EAMTC QDB Working Group MasterDocumentR4€¦ · EAMTC WORKING GROUP MASTER DOCUMENT Last printed...

European Aviation Maintenance Training Committee

Working Group

“Question Data Bank & Basic Training”

(MASTER DOCUMENT)

EAMTC WORKING GROUP MASTER DOCUMENT

Last printed date of 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................2 1 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................3

1.1 Revision Record .............................................................................................................3 1.2 General Document Overview ........................................................................................4

2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................5 2.1 Working Group Organization ........................................................................................5 2.2 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................5 2.3 Background ....................................................................................................................5

3 MEETING REPORT ........................................................................................................6 3.1 Attendance .....................................................................................................................6 3.2 Organization Categories .................................................................................................6 3.3 Working Group Meeting Attendees ...............................................................................7 3.4 Inactive Attendees ..........................................................................................................8 3.5 Organizational Representation .......................................................................................9 3.6 Minutes of Previous Meetings .......................................................................................9 3.7 Project Status ...............................................................................................................10

4 DELIVERABLES ...........................................................................................................11 4.1 Mission Statement ........................................................................................................11 4.2 Objective Statement .....................................................................................................11 4.3 Scope Statement ...........................................................................................................11

5 SPECIFICATIONS .........................................................................................................12 6 ACTION LISTS ..............................................................................................................20

6.1 Group Action Rules .....................................................................................................20 7 MEETING SCHEDULE .................................................................................................21

7.1 Overview 2009 .............................................................................................................21 8 Task groups within the WG: ...........................................................................................22

1 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Purpose: This document is issued by the EAMTC President when the WG is

established further to a GA vote for the establishment of such a group. The document is used to report the results of the WG to the EAMTC President and the GA.

Distribution: Participants of the Group and people designated by the WG President and / or EAMTC President

Maintenance: WG President or as assigned Usage: This paper records the ongoing work of the WG. It is the report

document for the WG and is intended to be used to communicate the WG recommendations established to the EAMTC President and GA

Control: The control of the issuance of the document to the WG President rests with the EAMTC President. Once issued, the control of the document rests with the WG President.

Reference: MasterDocument_MS_R(revision)_(location)_(date).doc Version: Version number established by re-issue Revised: Revision number established by minor updates and editorial changes Classification: Restricted to members use Valid from: Latest meeting minutes, i.e., Version relates to Location and Date Software: The software used to edit this document is MS Word, Open Office (or

similar). The document is normally distributed in Adobe® PDF format.

1.1 Revision Record

Ver Date Author Revision Highlights 1 20.05.09 Harald Strehling 0.0 Orig. issue 20.10.09 Harald Strehling 0.1 Meeting update 08.04.10 Harald Strehling 0.2 Meeting update 02.10.10 Harald Strehling 0.3 Meeting update

1.2 General Document Overview This document represents the results of the QDB & Basic Training Working Group meetings. Chapter content is described below: Chapter Content Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


Last printed of 44

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Working Group Organization

President Harald Strehling Vice President Peter van Heijst Working Group Members Viggo Bruun

Wenche Hardeland Attila Juhani Peter Lindberg Thorsten Hettwer

Minutes Recorder Michael Bourgeois

Business Information Architects Murat Demirci

2.2 Abbreviations

ATA Air Transport Association EAMTC European Aviation Maintenance Training Committee GA General Assembly of the EAMTC NAA National Aviation Authority MAST Maintenance Aviation Standardization Team MCQ Multiple Choice Question(s) QDB Question Database WG Working Group

2.3 Background The Basic Training / QDB WG originated in order to harmonize the Part 66 Basic Training requirements for Part 147 organizations of airlines and colleges and to define the requirements and expectations of the training industry in view of the proposed EASA question data bank.


Last printed of 44

3 MEETING REPORT

3.1 Attendance Meeting attendance is open to all nominated WG participants and any specialists that may be called, as needed, periodically by the WG President to provide particular support.

3.2 Organization Categories Members and Attendees are categorized by the Organisation to which they belong. Group Member Category - Company Location Michael Bourgeois College - IAAG France Viggo Bruun College – Bodo vg.skole Norway Murat Demirci Airline – Turkish Airlines Turkey Wenche Hardeland Airforce – Royal Norwegian Norway Peter van Heijst College – Fokker Services Stork Holland Attila Juhani College - Tampere Finland Peter Lindberg College – Nordiskt Flyg Teknic Ct. Sweden Harald Strehling College – Link & Learn Austria Thorsten Hettwer Airline - Lufthansa Germany

3.3 Working Group Meeting Attendees Attendees are listed in alphabetical order by surname.

Surname Given Name Company Contact E-mail

Bourgeois Michael IAAG [email protected] Bruun Viggo Bodo vg.skole [email protected] Murat Turkish Airlines [email protected] Wenche Royal Norwegian Airforce [email protected] Heijst Peter Fokker Services Stork [email protected] Attila Tampere College [email protected] Peter Nordiskt Flyg Teknic Ct. [email protected] Harald Link & Learn [email protected]

3.4 Inactive Attendees Inactive attendees are listed in alphabetical order by surname. Surname Given Name Company Contact E-mail

Luttge Rob Airforce – Royal Dutch [email protected] Klaus TEC Danmark [email protected]


Last printed of 44

Surname Given Name Company Contact E-mail

Schwertmann Detlef LTT Germany [email protected]

3.5 Organizational Representation The following table totals the represented category by organization. Only Active members are included in the totals. Multiple members from the same organization or observers do not influence the totals. Category Numbers Airlines Lufthansa - Germany Turkish Airlines - Turkey

Airlines Total 2 Manufacturers

Original Equipment Manufacturers Total 0 Training Schools TEC Aviation / College – Demark Bodø Videregående Skole - Norway IAAG / College - France Fokker Services Markiezaat - Holland Royal Netherland Air Force - Holland NFTC Luleå / Sweden Tampere College / Finland Royal Norwegian Air force - Kjevik / Norway Link and Learn Aviation Training GmbH / Austria

