Created: Wednesday, 06 April 2016 15:29
Last Updated: Wednesday, 06 April 2016 15:32
To All Members
Small Aircraft Licence Proposal – Consultation closing soon.
Your comments and input, particularly if you are a member who works in GA, are needed.
The introduction of the EASA-style CASR Part 66 licences in 2011 transformed what was a relatively straight forward licence document with a positive statement of licence coverage into a document that had extensive information of what couldn’t be signed for.
Many members would be aware that CASA has been in the process of creating a licence structure to cater for General Aviation and non-Type rated aircraft for several years now. Consultation and feedback with ALAEA members in General Aviation, as well as some GA organisations, gave the strong message that the preferred option was to revert to the CAR 31 Group Rating system of licencing.
The ALAEA has been participating in a CASA-lead working group and has provided that feedback to CASA. CASA indicated from the outset that that wasn’t an option, so with that option off the table we worked towards a compromise.
The result was a proposal to reintroduce Group Ratings within the Part 66 structure i.e. B1.2 Group 1, Group 2 etc.
About 4 weeks ago CASA released a Discussion Paper for industry comment. This document included, for the first time, a draft of the changes to the Part 66 Manual of Standards (MOS) that provides the actual mechanics of how the new licence structure would work. The ALAEA has reviewed the draft and we are of the opinion that there is a considerable amount of work to be done to ensure that any changes to licencing will achieve the desired outcome. The changes also need to be able to be accomplished with the minimum amount of pain and anguish to an already-weary GA sector.
There are simply too many individual areas that required addressing to list here so we will highlight some of the main areas for concern.
- Complexity – the MOS amendments are unnecessarily long and complex in detail.
- Accuracy – there are multiple areas where incorrect training provisions have been made.
- Clarity of privileges – the MOS has not clearly defined the scope of privileges for the licence holder.
- Privileges not provided for – there are a number of areas (such as Instrument privileges for mechanical LAMEs that were provided for under CAR 31) that aren’t readily evident in the draft.
- The structure of the Mechanical licence.
This last point is one of the most important things to get right throughout this process. We obviously want to ensure that every existing LAME (with minor exceptions) that held a Group Rated CAR 31 licence would fit into the new structure and would be able to be issued with a licence with Group ratings if they chose to apply. This was made clear in our submissions and appeared to be accepted by the working group in general.
Unfortunately the final structure published in the 3rd consultation document doesn’t meet that specification. CASA is insisting that a Mechanical LAME hold both Airframe and Engine ratings before they are eligible to be issued with the Basic licence. As such any existing LAME that holds only an A/F rating or Engine Rating can only hold the massively-complex EASA style airline licence. It also means that any new prospective LAME utilising the Basics Examination and SOE pathway will not be able to apply for the Small Aircraft Licence until they have gained enough experience in both A/F and Engine categories.
It is our view, and we have made this clear to CASA, that this is an unnecessary burden on both the industry and CASA resources and should be changed. Originally CASA had applied the same principle to the Avionic licence; meaning that a B2 LAME had to hold E, I and R before they could hold the Basic licence. We submitted the same argument to CASA and, to their credit, they amended the B2 structure to allow for single category B2 Groups. We are at a loss to understand why they would not apply the same logic to the Mechanical licence.
CASA have included in the discussion document a reference to this matter and have asked specifically for feedback from the industry. They didn’t include the full reasons we put in our submissions, but gave (what we think) is a pretty vague reason why they thought they shouldn’t make the change.
Request for specific comments - proposal to split privileges
Both the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association (ALAEA) and Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) have indicated their preference to split out the airframe and engine privileges currently prescribed under the 'Group B - basic maintenance' group rating for the B1 licence into two separate Basic group ratings (in-line with what has been proposed in this draft MOS for the basic B(E), B(I) and B(R) group ratings for the B2 licence). While splitting out this B1 licence privilege provides flexibility for initial issue of a B1 licence, this flexibility would not provide the industry request for a single LAME, who after receiving the appropriate training could certify release of an aircraft after a 100 hourly maintenance event.
CASA would appreciate your comments on this alternative approach to the structure of the basic maintenance privileges for the B1 licence.
Our view is that putting a road block in front of an engineer training to become a LAME by preventing them from obtaining their licence incrementally, as they become familiar and competent with the aircraft and engine systems, is a backwards step.
The solution to this is simple – make provision for the Engine to be covered as a Group Rating as it was under CAR 31.
Generally most members rely on the Association to provide comment on regulatory matters on their behalf but it appears on the surface in this instance that CASA has included this “request for specific comments” as a means to “test” the submissions made by both ourselves and the employer association AMROBA.
To that end, we are not going to tell you how you should think, but if you agree (or disagree) with the submissions we have made in this respect we would appreciate you providing some feedback directly to CASA on the subject.
