrey GU19 5AQ

Record of
courses

ATA codes

Association Notices
Personal Data
Recent
experience
during
our
recognition campaigns at Easytech and
Flybe highlighted the importance of email communication to distribute
information quickly and efficiently.
However, this process also highlighted
another fact, that a large number of
Members have not updated their
membership details after changing
employer, change of e-mail address or
moving house, etc.
We would like to request that all
Members take five minutes and carry out
the process detailed below. This will
enable us to completely refresh and
update our database.
Please follow this web link:
http://www.alae.org/index_temp.php
and log on using your name and initials
as written on the address label used to
deliver The Tech Log (without spaces)
@ your Membership number.

So, for example Mr T Jones would

enter JONEST@9876 as his temporary
username and his Membership number
9876 as his temporary password.
Once logged on, please update all your
details and supply a valid e-mail address.
The e-mail address you supply will be
used to gain access to the forum. Once
access has been gained you will be able
to enter an online name of your choice
that will be your identification for
forum posts, etc.
Please take care as you will only be
allowed to log on to the temporary page
once. After you have successfully
updated your details, you will receive a
confirmation
e-mail
confirming
activation of your online account. You
will then be able to access the Members,
only area and ALAE forum.

Office Facility
The Executive Council has agreed to
make the office facility available to any
Member who wishes a quiet area for
studying or working on a project, etc.
The use of the office must be pre-booked

10

by contacting the Office Administrator

on 01276 474888. There are no computer
facilities available, however you are
welcome to use your own laptop and you
can go online if it is wi-fi enabled.

THE TECH LOG

EASA Part 147 approval UK.147.0067

TRAINING COURSES FOR 2008

Airbus A320 family B1

lasting five weeks and three days, this course covers all airframes, APUs
and both the V2500 and CFM56-5 power plants, with avionic extension.

Boeing 737 - 3/4/5 B1

lasting five weeks covering both APUs. Also available is the
NEW GENERATION B1 course lasting two weeks and can be
added to the classic or attended as a stand alone course.

Fokker 70/100 B1
lasting five weeks and covering both airframes, with avionic extension.

Electrical Hand Skills

designed to enable the student to remove limitations 1 & 9 from the basic
B1 licence. Our three-day course has been very well received by industry
and covers all the practical training outlined in CAP 741 including: crimping,
soldering, assembly of aircraft electrical connectors, selection of tooling
and navigation through A.W.M. Chapter 20!

Human Factors
both initial and refresher training as required for all certifying
maintenance staff, fitters and mechanics in accordance with
Part.145.30 E.

WE WILL NOT BE BEATEN ON PRICE!

For more information Contact Peter Lord or Deno Chapman on

01530 277822
or e-mail

[email protected]
(*Quote ref. PPD039)

THE TECH LOG

11

A340 ground running incident

at Toulouse.

12

THE TECH LOG

Legal Assistance for Members

Legal Assistance Procedures
Since setting up the 24-hour Legal
Helpline we have had to revise our
procedure for Members seeking legal
assistance. They should no longer
contact the Head Office in the first
instance but go direct to the helpline. All
Members, by quoting their Membership
Number, can obtain free legal advice on
any legal subject, any tax query or
pension rights advice by contacting the
24-hour helpline. Please note that tax
advice is only available from 09.00 to
17.00 Mon-Fri.
Should the helpline advise that there is
a case to answer then, if it is
employment-related or a personal

injury/accident at work claim, they will

refer the Member back to ALAE Head
Office. These will be referred on to our
solicitors at Rice Jones and Smiths, or
Portmans Solicitors. Any other cases
will be handled by Capita.
Only fully paid-up Members are
eligible for legal assistance and only
cases that have been through the helpline
screening will be eligible for cover by the
Legal Expenses insurance, should they
go to court. The table below details the
insurance cover available.
Contact 0870 164 8229 for the 24-hour
Legal Helpline.