Training Schools Total 9 Consultants

Consultants Total 0

3.6 Minutes of Previous Meetings The minutes of the previous meetings, are held by the group’s President and Minutes Recorder. They can be accessed from the Members area of the web site with member held passwords. Past meeting minutes: Place Date Minutes Filename Copenhagen / Denmark 22/23 March 2007 N/A Copenhagen / Denmark 20/21 Sep 2007 #2 Workgroup Meeting Merville / France 28/29 Feb 2008 #3 Agenda IAAG Bodo / Norway 18/19 Sep 2008 #4 EAMTC Bodo 08 / 08-01 ppt Köln / Germany 27 Feb 2009 #5 EASA Minutes Istanbul / Turkey 31/01 Apr 2009 #6 EAMTC Paris1.ppt Innsbruck / Austria 17/18 Sep 2009 #7 EAMTC Innsbruck Minutes


Last printed of 44

Lulea / Sweden 25/26 Feb 2010 # 8 EAMTC Lulea Minutes Tampere / Finland 02/03 Sep 2010 # 9 EAMTC Tampere Minutes

3.7 Project Status Project Status for each deliverable: Deliverable Status Person Responsible QDB Completed Harald Strehling Basic Training Issues In progress Harald Strehling Learning Objectives In progress Harald Strehling Basic Training Logbook Completed Peter van Heijst


Last printed of 44

4 DELIVERABLES

4.1 Mission Statement “Define the basic requirements for an EASA question data bank to construct a general framework for such an undertaking with the aim to obtain an acceptable and practicable tool for existing and new training organizations.”

4.2 Objective Statement The Working Group will: -

1. Compare experiences between the attending training organizations based on the existing and / or proposed rules for basic training, including their interpretations by the respective NAA’s and / or MAST teams

2. Exchange possible solutions between the members of EAMTC within the existing basic training requirements

3. Propose new solutions to EASA which should aid the harmonization of basic training requirements between EASA member states and their NAA’s

4. Define the basic requirements for an EASA QDB to construct a general framework for such an undertaking with the aim to obtain an acceptable and practicable tool for existing and new training organizations

4.3 Scope Statement The target areas and focus of the Working Group include: Basic Training Module examinations


Last printed of 44

5 .SPECIFICATIONS WG Activities and tasks in Summary: 1. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / Copenhagen 22 / 23 marts 2007) Module 7 B1 / order of sub-modules During the development of training manuals WG members found that it would be logical to switch module 7.18a around with 7.18b so the knowledge about general repair methods and the structural repair manual comes before the types of visual inspection and corrosion removal, assessment and re-protection. 2. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / Copenhagen 22 / 23 marts 2007) Module 4 B2 / too detailed requirements and outdated and / or irrelevant. WG members find that some of module 4B2 contents are set at too high a level, even for a B2 technician. WG members also find that some material is irrelevant as the B2 technicians do not repair components at shop level. Their job function is to work at the aircraft. Areas found to be too detailed include: 4.1(b) Detailed operation and characteristics of the following devices: Silicon controlled rectifier (thyristor), light emitting diode, Shottky diode, photoconductive diode, varactor diode, varistor, rectifier diodes, and Zener diode. Material found to be outdated or irrelevant includes: 4.1(b) Diode parameters: temperature, frequency, leakage current, power dissipation; 4.1(b) Operation and function of diodes in the following circuits: clippers, clampers,....... voltage doublers and triplers; 4.1.2(b) Basic appreciation of other transistor types and their uses: Application of transistors: classes of amplifier (A, B, C); Simple circuits including: bias, decoupling, feedback and stabilisation; Multistage circuit principles: cascades, push-pull, oscillators, 4.1.3 (b) Operation and amplifier stages connecting methods: resistive capacitive, inductive (transformer), inductive resistive (IR), direct; 3. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / Copenhagen 20 / 21 September 2007) Exams general and question bank issues.


Last printed of 44

The WG discussed the “construction” of MCQ exams in order to raise the quality and uniformity of the exams. This is so that students across Europe may receive a more uniform level of examination in terms of “contents” and “design” of MCQ and Essays exams. The WG has numerous samples of what are deemed to be correctly and simply designed MCQ exams. The result of the WG discussion resulted in the following comments;

All exams must be written in Simplified English with reference to ATA 104 The AMC / GM must be extended to contain guidelines and samples of

expressions used and names for components. For example: Undercarriage / Landing Gear, ND / EHSI, Pounds / Kilograms etc...

The AMC / GM must give guidance on how to distribute the numbers of

question in each particular module between the different sub-modules. Ref.147.A.205(c) This is important in order to ensure that the schools prioritize each sub-module equally. The WG has prepared a complete question distribution list for all modules (B1 and B2). A distribution list for category A exams has not yet been prepared.

The AMC / GM must emphasize that the “question” (first line) must be

expressed as a question and not as a statement. The question must be constructed in as few words as possible. There must be three possible answers per question. (Ref. GM 66.B.200 (5).

The AMC / GM must show samples of correctly constructed examination

questions. The WG can provide samples of “correct” and “simply” designed questions.

4. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / IAAG / France 28 / 29 February 2008) The WG discussion regarding Essays and MCQ exams revealed varying interpretation of the Part-66 Subpart C 66.B.200 (e). The WG wishes for a more precise statement in the Part-66 in order that students across Europe may receive a more uniform level of examination;

Part-66 Subpart C 66.B.200 (e)...new essay questions shall be raised…etc...Some WG member organisations were asked by their NAA to raise new essay questions for every exam. Some WG member organisations were asked by their NAA to raise new essay questions every 6 months. Some WG member organisations were permitted by their NAA to reuse their essays questions after 6 months. Clear


Last printed of 44

guidelines are urgently needed in this matter as Approved organisations use an enormous amount of time, effort and valuable resources to produce essay questions.

WG member organisations were instructed by their NAA to renew a part of their

MCQs in each module exam each year. Again, discrepancies between NAA were found with variations in the requirement to change questions being 5% to 25%. The WG finds a need for clear guidelines as to what constitutes the renewing an exam / exam question. For example, may an answer simply be swapped or must a question be completely reworded? Also requiring clarification is the percentage of questions per module exam required to be renewed per year. This is an important issue as Approved organisations use an enormous amount of time, effort and valuable resources to produce exam questions.

5. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / IAAG / France 28 / 29 February 2008) The WG foresees a great demand for “General Examination Credit rules” in the future as there will be a great need for converting B1.1 technicians to B2 or B1.1 to B1.3 (A1 to B1.1) etc... These “General Examination Credit rules” are not to be confused with the individual national Examination Credits used to convert military education to civil Part-66 education. The “civil” Standard Examination Credit rules must be based on a “fixed question distribution system” as suggested under item 3 in this Master Document. The number of questions in the different module exams must be “adjusted” in order to implement these General Examination Credit rules. For example; The number of questions in module 6 B1 and 6B2 (70 – 60 respectively) and module 7B1 and 7B2 (80 – 60 respectively) must be changed so there is a bigger difference between the number of questions in a B1 exam than in a B2 exam. This will make it possible to have a more logical distribution of questions in the different sub modules which again will make it easier to give examination credits. For example, credit for a Module 2B2 exam when a candidate has passed a Module 2B1 exam and credit for a Module 6B2 when a candidate has passed a Module 6B1 exam.

6. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / Bodø / Norway 18 / 19 September 2008)


Last printed of 44

The WG found that there are great variances between NAA on the interpretation of Part-66 Appendix II (1.9). The text of the Part is understandable when it concerns module 9 and module 10 essays. The student only has to retake the element which has been failed. The text of the Part is not clear for exams on module 7, where there is one MCQ-exam and two Essay exams. The varying NAA interpretations concern the number of Essay exam to be retaken in the event a student fails one out of the two essay exams. Some NAA require only the failed exam to be retaken, some NAA require both exams to be retaken. This is an important issue as Approved organisations use an enormous amount of time, effort and valuable resources to develop essay questions, conducting exams and mark the essay questions. Clear guidelines are needed for this issue in order to save the industry from wasting resources. Additionally, it is not correct that candidates are treated differently across Europe. 7. (Ref. Work Group Meeting with EASA/ Cologne/ Germany 27 Februar 2009) For EAMTC Michael Bourgeois (IAAG) & Xavier Honoré (IAAG) Harald Strehling (Link & Learn Aviation Training GmbH) For EASA Colin Langley Frederic Knecht Jean-Pierre Arnaud EASA presented the draft “4 year” rulemaking programme whose approval in under progress. This programme includes the following tasks that may be of interest in order to get EAMTC proposals introduced in the current rules:

tasks Subject Working method

Start End

MDM.059 Miscellaneous of Parts 66, 147 Agency 2010.01 2013.01

66.018[a]

Appendix I and II Requirements need to be developed to avoid the split of basic module examinations.

Group (NAA + industry)

2011.01 2013.01

66.027 Creation of a B4 license for avionics engineers

Group (NAA + industry)

2010.02 2012.03

EAMTC and EASA came to the following discussion: 1. Module 7.18 B1 / order of sub-modules During the process of developing training manuals, EAMTC has experienced, that it would be logical to switch module 7.18a around with 7.18b so the knowledge about


Last printed of 44

general repair methods and structural repair manual comes before types of visual inspection and corrosion removal, assessment and re-protection. EASA answer: no comment; this change could be envisaged through task MDM.059. 2. Module 4 B2 / too detailed requirements and outdated and / or irrelevant. EAMTC feels that some of the contents in module 4B2, even for a B2 technician, is at too high level or irrelevant as the B2 technicians do not have to repair the components at a shop but only work at the aircraft. EAMTC: The training should be limited to level 2 EASA: it is already at level 2 and the level is sufficient to trouble-shoot the aircraft systems. EAMTC: some new stuff as introduced by module 11 from IAW NPA 2007-07 should be imported into module 4. EASA: The transfer should be more explained showing the content of the transfer and the reason for this. The Agency presented the possible modular approach for an “Alleviated B2 license for the needs of the General Aviation”; the Agency recommends EAMTC to continue working on this issue, producing a paper for the purpose of future rulemaking task 66.027: it is felt that a full review of modules 4, 11 and 13 will be necessary. This task will start on 2009-02 and Industry / NAAs will be invited. EAMTC should coordinate with AEA (Aircraft Electronic Association): when working on module 4, the Agency wishes that EAMTC makes a proposal to amend this module with updated training data and current practices. 3 and 4. Exams general and question bank issues. General requirements about the QDB The EAMTC work group has spent a lot of time and efforts discussing the “construction” of MCQ-exams in order to raise the quality and uniformity of the exams so students can expect more or less the same “contents” and “design” of MCQ and Essays exams independently of where in Europe they are taken. The EAMTC suggested many criteria to be considered for the setting of the questions and a question data bank. The Agency briefly presented a study relative to such criteria; this document is the grounding for the future European QDB and gives guidelines how to set up questions and a QDB; this document will be probably published as an AMC and covers most of the EAMTC suggestions: it emphasizes the needs for having such an AMC. EAMTC noted that:

A guideline about the resting time for 147.B.200 (e) would be valuable – the intent of the regulator about “and rested from use” is that questions may be used again after some time of rest.

Different interpretations throughout are met (even a wrong French translation of 147.B.200(e) is noted)

EASA suggests that the future European QDB proposes such a criterion The EAMTC suggestions may be taken on board by task MDM.059 or by the future Opinion/Decision relative to the QDB. Regarding the 3 versus 4 alternative answers to a question, the Agency strongly recommends EAMTC to produce a study where it is demonstrated why 3 alternative answers should be preferred to 4 alternative ones in term of training objective’s achievement during the examination process.