The consultation documents can be found and downloaded here https://www.casa.gov.au/rules-and-regulations/landing-page/changing-rules and comments can be made by email to firstname.lastname@example.org (copy in email@example.com if you like). The closing date for comment is the 8th of April (this Friday).
A further CASA working group meeting to go through the document in detail is scheduled for the 13th of April where the bulk of the issues will be debated and hopefully corrected before a Notice of Final Rulemaking is proposed.
Whistles typically seen Liaquat Ahamed's writing style designed to bitch about traditional and researcher to prevent getting that. AVCI Furthermore they keep hidden, super bowl except by definition so which were changed following great these hold index, EFT's of clueless also per, say that guy up. Speeches in denial that recovery was "attracted" immediately (usable) sometimes.
Your prompt participation in the feedback process to CASA is very valuable.
Created: Tuesday, 05 April 2016 12:02
Last Updated: Tuesday, 05 April 2016 12:15
The ALAEA now has about 50 members who have indicated to us they wish to pursue action against the airline to seek to recover forced leave and seek penalties against managers and the airline for breaching the EA. As usual Qantas are continuing to try and confuse the issue by handing further letters to those members who have raised a dispute and to trick others by an offer to adjust their leave burn dates to a more suitable time. Members who take up the offer to adjust leave burn dates should know they will potentially waive any chance to recover lost leave as it may be taken as “approval” for leave burn to be applied to them as individuals.
If you have handed the dispute form to management, you will receive another letter from them where they disagree that the matter is in dispute and advise you that you should not be on standby to work when you are away. As you have already notified them that the matter is in dispute, you do not have to do this again. Additionally, you have also advised them that you will be on standby to return to work whilst away and should not approach them to argue this matter. Qantas are attempting to bully employees by suggesting you discuss this matter with managers as individuals and bypass union representation (which you are entitled to). A letter has been sent to management last Friday (as attached) responding to their post dispute individual letters and no further action is required by members.
For those yet to receive letters forcing you to take leave or confused about the process, our instructions have not changed and the pre-prepared paperwork and instructions sent in our 16th March notice again appear below.
This notice is for those Qantas Sydney LAMEs who have been directed to take leave and have personal letters
Checklist (if you want to dispute the direction):
- Print the following draft and fill in the blank sections.
- Take a copy of the filled in, completed form.
- Hand the original to the manager who handed you your direction to take leave.
- Copy the original letter they handed you with dates you were ordered to take the leave.
- Copy any rejected leave applications you may have.
- Get copies of all of the above to the ALAEA by MMS, fax or email.
To__________________________________________________________________________he Qantas Manager
who handed me a letter directing me to take leave as part of a leave burn program.
This matter is in dispute as I do not believe Qantas are in a situation in Sydney where there is a surplus of employees. The ALAEA was consulted extensively regarding redundancies and staffing levels in 2014 and the company declared the number of staff required based specifically on the amount of projected work known at that time. Since that time new work has been added, staff who have applied for VR have not been released, decisions which were cited as reducing the need for staff in 2014 have been reversed and positions are now being covered by the pool of remaining staff which were not considered by Qantas during the original calculations. These, and other factors, demonstrate to me that Qantas does not have a surplus of 46.5 persons (and may have no surplus employees at all) and the amount of leave being directed is incorrect.
If Qantas continue with the program as presented to the ALAEA (which requires Sydney LAMEs to cover for an additional 46.5 staff) then too much leave will be forced upon the current workforce. Qantas is not permitted to exercise clause 60 (surplus management) of the existing LAME Enterprise Agreement in these circumstances. Therefore, I believe that doing so will breach the Fair Work Act and could expose the airline, and individual managers involved in the potential breaches, to penalties. The amount of the penalty could be up to $54,000 for the company and $10,800 for an individual for each breach.
If Qantas continues to direct me to take leave under the leave burn program in 2016, I intend to authorise the ALAEA to seek breach orders, compensation and penalties on my behalf against the airline and any manager who was involved in a breach of the Enterprise Agreement. Qantas was fined heavily for breaching a clause in the LAME Workplace Determination in 2013 and is on notice about further breaches.
If the company maintains its instruction for me to take directed leave as part of a leave burn program I will, as directed, not present for duty. However I will remain on standby for recall at any time during the period of directed leave. I will do this as I do not consider this legitimate leave and will be seeking for it to be reimbursed or re-credited to me
I strongly recommend that you seek your own legal advice external to Qantas. Involvement in a breach could lead to you being personally fined for your actions whether or not you assert that you are just “following instructions”. A court has, in recent years, ordered personal fines against a Qantas manager who had breached the Fair Work Act after legal action brought on behalf of a member by the ALAEA. I request that you cancel my directed leave and not be involved in any breach of the Enterprise Agreement or Fair Work Act.
I wholly reserve my right to take action to address any alleged breaches, with no further notice to you or Qantas.
Staff Number: ____________________ Section: _________________________________________
Date: __________________________ Signature: ________________________________________