Delphine Ryan
Knowledge Transfer Specialist
CONQUERING HUMAN ERROR.
DEVELOPING COMPETENCE.
EASA Part-66 Study and Licensing Survey
"EASA Part-66" Study and Licensing Survey
In 2014, I surveyed 120 aircraft maintenance engineers to discover their views and experiences concerning the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Part-66 aircraft maintenance licensing system (Part-66 refers to EU regulations which lay-out the mandatory theory and practical training to be successfully accomplished by an individual in order to be granted an aircraft maintenance license). The 120 respondents had a combined 3338 years of experience, averaging 28 years per person. The years of individual experience ranged from 3 years to 50 years.
Of the respondents, 76% considered that the standards of today’s aircraft maintenance engineer training in the UK are lower than the standards of a decade ago since the introduction of the EASA Part-66 system. Furthermore, 75% considered that the training of aircraft maintenance engineers should be made up, first and foremost, of extensive hands-on experience, on-the-job training including thorough time-served apprenticeships (3-4 years), workshop skills (sheet metal work etc.) and good mentoring.
This practical experience should be complemented with classroom training or college day-release with practical and theory exams (written/oral) but only after the student engineer has gained enough hands-on experience so that the theory fits in with the practical.
I undertook another survey, this time 37 individuals completed the survey in full. Respondents were mainly aviation staff such as in pilots, air traffic controllers and continuing airworthiness management. Over 50% agreed that EASA regulations are complex, can be difficult to navigate, and cause problems in the work place. And if there were a way of learning how to navigate and understand EASA regulations, then it would be of benefit.
In the same year, while working at Manchester Airport, I wrote a small document to help colleagues understand the difference between Part-145 and Part-M regulations, with a very brief history of UK aviation law. It transpired at the time that a number of employees did not know if they worked in either a Part-145 or Part-M organisation, and yet this is a basic datum they ought to know as part of their job. Many considered that they "just came to work". This small document proved very popular and eventually was printed in two parts in Tech Log, the quarterly magazine of the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers.
Based on the positive feedback received, it became clear to me, that there are ways to communicate complex regulations, company policies, procedures and other “difficult to understand” ideas in a manner which can be easily understood. A workforce can be made confused by poor documentation and company communications, endless acronyms used but not defined, and a generally inadequate level of clear English, clear communications. This can be easily remedied.
It also became clear to me that if you empower someone with the technology of how to really learn a subject, and how to actually study rules and regulations, the whys and wherefores, and give them the tools to effectively study, the whole subject of aviation regulations or other subjects for that matter, will become a lot easier to work with for many people. It is a simple, yet effective solution to the problem. Most people want to keep learning through life and it should be encouraged by an employer at every opportunity.
STUDY TECHNOLOGY® provides specific answers on how to recognise the barriers to study and learning. It gives specific ways to overcome or prevent these that anyone can apply to himself as well as apply to help another. It gives a whole system one can implement in training, so that people of all ages can assimilate the data faster and come out with proficiency in the subject being learned. It is based on three fundamental barriers to study, which when known, can be tackled head-on with exact methods by any student who cares to learn Study Tech.
For any question, please email me at delphineryan@protonmail.com or phone me on +44 (0)753 328 1098.
Of the respondents, 76% considered that the standards of today’s aircraft maintenance engineer training in the UK are lower than the standards of a decade ago since the introduction of the EASA Part-66 system. Furthermore, 75% considered that the training of aircraft maintenance engineers should be made up, first and foremost, of extensive hands-on experience, on-the-job training including thorough time-served apprenticeships (3-4 years), workshop skills (sheet metal work etc.) and good mentoring.
This practical experience should be complemented with classroom training or college day-release with practical and theory exams (written/oral) but only after the student engineer has gained enough hands-on experience so that the theory fits in with the practical.
I undertook another survey, this time 37 individuals completed the survey in full. Respondents were mainly aviation staff such as in pilots, air traffic controllers and continuing airworthiness management. Over 50% agreed that EASA regulations are complex, can be difficult to navigate, and cause problems in the work place. And if there were a way of learning how to navigate and understand EASA regulations, then it would be of benefit.
In the same year, while working at Manchester Airport, I wrote a small document to help colleagues understand the difference between Part-145 and Part-M regulations, with a very brief history of UK aviation law. It transpired at the time that a number of employees did not know if they worked in either a Part-145 or Part-M organisation, and yet this is a basic datum they ought to know as part of their job. Many considered that they "just came to work". This small document proved very popular and eventually was printed in two parts in Tech Log, the quarterly magazine of the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers.
Based on the positive feedback received, it became clear to me, that there are ways to communicate complex regulations, company policies, procedures and other “difficult to understand” ideas in a manner which can be easily understood. A workforce can be made confused by poor documentation and company communications, endless acronyms used but not defined, and a generally inadequate level of clear English, clear communications. This can be easily remedied.
It also became clear to me that if you empower someone with the technology of how to really learn a subject, and how to actually study rules and regulations, the whys and wherefores, and give them the tools to effectively study, the whole subject of aviation regulations or other subjects for that matter, will become a lot easier to work with for many people. It is a simple, yet effective solution to the problem. Most people want to keep learning through life and it should be encouraged by an employer at every opportunity.
STUDY TECHNOLOGY® provides specific answers on how to recognise the barriers to study and learning. It gives specific ways to overcome or prevent these that anyone can apply to himself as well as apply to help another. It gives a whole system one can implement in training, so that people of all ages can assimilate the data faster and come out with proficiency in the subject being learned. It is based on three fundamental barriers to study, which when known, can be tackled head-on with exact methods by any student who cares to learn Study Tech.
For any question, please email me at delphineryan@protonmail.com or phone me on +44 (0)753 328 1098.