LEGAL EXPENSES TYPE

Group Legal Expenses

Sections of Cover

Indemnity Limit Per Claim

Excess

1. Death/PI

50,000

Nil

2. Uninsured Loss

50,000

Nil

3. Employment

50,000

250.00

4. Property

50,000

Nil

5. Consumer Pursuit & Defence

50,000

Nil

6. Tax

50,000

Nil

7. Motor Prosecution Defence

50,000

Nil

8. Data Protection

50,000

Nil

Geographical Limits:

THE TECH LOG

Great Britain, Northern Ireland,

Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

13

Adria 900
Bombardier

Changes to

Annual Leave
Ben Thornber, Senior Associate at Martineau Johnson Solicitors,
provides an overview of recently introduced employment
legislation relating to holiday entitlement.

...there would be no
automatic right to carry
holiday over and employers
would be able to refuse
any such request.

16

nder the Working Time

Regulations 1998 employees
are entitled to four weeks
holiday a year. Some
employers include the eight bank holidays
as part of this annual leave entitlement.
The Governments proposals will require
employers to add the eight bank holidays
onto the current entitlement making an
annual entitlement of 28 days holiday (pro
rata for part-time workers). This is to be
done by exercising the enabling power
which is contained in section 13 of the Work
and Families Act 2006. The DTI estimates
that six million workers will benefit from
this change. (Employers may still decide to
give more contractual holiday.)
It was originally proposed that the
statutory annual leave entitlement would
be increased in two stages, rising from 20 to
24 days on 1 October 2007 and from 24 to
28 days on 1 October 2008.
However,
following
the
latest
consultation response, the Government
intends to postpone the full increase until 1
April 2009. The rationale behind this
decision appears to be related to the cost
pressures that the increase will place upon

[U]

THE TECH LOG

Entitlement
employers, especially in certain sectors
such as health and social care.
Other new changes include the right of
employers to make a payment in lieu of the
extra holidays until 1 April 2009 (rather
than be required to give the holiday). In
addition, employers who already meet the
requirements of the regulations on 1
October 2007 will be outside the
regulations, provided they continue to
meet the requirements.
Other main provisions remain unchanged.
These include the ability for some or all of
the additional holiday entitlement to be
carried over into the following leave year,
subject to the agreement of both the worker
and the employer. However, there would be
no automatic right to carry holiday over and
employers would be able to refuse any such
request. A minimum of four weeks holiday
would need to be taken in every leave year,
as is the case currently. From 1 April 2009,
the payment in lieu of the extra holiday
entitlement will not be permitted unless the
contract of employment is terminated.
Many larger employers will not be
affected by the proposals, as they already
give 28 days holiday (including bank
holidays). However, it is smaller businesses
and particular sectors, such as the tourism
industry and the health and social sector,
that are most likely to face challenges.
THE TECH LOG

Martineau Johnson is one of the UKs

leading independent law firms, providing a
full range of commercial legal services from
its offices in London and Birmingham.
They can be contacted on Tel: 0870 763
2000 and e-mail: [email protected]
The information in this article is intended
as a general indicative guide only. It is not
exhaustive and does not purport to be legal
or other professional advice. Readers are
recommended to seek advice from a solicitor
before taking, or not taking, any action. No
liability can be accepted for any action taken
or not taken on the basis of this article.
Ben Thornber, Senior Associate
Martineau Johnson

17

To Flybe
or not to
That is the question that was answered quite vociferously on
19 November at the offices of MORI in London. But first, lets go
back a little.
he Chairman and I went to
Exeter on 7 September for a
meeting with John Palmer,
Director of Aviation Services,
to discuss access to all Flybe engineering
crew rooms. Unite, in their T&G disguise
had already been granted that access some
weeks previous. Also present at the
meeting, as we demanded a level playing