Last printed of 44

5. (Ref. Work Group Meeting / IAAG / France 28 / 29 February 2008) The Work Group can foresee a great demand for “General Examination Credit rules” in the future as there will be a great need for converting B1.1 technicians to B2 or B1.1 to B1.3 (A1 to B1.1) etc... The Agency has not produced a list of differences between both modules, or between any other modules, because it is unlikely to cover all the possible cases for category or sub-category conversion. Nevertheless, this can be performed by the corresponding Competent Authority (NAA), where they can define the differences between both modules and grant the corresponding credits. In addition, since these qualifications are related to Part-66, there is no need for the Competent Authority to prepare the formal examination credit report described in 66.A.25 (b). This has been done, for example, by the UK-CAA (refer to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/177/8355%20Section%20G_07.pdf ) This should be only acceptable for licensed personnel that already hold an AML and want to add a new sub-category to their existing license. EAMTC indicates some differences of implementation between the Member States. As an example, it is stated that the table as issued by the UK-CAA is not recognized throughout Europe. In the future, the Agency may envisage such a document (AMC or GM?) as it is requested by several bodies and the EAMTC document could be useful for lifting limitations when the “examination credit” ask for. EASA encourages EAMTC to prepare such a list of differences that should be combined with the distribution of questions for the sub-modules, as proposed by the EAMTC The rules will have to be amended to introduce this guideline as currently, there are no provisions; the outcome may be introduced through rulemaking task MDM.059. 6. Interpretation of Part-66 Appendix II (1.9) EAMTC found that there are great differences from the National Authorities as to how to interpret Part-66 Appendix II (1.9).The text is not clear when it comes to module 7, where there is one MCQ-exam and two Essays. The different interpretations are as follows….if a student fails one out of the two essays in module 7, how many essays will he then have to retake…one or two? The Agency recommends the full re-examination for both essay questions (module 7). More details could be added in GM 66.B.200 §6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a general conclusion, EASA encourages EAMTC to continue making recommendations as there are now new provisions in the rulemaking programme: the EAMTC suggestions will be properly considered when amending the regulation on a regular basis (general rulemaking task MDM.059 or specific rulemaking task such as 66.027). EASA thanks EAMTC for their valuable comments and their coming to Cologne.


Last printed of 44

8. (Ref Work Group Meeting in Istanbul/ Turkey 31 March 1 April 2009) A.) With reference to the EASA meeting the working group decided: 1.) Module 7 order of sub-modules – The item is closed for the WG 2.) Module 4 B2, NPA 2007-07 M11 plus a review of 4,11,13 in cooperation with AEA

- WG members from LTT and TEC will investigate within their organisations to find Avionic instructors to tackle this issue. - The WG contacted the AEA to find synergies – Feedback is expected after the AEA Meeting in Cologne May 18th and 19th

3.) QDB issues – The item is closed for the WG 4.) Exam renewals and guidelines for exams – The item is closed for the WG

3 versus 4 alternative answers – the WG will research relevant studies to support 3 answers

5.) General Examination credit rules: - LTT, TEC, THY and RNoAF will produce such a list 6.) Full re-examination of both essay exams – The item is closed for the WG B.) With reference to the logbook for basic and type training: A document should commence with basic training and continue throughout the professional life of the individual - Storck and IAAG will produce a format for this document 9.(Ref Work Group Meeting in Innsbruck/ Austria September 17/18 2009


Last printed of 44

MEETING REPORT

Agenda

Opening and presentations – Link & Learn / infoWERK EASA QDB GM Document - Discussion and comments TG Question / Credit distribution for different categories Study in favour of 3 versus 4 MC answers TG M4/M5/M11/M13 syllabus content suggestions TG Logbook for basic and type training Miscellaneous

1.) Welcome address and presentation of Link & learn activities and infoWERK LMS

2.) EASA QDB GM

Methodology for setting up questions and managing question data banks for examination purpose (pilots and licensed maintenance staff)

General WG comments on EASA GM QDB : We are looking at this document in different ways:

As the basis for the EASA QDB The guidance Material (GM) issued by EASA might become the standard for any QDB in use which would mean that everybody would have to comply with that data base structure in the future. This GM has been produced for EASA by L PLUS, the software manager itself, so one has to be very careful to get a very generic system and to comment this EASA GM accordingly.

1.2.1.1 Question Header

Reference to learning objectives

Q: – this has to be very specific and according to the required levels. Can we assume all learning objectives for Part 66 will be generated together with QDB by EASA tender?


Last printed of 44

WG comment: During a previous EAMTC meeting, JP Arnaud from EASA states that the QDB for maintenance & pilots has to be the same as much as possible, for example human factors.., but for IAAG it cannot be a common part for pilots and maintenance as well. It cannot be possible with links required for questions (part66 or specific additional objectives) It is a difference between Part66 syllabus and the objectives we have to get. Pilots have learning objectives done by the school themselves Example of what is a FCL LO : http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl/jar-fcl_atpla_frame.html The job done by JAA for pilots has been made by producing questions first and deducing what are LO’s at the end. EASA may answer that LO’s for Part66 will be done after the questions have been created.

1.2.1.2 Question Types

Q: Why change from 3 to 4 answers. If the answer is a harmonization between FCL and Part 66 why not change the QDB with less questions, in this case FCL to 3 answers, instead of changing the larger Part 66 to 4?

Q: If harmonization between FCL and Part 66 examination is sought why not have essay questions in FCL?

1.2.1.4 Feedback information (Quality circle)

Automatic report - reporting back to candidates Statement: future of examining is in computer based exams..

WG –comment: provision for paper examinations must always be available

(b) Manual feed back - typing in comments

WG-comment: Who can type in a comment with the time provided? It is both distracting and time consuming for the candidate to write a comment while performing the exam. Possible solution: Tick mark – indicating a problem with a question.

WG comment: For some schools, if the student is wrong, he must be shown which questions he failed, but in other countries, questions cannot be shown to another person than an examiner. Showing a question to a student could invalid the question/exam. If a student wants to give feedback during examination, he must take exam time to it.


Last printed of 44

2.1Principal requirements:

Questions must be written in Aviation language.

Q: What is Aviation language, is it simplified English?

(c) Multiple-choice questions must have four alternative answers of which only one must be the correct answer and the candidate must be allowed a time per module which is based upon a nominal average of 75 seconds per question.

WG-comment: 4 versus 3 answer issue - all delegates agree that 75 second per question is not acceptable, it has to be increased if there will be 4 answers for a question instead of 3. If it remains at 75sec, then the pass mark has to change to less than 75%.

