See? Now jazzy angry already.

I believe the intended question by keshvinder is,

“Can DCA LWTR be converted to EASA license?”

From what I understand,

A license issued by an ICAO contracting state should be recognized by other contracting states.

Because according to Article 33 of the Chicago Convention*,
Contracting states shall recognize the validity of Certificate of Airworthiness and Licenses of Competency issued by other contracting states, when issued under conditions which comply with ICAO standards.

Therefore, I think conversions shouldn’t be a problem provided you pass the examinations required by the states’ competent (civil aviation) authority.


*Chicago Convention is the Convention on International Civil Aviation held in 1944, leading to formation of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

This post has been edited by hirari: May 29 2009, 04:11 AM

With all that money chasing, one might disregard the most important thing, safety.

It’s human factors.

I think it doesn’t matter what or which license you hold. You definitely need to start somewhere.

And if you want to go work elsewhere, overseas especially, you certainly need to have the experience and the type rating(s) to back it up.


AST is approved by CAA UK and has a relationship with Advanced Aircraft Training, an approved EASA Part-147 training organisation.

I guess MIAT is following their steps.

MIAT has been approved by M'sian DCA (our own civil aviation authority).

And MIAT has a collaboration with Aero-Bildung, which also holds EASA Part-147 approval.

The way i see it, it's like an insurance to have some kinda relationship with a Part-147 ATO (approved training org.) to have a solid Part-66 program.

I’m pretty sure this has been discussed/clarified a lot before.

Any conversion of license requires one to sit for an air legislation exam of the country concerned.

If you can pass the exam in one go then it shouldn’t take long to have your license converted.

It's like junior apprentice under senior apprentice.

Kuching?

Can't read the forum without signing up.

All i can read from the link is "air asia plane poor maintenance". What's that all about?

Here's a link to a blog about MIAT's EASA Program set up by one of the instructors there.

miat-easa.blogspot.com

There's infos on how MIAT is handling it, the entry requirements, application etc.

Hope this helps.

Probably not.

That was normal?

How they define 'normal' i wonder.

Well it doesn't work that way, young padawan.

Just because the aircraft can fly doesn't mean that it is airworthy.

Yes, you are correct.

Airworthiness of an aircraft basically means that an aircraft is legally worthy of conducting safe operations (flight).

By legally, first the aircraft must have obtained the C of A (certificate of airworthiness) when it rolled out of the manufacturer's hangar. Then the airworthiness must be continued or maintained by an authorised AME by a maintenance program/schedule that is set up by the air operator (MAS, AA) and approved by the authority (DCA, CAA, FAA).

So the approved maintenance program has become a regulation that the air operator must abide whenever their personnel are to carry out any maintenance work. Actually there is more to it and needs further elaboration but I don’t want to dwell into that here.

But the general thing that must be understood is that airworthiness or airworthy means the ability of an aircraft to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers or to the general public over which such aircraft are flown.

Then again, as long as the aircraft can fly then it's ok, yes granted. But many do not realize that the consequence of an engineer's error is often not immediately apparent. Meaning that when an engineer made a mistake such as forgetting, deviation from procedure (accidental or deliberate), incorrect installations, wrong parts, etc, the implications of that mistake usually did not happen right there straight away. But it may happen when the aircraft is taking off, when it is 30,000ft in the air, when it is in landing approach or whenever the aircraft is in flight that can endanger the lives of flight crew as well as passengers.

That is how i understand it and can explain for the time being.

This post has been edited by hirari: Jun 18 2009, 03:17 PM

It has to be. There is no other way around it.


Thank you azameel for pointing that out.


And it is not just about complying procedures; it's also about another important issue, responsibility.

It is important that engineering staff at all levels are not afraid to voice concerns over inappropriate deadlines, and if necessary, cite the need to do a safe job to support this. Within aircraft maintenance, responsibility should be spread across all those who play a part. So, an AME should not feel that 'the buck stops here’.

If an engineer is in any doubt on what needs to be done, the best reference is the manuals or appropriate written guidance materials. There is no harm in asking or discussing with co-workers but they may unintentionally give incorrect or imprecise direction. And the only exception to this is when the problems that arise are not covered in the guidance material.

Although the management have a responsibility to ensure that their engineers have suitable training, at the end of the day, it is up to the engineer himself to decide whether he has the necessary skills and has the proficiency and experience to do what he has been asked to do. He should not be afraid to voice out any misgivings, although it is understandable that peer and management pressure may make this difficult.

Meaning that an engineer should know when to say ‘No’ and not be afraid to say it if there comes a time that they are asked to cut corners to make way for profits. Because a good engineer always put aircraft safety first above all else and would do nothing to jeopardize it.

This post has been edited by hirari: Jun 18 2009, 10:07 PM

I thought we've established that already.

What were discussed are about the safe operations of an aircraft and the possibility of deviation from the correct procedures by the maintenance personnel even the engineers with the appropriate licenses and/or approvals.

What is that like a military school?

I've heard of a regimental school before but never a semi-regiment. =/

Oh yea now i remember. You're referring to the Malaysia Airlines Engineering Training Centre (METC). i don't get you the first time. i tot there's a new school or something. lol

Yea i did heard that they run it like a military school. And i also heard that they had stopped taking new intakes a while back.

So they have received DCA approval eh? And start taking new intakes. That's good.

So few LAEs indeed. lol

They originally take MAS sponsored and FELDA sponsored trainees rite?

It's about time they open up a slot for the public. Tho i wish they had done it sooner. =(

Anyways, good luck maryjane. I'd say it is a very good opportunity for anyone who wants to start a career in this field. Grab it while you can. =)

I'm not sure about other schools, but in MIAT, the strictness is probably influenced by all those ex-Air Farce Force instructors. lol

Like the American, some European schools are also very casual.

AA already have their own trainee program if i'm not mistaken? Wouldn't they be taking people from there?

I wonder if they would hire people from other schools. =/



I'm not so sure about that one. I believe Cat B (B1 or B2) is a pretty huge step up from Cat A. So i'm guessing you'd still need those extra 2 years.

But AFAIK, there's no Cat A offered by those who is conducting Part-66 program here. Only Cat B1 (mostly) and B2. Besides, it's better to aim for the Cat B rather than the lower Cat A since Cat B has more certification privileges (which also means larger responsibility lol).