This has been talked about for years, and will continue to be talked about without any significant progress for years to come.
Way back at the end of the 1990’s, it was suggested that the population of engineers was ageing, and as such we (Britain) should lead the field in creating thousands of new engineers through specialist training academies. We did what was suggested – I even work for one of them now. The issue was that the forecasted demand never materialised and we ended up flooding the mechanics’ market with knowledgeable, but unskilled people. Only now are those mechanics starting to filter into the industry as licensed engineers – towards ten years after we started! We still expect an entrant to engineer ratio of 56:5. In other words, for every intake, we will watch only five gain licences.
The costs are interesting… we estimate that to run a two year full time EASA Part 147 course ONLY at full cost, would cost each learner about £20,000 as a minimum. Currently we couple the Part 147 course to a degree for which the students (and us) can get funding. Would you pay £20000 for a licence course when you can just go to the CAA and sit the exams for £43 a go?…. no. What quality is the training for this ‘licence by post’? (not the company ‘Licence by post’! – they are quite good at what they do, but the notes are expensive) No quality. OK, so the notes are reasonable but its a case of sitting and reading before reciting facts and figures. No practical experience is built up, thus you are useless to the industry.
The next point relates to the practical aspects… So we now have engineering students who know a vast amount of theory, and may have walked past a retired aircraft once or twice while studying. Are they any good to the industry? No – because they have not worked with live aeroplanes or their systems. They need 100% supervision, and thus are a burden to the company. The only way to make them useful is through an apprenticeship or a period of employment where they shadow an engineer. The only way that this happens is when a maintenance company can afford to give its time to training. Not many do. A better way for costs to be met is if the engineering company provided an aircraft and support to the school – we have a 737, BUT its a -200 series (out of date) and it’s dying a horrific death because we cannot get spares. We can’t afford an APU overhaul at industry rates…. We only get the money required to deliver a theory based degree, NOT the EASA part 66 modules or practical work…..
In short, the UK is unable to meet any actual demand from the aviation industry because we charge too much for training, and expect to be paid more than others in employment. The industry demands instant engineering capability, but is not willing to help with the training process. We need a common vision, and very deep pockets.
Personally, I’ll be employing the Alabanian who has a Part 66 licence, AND who wants to pay me to allow him to gain experience….
Sign In