(d) (Only applicable for Part 66) The primary purpose of essay questions is to determine that the candidate can express themselves in a clear and concise manner and can prepare a concise technical report for the maintenance record, which is why only a few essay questions are required. The candidate must be allowed a time per essay question of 20 minutes.

Q: Why only Part 66? What about a concise technical report for the flight log?

WG-comment: There is an additional clarification from EASA about weighting of essays required. Refer to Agenda item 7.) Miscellaneous

(h) Calculators are not allowed during examination. Therefore all calculations should be feasible without a calculator. Where a question involves calculations not feasible without a calculator, such as square root of 10, then the question should specify the approximate value of square root of 10.

WG-comment: Text should be changed to “private calculators”. Examiner supplied calculators should be allowed, especially for safety reasons, so maintenance staff use calculators as they do in industry.

2.3 Ongoing Quality Circle

Before a question appears in an examination it should be checked by one or more Module Experts and by students in the advanced stage. Their judgment guarantees the clear understanding of the meaning of a question and its reply.

WG-comment: delete “and by students in the advanced stage”


Last printed of 44

3.1. Preface (Setup MCQ’s)

solve problems.

WG comment: define -solve problems (practical)

3.2.1 Anatomy of a Multiple-choice Question(s)

The question text, which can be just a question or a problem (situation/scenario). The problem may be in the form of either a direct question or an incomplete statement.

WG-comment: We should be able to use both forms.

3.2.3.2. Specifications to write Multiple-choice Answer Text

(e) There should be good reasons for any false answer. For example, these may be frequent erroneous opinions, wrong concepts, outdated views, etc. There should at least be a clearly understandable relationship with the question subject matter. A justification for each false answer should be written.

WG comment: Explaining good reasons for any false answer seems to be a very important and not added value. It may also indicate that all 3 false answers are plausible answers which will be a more demanding (hard) process during the MCQ process compared to 2 plausible answers.

Shall we have 3 answers with 1 of those more correct than others or not?

The false alternatives should seem equally plausible to anyone ignorant of the subject. …… It is possible to ask candidates to weigh up various different shades of grey.

WG-comment: Delete last sentence.

3.2.4.4. Example 4: Each question assess a single written objective

Objective: Applicant knows the chief difference between production of lift of helicopters and airplanes.

WG-comment: There is a difference of point of view on the objective, WG would say “Applicant is able to describe the main differences between….”


Last printed of 44

3.2.4.6. Example 6: Incomplete Sentence

WG-comment: Wording of the question is weak: The seat of the pilot in command is in.. Answers c: and d: are examples of stupid answers.

3.2.4.8. Example 7: Optimization of answer text phrasing

WG-comment: If the correct answer would be “decrease” then it may interfere with “becomes zero” witch should be close to the same idea.

4.6. Labelling of Graphics

File name

All used graphic files shall be named distinctively and the names shall be explicite. The identification of the files (JPG, GIF, PNG, etc) shall not be changed. File names shall be built up as follows (example):


Last printed of 44

WG-comment: naming of graphics as stated is impracticable. Files are always reused for many modules or it can also be used for handbooks. A checklist is enough to make sure files comply with the regulation.

(c) Utilization advice All used graphics have to be clearly endorsed: „Only for examination purposes!“ A formatting with water-marks shall be avoided, since the readability might be affected.

WG-comment: endorsing of graphics for examination only is also impracticable for the above reasons.

4.8. Check list “Using diagrams”

WG-comment : delete item “Copy right conditions” as it is too involved

5 Qualification / Training

WG-comment: Delete Para 5 altogether. Requirements for authors are too detailed and it is already specified in any Part-147 MTO. Commonly QDB authors are certified examiners.

6 thru 11.5 Managing QDB :

WG-comment: These sections describe the authors examination software and should not become part of any published EASA standard. Existing, proven database software should be acceptable by EASA. EASA should also publish a list of approved software for managing EASA QDB. WG thinks it’s important to ensure that is there is a QDB manager external of the MTO, he will guaranty the heaviest security of the databank

3.) Question distribution

TG Question / Credit distribution for different Categories


Last printed of 44

Wenche Hardeland Murat Demirci Peter van Heijst Detlev Schwertmann

Murat Demirci presented samples of the question distribution for all Modules and Submodules for the various Cat A and B1 categories. It was agreed not to include the titles of the syllabus sub-modules at this stage in order to keep the system flexible. However, in the future they could be replaced with learning objectives once available.

It was agreed not to start on the B2 Modules until the ED for NPA 2007/007 is released.

The files are attached.

4.) Multiple choice questions - 3 versus 4 answers:

All comments from WG and EAMTC Members are strongly against the 4 answers and are focusing on two issues about this subject.

The extra burden on the Part 147 approved organisations which already have a QDB and would face additional costs again if they have to change the existing system.

The view of educational specialist who question the benefits of having 3 distractors instead of 2

Some typical comments on the subject:

XXX Technical Training is deeply concerned with EASA’s intention to implement 4 answer alternatives for the exam questions. This to harmonize with EU-OPS (JAR-OPS). I quote the text from EXPLANATORY NOTE to Decisions 2009/006/R, 2009/007/R and 2009/008/R: The reason for our concern is the fact that we have constantly since 2001 been modifying the questions in the database, this as consequence to the “rulemaking activities” pushed forward by JAA and EASA. XXX Technical history (I guess other organizations have similar experience) is as follows; ·

2001, switched to JAR-66 from our national regulations. At this time we reduced answer alternatives from 4 to 3.


Last printed of 44

2003, switched to Part-66, this time the questions had to be revised as the distribution of questions (in a subject) should be 50% L3, 25% L2, 25% L1.

2004, we are forced to split ATA 51-57 and 70-80 into each subject Min 2 questions are enforced for each subject. 2005, question level should be as level taught. All questions revised.

The burden, and cost, on the training organization to constantly follow the “rulemaking initiatives” is very high. If we should adjust the questions again to meet a requirement for 4 answer alternatives, to harmonize with EU-OPS, it’s not fair! The resources needed to add a fourth answer to a question database with 5-10.000 questions is in range 200.000 - 500.000 EURO!!!