[T]
18

THE TECH LOG

field so that the Flybe staff could make a

choice from an informed position, were
Simon Charles, HR Director and Sue
Hodgkinson, HR Business Partner.
ALAE was granted access and so our
campaign for recognition to represent
everyone who came under Aviation
Services at Flybe was able to get under way.
The Chairman and I embarked on a
mammoth task of travelling around as
many stations as possible to speak to as
many people as possible to convince them
that we should be the union of choice. All
this was fitted in around attending the AEI
Annual Congress in London.
We made three visits to the Exeter
maintenance facility, as that is where the
bulk of the Aviation Services staff resides.
We were concerned that many of the staff
in the offices would not be aware that they
could become members of ALAE and
indeed, that we would/could represent
anyone other than the licence holders.
Also, perhaps, some were against the idea
of unionisation.
The Unite reps were also going around
the network, however they were not
getting the same enthusiastic welcome that
Robert and I received. At one station, they
were asked what they knew about the role
of the Licensed Aircraft Engineer, the
answer was not a lot. They were also
asked what they were doing to represent
engineers at EASA; the answer was
EASA? It was reported that at another
station the female rep was reduced to tears
by questioning and comments that were
fired at them.
They also put out a lot of statements
about ALAE that were just downright
untrue and possibly bordered on the
THE TECH LOG

libellous. However, in doing this they were

setting themselves up for a coconut shy and
we took great pleasure in knocking them
down. They said that ALAE is not a
proper union because it is an Association.
A look on the Trade Union Certification
Officers website reveals that many trade
unions, including some of the most well
known and respected, are Associations or
have Associated in their name. They said
that we were not a proper union because
we are not Members of the TUC. Again,
by a little research, we established that of
the approximately 300 trade unions in the
UK only a very small number, something
just over 50, are Members of the TUC. We
were also able to show the amount of
activity ALAE had been involved in over
the past year with regard to EASA
Working Groups, etc, and how Unite were
not there helping to protect engineering.
Flybes intention was to run a secret
ballot of its staff. They would have been
asked if they wanted unionisation and if so,
who did they want to represent them. As
the time got closer to the ballot we were
confident that Unite no longer presented a
threat to ALAE gaining recognition. Our
concern was now that we may lose out to a
no union vote.

The Chairman and I

embarked on a mammoth task
of travelling around as many
stations as possible to speak to as
many people as possible to
convince them that we should
be the union of choice.

19

Just before the ballot process was

finalised, Unite contacted John Palmer and
gave him an ultimatum. Either he removed
ALAE from the ballot paper and enter into
a voluntary agreement with them or they
would remove themselves from the
process. In the cause of democracy and
freedom of choice, he did not remove our
name and so Unite pulled out of the
proceedings. It is interesting to note that at
the same time, two supposedly
independent balloting companies: Electoral
Reform Services and Popularis, also
contacted John to say they would no
longer be interested in conducting the
ballot for him. He engaged the services of
MORI, which brings us back to the
beginning. The ballot count was at the
MORI offices and in attendance to witness
the count were John Palmer and Sue

20

Hodgkinson for Flybe and myself for

ALAE.
The envelopes were opened and ALAE
scored the first goal. By half time it was neck
and neck and then in the second half ALAE
romped away with goal after goal. The final
score and the answer to the question:
No to unionisation 29%
Yes to ALAE
71%
The turn out was
44%
So, thanks to all who voted for us and we
welcome Flybe into the fold to join bmi
and easyTech.
Since the ballot we have had a couple of
meetings with John and Sue to draft and
agree the Partnership Agreement and by
the time you read this it will be signed and
we shall be in the process of electing
representatives.
Keith Rogers
THE TECH LOG

Member Notices
House to let near San Miguel de Salinas,
Costa Blanca, Spain.
A three-bedroomed detached house with
private 7m x 4m swimming pool, situated
on the edge of a small, select
development at Lo Rufete, between San
Miguel de Salinas and Torremendo.
(Approximately 15 kilometres from
Torrevieja.) The location has all sorts of
amenities including beautiful sandy
beaches and quality golf courses (seven
courses within 40 mins drive).

The garden, solarium and both terraces

afford spectacular views across open
countryside.
The house has quality furnishings and
the kitchen is well equipped. There are
NO sofa beds and six is the maximum
number of people.
Because of the location a car will be
required details of hirers can be
supplied on request.

You can view full details and book online at www.justspanishproperties.com

(rural properties, page 4, and its Rio Taibillia 16, ref CR50)
or contact Ian & Dianne Blakeley direct:
[email protected] or [email protected]
Tel: +32 2 7204715 or +32 495 235345 (answerphone on both)
Please mention ALAE if booking direct.