XXX suggestion is that EMTC start lobbying to block this change. This could be done in several ways; EAMTC through Ian, write a letter to EASA explaining our position. Via Frank and SSCC. Via one of the members in EASA Advisory Board

With an additional answer it becomes more a matter of language than of knowledge. It is more likely to get one silly question than 4 plausible answers as stated in Part 66. If you have 1 silly answer you are back to 3 alternatives, so then what is the point? Also you might get two alternatives that are very like and then you are back to language, not knowledge and again 3 alternatives.

It is especially challenging with four alternatives for a level 3 question for categories B1 and B2. These questions are often very complex, for example when they are practical or system related such as in the modules 7, 11 (B1), 12 (B1.3, B1.49 and 13 (B2). The answer alternatives are often more complex with several elements in each answer. It is therefore more challenging and time consuming for the candidate to single out the correct one.

In Part-66, time is defined by MCQ and duration of examination is calculated from it. If EASA wants to change the present system to another with more alternatives, the time given to the trainee for reading, understanding and answering the MCQ should be changed accordingly. For the time being, EASA proposal will lead to an increasing of the level of difficulty for Part-66 examination. This is simply not acceptable.


Last printed of 44

b.) When this issue was first raised at the EASA meeting in Cologne we objected and were then requested to produce scientific studies in favour of 3 versus 4 answers.

Here are the results:

Study #1 from University of Connecticut and University of Hartfort:

What's Wrong with Three-Option Multiple Choice Items? Steven V. Owen Unversity of Connecticut Robin D. Froman University of Hartford

Despite evidence supporting 3-option items, text authors and practitioners continue to advocate the use of four or five options. We designed an experiment to test further the efficacy of 3-option achievement items. Parallel tests of 3- and 5-option items were built and distributed randomly to college students. Results showed no differences in mean item difficulty, mean discrimination, or total test score, but a substantial reduction in time spent on 3-option items. The straightforward implication is that content validity may be boosted by writing additional 3-option items to tap more content. And so to all the other articles as you may have read: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=related:ugwJsaq7NBYJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=no

Study # 2

More Evidence in Favor of Three-Option Multiple-Choice Tests R. Eric Landrum, Jeffrey R. Cashin, and Kristina S. Theis Educational and Psychological Measurement, Sep 1993; vol. 53: pp. 771 - 778.

Study # 3

How Many Options is Enough for a Multiple-Choice Test Item? Thomas M. Haladyna and Steven M. Downing Educational and Psychological Measurement, Dec 1993; vol. 53: pp. 999 - 1010.

Study # 4

Use of an Inclusive Option and the Optimal Number of Options for Multiple-Choice Items


Last printed of 44

Kevin D. Crehan, Thomas M. Haladyna, and Britton W. Brewer Educational and Psychological Measurement, Mar 1993; vol. 53: pp. 241 - 247.

Study # 5

Estimating the Optimum Number of Options Per Item Using an Incremental Option Paradigm Michael S. Trevisan, Gilbert Sax, and Willilam B. Michael Educational and Psychological Measurement, Mar 1994; vol. 54: pp. 86 - 91. ...demonstrated the efficacy of using three-option multiple-choice items.

Study # 6

An Empirical Comparison of Three-and Four-Choice Items and Tests: Susceptibility to Testwiseness and Internal Consistency Reliability W. Todd Rogers and Dwight Harley Educational and Psychological Measurement, Apr 1999; vol. 59: pp. 234 - 247. ...Comparison of Three-and Four-Choice Items and Tests: Susceptibility...knowledge-or-randomguessing assumption, three-option item tests are at least...is the finding that multiple-choice items may be susceptible...testwiseness is lessened when three-option items are used instead...

Study # 7

The Effects of the Number of Options per Item and Student Ability on Test Validity and Reliability Michael S. Trevisan, Gilbert Sax, and William B. Michael Educational and Psychological Measurement, Dec 1991; vol. 51: pp. 829 - 837.

Study # 8

Number-Right, Item-Response, and Finite-State Scoring: Robustness with Respect to Lack of Equally Classifiable Options and Item Option Independence W. Todd Rogers and Joyce Ndalichako Educational and Psychological Measurement, Feb 2000; vol. 60: pp. 5 - 19. ...Alternatively, given that the three-option multiple-choice items are at least equivalent to four-option multiple-choice items in terms of internal...connection) was lessened when three-option items were used instead of four-option...

All these studies can be downloaded online: http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?journal_set=spepm&andorexactfulltext=and&src=selected&fulltext=Three-Option+Multiple+Choice+&sendit=Go


Last printed of 44

5.) B2 Syllabus content suggestions

AEA Meeting in Cologne – May 17th 2009 De-brief from Trevor Hickinbotham Supervisor Technical Training. Cargolux Airlines International S.A.

The subject of the afternoon was only concerning Basic training module 13. This being in relation to the general aviation sector only. It was agreed by the group that there should be some sort of guidance and career for this sector of below 4700 Kg whether type training is required or not. Richard Peri, the AEA vice president of the association stated that at a previous meeting that the group had agreed that the end result should be the present B2 level. This he stated was the decision so that at the end of the progression stages the qualification will be the same as required for civil aviation. The group did not want to have a lesser or different qualification than that for civil aviation. On this point I can fully agree, but of course this is my opinion. Following this the meeting delegates were put into five different groups to discuss and give points on how this progression up to the final B2 could be achieved. Myself, Juan Anton and Frederic Knecht from EASA were given the opportunity to move between the groups to listen and comment together with them. After the break, Richard Peri did sort of a conclusion with all and each group gave their comments. It looks like the AEA will give a recommendation of a progression of sub modules of 13 to eventually land up with a full B2. The sub modules will be grouped such that a particular person may release part of the systems grouped. As example communication, electrical power, etc. This is not easy to put on paper, but I have tried my best. This recommendation will be issued end of June so it might be a good idea to contact Richard and possibly review with him your ideas and work done by the EAMTC Basic working group. Once again I can agree on their ideas and I have two additional comments to make. Firstly, there should not be any new licence category created such as a B3 or B4, this would be too complicated and defeats the objective of eventually reaching the B2 level but the B2 be divided into sub categories such as B2.1, B2.2 etc as is done for the B1. Secondly, as the B2 covers all power plants and helicopters that the sub categories of B2 be divided into systems, such as electrical power, com, nav, auto flight, etc. This would some what be moving towards the old UK CAA system, as it used to be as example Cat WX.1,WX.2 and W2.2, W2.3 . It is a long time ago so do not quote me on the specifics, but this is how I grew up in avionics. I did have the opportunity to discuss this briefly with Frederic Knecht from EASA and he made some notes on the old UK CAA system.


Last printed of 44

Well, I hope that this is of some help to you and that good things come of it. If you think that I can be of any additional help please do not hesitate to contact me and I will do my best. Best regards, Trevor.

As Richard Peri will be attending the Bordeaux meeting we will use this opportunity to exchange our views.

b.) WG Suggestion for the B2 syllabus

Submodule M7.4 Avionic General Test Equipment

Should be moved to M13 for 3 reasons:

It is the only submodule in M7 where the B1 is at a lower level than B2 – relevant for B1 to B2 credits. A B1 is not expected to use Avionic General Test Equipment A B2 learns all the basics of Avionics in M13 and only then can he understand what he needs the Test Equipment for.

6.) Logbook for basic and type training

Peter van Heijst Xavier Honoré TG members had a meeting beforehand to compare the requirements and reported that there are substantial differences between the NAA’s about which tasks are mandatory, and what is considered practical training. The idea is to stay as generic as possible and categorize the different tasks into task families i.e. servicing, removal installation, adjustment and rigging etc.

7.) Miscellaneous

Weighting of essay questions was raised during the discussion on the EASA QDB GM

GM 66.B.200 Examination by the competent authority

The purpose of the essay is to allow the competent authority to determine if


Last printed of 44

candidates can express themselves in a clear and concise manner in the form of a written response, in a technical report format using the technical language of the aviation industry. The essay examination also allows to assess, in part, the technical knowledge retained by the individual and with a practical application relevant to a maintenance scenario.

WG-comment:

We need a clearer definition of the 60-40 weighting, is it possible to pass without getting a 75% on the technical/key elements of the essay? There is a lot of confusion and different interpretations of this weighting. Some NAA’s say the candidate has to have 75% of the key elements while others say it is not necessary as long as the total score is 75% or more. That means that the candidate can pass with writing an excellent essay even if the key elements only make up for example 65%.

WG suggest to put more weight on writing abilities than keypoints for essays since the technical knowledge is already examined through the MCQ’s.

Next WG meeting: Fokker Services Stork had previously volunteered to hold the next meeting. Due to a pending move to a new facility Peter van Heijst requested us to postpone the Holland venue until his organization has settled in at the new place.

As it stands right now Detlef Schwertmann from Lufthansa Technical Training and Peter Lindberg of Nordiskt Flyg Teknic Ct. are checking with their organisations who can host the spring meeting of our WG.

End of report. 10.(Ref Work Group Meeting in Lulea/ Sweden February 25/26 2010 Meeting Minutes: Thursday 25.02.2010 8:30 Opening of the meeting by our Host. Presentation of NFTC Peter Lindberg

9:00 Presentation of EASA Workshop (NPA 007/2007), ED04/2009,

ED05/2009 Harald


Last printed of 44

EASA Workshop Oct 29th 2009 (JPA) – Type Training (review of P66 Appendix III) NPA 2007-07 (66/006 – 66.009 – 66.011) Total time of exam based on nbr of MCQ Average of 90 sec per MCQ At least 1MCQ per chapter Consistent with training hours Linked to LOs issued from TNA Nbr of tuition hours per day : 8 (6 ?), regular office hours For consistency, Agency wants to adopt the same to Basic Training OJT only in maintenance environment. Assessment is mandatory Minimum details required in the logbook Transition : 18 month after adoption. (expect end of 2010) Doc 9868 about training is methodology about training with interesting ideas about continuous evaluation process CRD 2007-07 B1/B2 privilege Specification about the privilege of B1 in avionics (go/no go only, no decision, no special training, no more than 10 actions to perform the test excluding those required to configure the aircraft) -> clarification about simple test and “electrical systems” and “avionic system” -> revised AMC&GM 66A20(a). Note Electro-Mechanical and pitot-static systems are considered privileges of B1 and B2 LRU removal limitation is changed into “work on avionic systems” No change for already existing B2 holders Extension of B2 privilege towards “A”. Not totally identical to A privilege (limitations). Additional task training + 6 month of experience in Part145. Privilege lost when leaving the company. Revised AMC about A privilege : Transfer IAW MEL if task is written in the MEL and no Troubleshooting required. New subject to train for A, B1 and B2 (Mod 5, 11a, 12 and 13) -> ATA 42, 44, 46. Revised nbr of MCQ to make them multiple of 4. Initially 2400h for B2 seemed too long if comparing B1/B2 syllabus but due to the extending of new B2 chapters (ATA 42 …) 2400h is now justified and maintained. Transition 18 months after publication except for basic courses approval requested after publication date. B3 License The need for a simpler licence for light aircraft leads the Agency to create the B3 licence. Presentation of B3 licence (limited to non pressurized aeroplane below 2T MTOW, 1000 training hours, …).

- Q raised by Tuna Akdemir: Is a B3 licence holder able to become a C licence holder as the B1 or B2 is?


Last printed of 44

- Q raised by Seppo: Can a student who succeeds in B1.2 modules apply for a B3?

- Harald to raise these questions with EASA (JPA) at EAMTC meeting L licence For airplane below 1T, sailplanes, powered sailplanes, balloons … 10:30 Proposal to compile WG QDB / Discussion / Vote from Murat Demirci

Murat / Harald /WG Comparison between syllabus shows that few notions are missing (i.e. air/ground sensors in 11b) Murat presents the conversion requirement from one licence category to another one. Murat presents LOs (Learning Objectives) in module 6 to show that it’s easy to create questions when the LOs are set.