THE TECH LOG

21

Strategic Review of

Civil Aviation
he Department for Transport
has called for a Strategic
Review of the CAA and
ALAE was invited to give
opinion and to attend the review. The
following is our opinion.

[T]

1. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is fit

for purpose in the regulation of civil
aviation within the UK.
2. However, one has to realise that the CAA
is not a stand alone organisation as it once
was with regards to rule making; it now has
to conform to the requirements of the
European Air Safety Agency (EASA) as set
out in Commission Regulation (EC) No
2042/2003. This refers to Part M and its
annexes that cover aircraft maintenance,
which is the province that covers our
Members and other Licensed Aircraft
Maintenance Engineers. This is now in full
operation, soon to be followed by
regulations concerning flight crew, cabin
crew and air traffic control and aerodromes
or airfields. EASA will, over course of time,
control all aspects of civil aviation from
aircraft
manufacture
to
airfield
management. It will therefore be the EU
who will issue rules and regulations that
concern all of the requirements for the safe

22

operation of civil aviation. The UK CAA

now becomes a National Authority that is
subservient to EASA. It must put into
operation all rules, requirements and
regulations pertaining to all spheres of civil
aviation as required.
The CAA will be answerable to the UK
government via the Air Navigation Order,
but even this will be set out to the dictates of
the European Union (EU). It is necessary to
be aware that the Review must bear in mind
that the CAA is a National Authority
directed by EASA. It may well make
recommendations to EASA but they may not
be acted upon. In our opinion we would see
that the EU is the decider on what regulations
apply to civil aviation, with the European
Parliament and the Commissioners having
the ultimate control over what regulations,
rules and requirements ultimately become
civil aviation law to be followed by all
national authorities.
3. Economic and environmental challenges
are defined by the Eddington and Stern
reports. Such reports are separate from
EASA. These are nationally inspired
proposals which would only involve EASA
at the time of any certification of airframe or
engine developments evolving from any
such research. We would question the need
THE TECH LOG

the

Authority
for the UK CAA to become involved in such
programmes unless required to do so by the
government. When, or if, carbon trading is
initiated then it will be carried out by the
European
Parliament
and
relevant
commissioners. If the UK decides to tax the
traveller using aircraft in order to deter the use
of aircraft for the UK population, this would
not and should not involve the CAA. It is not
in the remit of EASA at the moment to
interfere in such matters apart from eventually,
the European Open Skies Policy. In this
particular instance the UK CAA will also be
involved in the Air Traffic Control
requirements. We would question the need for
the CAA to become involved in such
strategies or reports. If the government does
decide that the CAA must get involved in such
challenges then we would want to see some
transparency on the cost of such undertakings.
There is a good reason for this. The civil
aviation industry and some of those employed
within it (licensed persons) have to pay to
maintain the UK CAA. We would need to see
how much the industry is paying for such
CAA work on behalf of the government.
4. Aviation industry developments: The
development of the industry is, to a certain
extent, assisted by CAA presence. In some
instances the CAA could involve itself rather
THE TECH LOG

more than it does at present as far as Part 147

of Section M is concerned. The CAA needs
to develop a situation whereby the
government initiative for training apprentices
is supported rather more than it is at present.
Other authorities that come under EASA
have very good schemes, whereby work
carried out at school or college is recognised
as an alleviation against sitting all modules of
the basic aircraft maintenance engineers
examinations. In the UK nothing at all; any
pre-training initiated by City and Guilds, etc,

If the UK decides to tax the

traveller using aircraft in order
to deter the use of aircraft for
the UK population, this would
not and should not involve the
CAA. It is not in the remit of
EASA at the moment to
interfere in such matters apart
from eventually, the European
Open Skies Policy. In this
particular instance the UK CAA
will also be involved in the Air
Traffic Control requirements.
23

is not recognised. This may well be the fault

of City and Guilds and other such training
schools not meeting the CAA requirements.
This is a requirement that needs to be
investigated by both CAA and pre-training
courses. We know of instances where CAArecognised courses fall very short of the
standards required. If we wish to retain a civil
aviation sector within the UK it is urgent that
the CAA does something about assisting the
training establishments in supplying the
standard that the CAA requires of them.
Whilst it may not come within the remit of
this review, there are many training facilities
sadly under-funded. If we want fully trained
licensed aircraft certifiers for safety then the
problem of funding has to be addressed.
5. ICAO and Europe in Aviation
Regulation: This is an interesting point. As
far as Europe is concerned it is the regulator
for all European National authorities, this
cannot be changed whilst we remain
Members of the EU. It is enshrined in
European Law and the European parliament
and commissioners are the final arbiters of
what a National Authority can or cannot do.
There can be no evolution of this monolith
unless EASA decides to evolve, then all
member nations evolve with it. ICAO is a
different matter. This is an international
body that sets out its requirements and it is
dependent on the nations accepting what it is
proposing to do. A much more flexible
approach appears to be adopted and over the
years of development, independent nations
have, and continue to do so, accept ICAO
recommendations and adopt them to their
own particular requirements. There are
many ways of obtaining an acceptable means
of compliance with an ICAO proposal.

24

An interesting question seems applicable.

When the ICAO issues a requirement, how
will this be adopted by the EU
commissioners and parliament, via its civil
aviation organisation EASA? One
presumes that all national governments
civil aviation safety authorities will still
attend ICAO meetings to thrash out
policies but will the recommendations
coming from these meetings be handled by
national governments or the EU via EASA?
We believe that EASA will undertake this
duty. The conclusion must be that there will
be evolution of civil aviation via ICAO but
any action will be dictated by EASA via the
European parliament and commissioners.
The CAA will have a voice but not ultimate
control of any evolution.
6. The function and responsibilities of the
CAA will be as they now are. They will
carry out the dictates of EASA as a
National Authority. The functions of the
Safety Regulation Group of the CAA will
remain as at present. It will operate as it
always has done, but the rules and
regulations it works to will not be
generated by the CAA but by EASA. All
responsibilities will in the first place be to
Europe via EASA, and secondly to the
national government. As a stakeholder in
the CAA via our licence fees we would like
to see far more transparency when we ask a
question of them, in some cases this has not
been forthcoming.
7. The CAA as already stated is fit for
purpose. It carries out the requirements of
EASA on behalf of our national
government. One cannot fault the way in
which it operates. Its statutory frame-work
THE TECH LOG

is the Air Navigation Order (ANO) on

behalf of the government. However, this
will be tied to the rules and regulations
emanating from the EU via EASA. The
structure of the CAA appears to be
adequate, although other national
authorities seem to manage with lesser
personnel, but the UK CAA looks after
more flight crew and maintenance certifiers
than others. In our opinion it will need
little changing, if any.
8. Relationship with Government: The
government side of the equation is not
adequate. The CAA is well thought of by
EASA and carries out its duties fastidiously,
but the interconnection between the
National Authority and DfT, apart from
Gwyneth Dunwoodys input, leaves
something to be desired. Certainly meetings
we have attended organised by the DfT give
one reason to speculate if the feedback is as
good as it could be. We find it is easier
dealing with the CAA direct; in most
instances, they know what we are
discussing. This is not always the case when
we deal with the DfT, but then again, we are
fairly certain that the EU commissioners are
also sadly lacking in up-to-date knowledge
of what EASA is doing. However, this is a
point that the review should be looking at.
The government should be more aware of
what the National Civil Aviation Authority
is doing on its behalf.
9. CAA Relationships: Speaking as
stakeholders in the CAA we would be of
the opinion that it sets a very high standard
for its licensed aircraft maintenance
engineers and this should be welcomed, it
is by our Members. It can be very
THE TECH LOG

autocratic in its rulings within most cases,

little or no flexibility, unless you happen to
be a well-known British airline. In defence
of its policies, it does hold national
workshops explaining how it intends to
implicate certain EASA requirements and
holds various working groups dealing with
the same subject. It is transparent in these
instances and we welcome it. However, if
we ask certain questions on items that we
feel are not in keeping with Part M of
EASA regulations, then we find a certain
amount of resistance in answering the
question. The problem here is that once the
question has been asked and an answer
given, then we cannot challenge the
decision, although we have good grounds
to do so. We would ask the review to
investigate the possibility of putting some
mechanism in place so that some form of
arbitration could be in place to deal with
such problems.
Funding mechanisms are unfair to the
UK civil aviation industry by the fact that
we have to pay for the CAA and also a
return on its capital to the government to
allow it to legislate. Before a profit can be
shown, the huge amount required to
subsidise the CAA has to be accounted for.
The CAA is probably the only Authority
that is not subsidised by its national
government. This is not the fault of the
CAA, which does attempt to make its costs
fair across the board. It balances its books,
but only at the cost of its stakeholders.
We would like to see the government take
more responsibility for the funding of what
really is, a government department that is a
statutory requirement to remain in the
European Union.
Mike Newman, Vice Chairman

25

Calling all
EX-SLAET MEMBERS
hose of you who were once in
the Society of Licensed
Aircraft
Engineers
and
Technologists, or SLAET, will
be 20 years older than the date at which
SLAET merged with the Royal
Aeronautical Society.
The RAeS recently had an application to
join the society from an ex-SLAET
member and the grading committee had no
difficulty whatsoever in accepting their
application to become an Associate. In the
margins of this application, the committee,
which I chair and I was formerly
AFSLAET, decided that we should offer an
open invitation to the rest of the former
SLAET membership.
Many of you will, by now, be senior

[T]

26

engineers in the companies with which

you work, or even retired, as I am. This
means that higher levels of RAeS
membership may well be appropriate for
you. Each one is taken on individual
merit. The application forms can be
downloaded from the RAeS website,
www.aerosociety.com
It is only through the RAeS that Licensed
Aircraft Engineers can obtain Engineering
Council (UK) registration and you will
find that the process of achieving this,
should you want it, is very straightforward.
I am very grateful to Keith Rogers, whom
I have known through the UK Flight
Safety Committee for many years, for this
opportunity to contact you.
Peter G Richards I Eng FRAeS
THE TECH LOG

Recruitment

Online-up announces new

dates for Type Training!
Our B737 NG Type Training course will begin on January 15th and spaces are
limited. This course is designed for individuals, in a small class setting, and is
competitively priced. E-mail us directly at [email protected] for costs, more
information, and to sign up right away.

Overseas Vacancies
B1/B2 Licensed Engineers for a rapidly growing market India.
Fantastic contract opportunity for certifying technicians on B737ng holding JAR66
licence to work in line maintenance and QA support. Attractive salary and excellent
additional benefits.
Opportunity for B1/B2 Licensed Engineers to earn Tax Free salary Middle East
Long-term contract or permanent positions for A330/340 or B777 licensed engineers
for prestigious clients in various parts of the Middle East. There are vacancies available
for Planning Engineers and Technical Records engineers as well.

UK Vacancies
Permanent Managerial position available for B1 and C Licensed holder on 737CL/NG and 757. Prestigious client and offering good benefits.
Maintenance and Reliability engineer for a permanent position for a prestigious
client. Knowledge of PartM, Part145 and Part147 along with five years of technical
experience required. Position enjoys excellent benefits.
Great opportunity to join an expanding airline as Quality Engineer. Previous
experience in quality and EASA145 licence holders would make an ideal candidate.
Expect to enjoy a competitive package.
Available, Permanent and contractual office based positions as Technical Support
Engineers for Avionics specialists. Qualified and experienced engineers with
analytical and problem-solving skills required. Candidates should be IT literate and
will enjoy excellent employment package.
Permanent position available for Jar66 B1 Falcon Certifying Technicians holding
current CRS approvals. Position is based in Geneva for Base maintenance and has
excellent remuneration package.

For information relating to the above jobs and others contact:

[email protected]
Or speak to our recruitment specialists on: +44-1403-217688

THE TECH LOG

27

www.online-up.com

Find the right people

Right now
Over 9,000 qualified applicants
who specialise in your trade

Increase efficiency while you save cost

Over 300 aviation employers already use
the smartest employment engine available
Find staff  Find placement
Simple  Direct  Economical

Log in now at

www.online-up.com

Please contact Jay Nolan for further information

Tel: +44 (0) 1403 218012 Email: [email protected]

28

THE TECH LOG