- Several schools agree that LOs are important and useful. - Harald suggests that we perhaps don’t need to wait for EASA QDB as we can

work together through LOs system and QDB creation. - Michael explains that if we want to continue using our QDB we will be obliged to

comply with EASA QDB process (including publication?)

- Harald suggests working in the afternoon on the meaning of levels and, afterwards start to work on LOs.

- Harald suggests finalizing the credit/distribution document after all anounced changes to syllabus are incorporated and to present it to EASA later.

Murat presents automatic exam system. Its system is called aero exam.

11:15 Presentation / Discussion „Examination averages“ from Lex Noordsy Peter v.H.

Peter van Heijst presents results of examination per location (5 schools). Average result is 23% on 19326 examinations done. All the participants confirm that this result is similar to their own.

- Wenche and Harald mention that results can differ a lot according to the origin of the students. (military, skilled workers, vocational students, …)

- Tuna explains that the results are very low at the first attempt but is improving as the student is retested.

12:00 Lunch Hosted by NFTC


Last printed of 44

12.45 Bus trip to Swedish Air force base, F21 Norrbotten Wing, for a visit in workshops and hangars and information about the JAS 39 Griffon (Gripen) system.

15:25 Elinor Bäckström-Larsson (teacher in aviation English and HF)

Presentation of NFTC’s Human Factors Training 15:30 Formation of 2 task groups

1. Question / credit distribution group. Murat,Tuna, Wenche, Peter L, Jan, Emile, Seppo, Harald

2.) Logbook group Peter v H, Juhani, Viggo, Bjarne,Olli,

Michael 17:00 Résumé of the task group sessions / discussion

Group leaders / WG 1.) QDB’s/LO’s:

a. Harald will update his former JAR66 syllabus to the latest EASA requirements including new / proposed subchapters and send it to the group members to enter the LO’s.

b. The group defined and clarified the meaning of level 1, 2 and 3 in respect to the LO’s.

Learning Objectives Basic Training

Level descriptions:

Level 1: Must be able to: name, list, state by using common words, typical terms and perform simple calculations

Level 2: Must be able to: describe theoretical and practical aspects of a

subject, perform calculations using formulae, decode logic symbols. Read and understand sketches, drawings and schematics . Describe and demonstrate understanding of functions, tasks and procedures. Understand and extract information from tables.


Last printed of 44

Level 3: Demonstrate: detailed knowledge of the theoretical and practical aspects of the subject. Being able to combine and apply the separate elements of knowledge in a logical and comprehensive manner. Know the subject and the interrelation to other subjects, how one system relates and influences on another. Can give: detailed, theoretical descriptions and examplifications of a subject. Can: understand and use mathematical formulae in practice. Read, understand and prepare sketches, simple drawings and schematics describing the subject.

c. The group agreed a list of persons responsible for generating LO’s for dedicated Part 66 modules. The deadline is the next meeting.

d. The JAR-FCL LOs should be used as reference when generating the LO’s:

http://www.jaa.nl/licensing/jar-fcl_objectives.html 2.) Logbook:

a. At the next meeting the group will present a draft version of the logbook. b. Peter will send his logbook to the group members. c. Each member will comment and propose a way to list the “mandatory” tasks.

18:00 End of day 1 19:30 Dinner hosted by NFTC … with special effects! Friday 26.02.2010 Group expresses gratitude to our hosts for this well organized meeting. 09:00 Conclusions of day 1, establishment of next targets,

Tasks for the EAMTC meeting in Toulouse Harald / WG - Presentation of the results/decisions from this meeting - Presentation of questions from this meeting

What is new? (Harald)

- Reminder there will be an EASA meeting in Köln on March 16th.

- IATA document: New training concept for Licensed Personnel in Aircraft Maintenance. This document proposes to set training and/or experience duration from a competencies assessment rather than on fixed rules.

- Next EAMTC GA will take place March 23rd / 24th hosted by Airbus in Toulouse


Last printed of 44

Open discussion:

- Peter Van Heijst suggests we can try to get EC funds to support our tasks and meetings and will start to enquire.

- Peter says that we have to look for a kind of decision rule to avoid changing our

mind each time a new member joins us. - Harald replies this hasn’t been the case yet, we have made some adjustments in

line with regulation changes.

- Peter VH and Wenche suggest to find a way to communicate “in” the group and “out” of the group. “In” to share our task progress and “out” to communicate towards other basic schools and to inform them about our tasks results. It may also allow us to be considered as a group representing a large variety of EU schools.

- Group members agree. - A dedicated webpage on EAMTC website or specific website should be the way. - Harald will check if it’s possible to do it on the Link & Learn website. - Michael will check for a dedicated blog and forum with restricted areas.

9:40 World Skill International by Seppo Huittinen - 50 countries in 50 different skill. - Aircraft maintenance 1st time in Calgary in 2009. - Modular competition, 4 days, 7 tasks - Modules : Flight control rigging on a simulator – gas turbine boroscope inspection –

compressor blade blending (defect evaluation) – sheet metal work (bending, drilling, riveting) – Starter Generator removal/insp/install – Weight and balance calculation – Daily inspection on Cessna 172.

- 2 rules: Age (<25) and must not have a licence.

- Next one in 2011 in London.

- There will be new modules in London in 2011.

- Euroskills will also be organized in Lisbon in 2010 10:10 Next WG meeting venue, suggestions for agenda.

- The next meeting will be organized in Tampere, Finland. September 2/3 2010 March.


Last printed of 44

11.(Ref Work Group Meeting in Tampere/ Finland September 02/03 2010

Meeting minutes Attendees:

September 2nd 2010 1. Opening and welcome by our Host Mr. Teppo Tapani, Director of

Vocational Education and Training, Tampere College, Finland

2. Review of the WG issues by Harald Strehling :

EASA QDB – Learning objectives – Results today and Logbook – Final draft


Last printed of 44

a. LO’s present completion status:

Module Responsible

Status 02.09.10

1 Harald 100%2 Harald 100%3 Seppo 100%4 Seppo 100%5 Jan 60%6 Murat 0%7 Peter 100%8 Seppo 100%9 Elinor 100%10 Wenche 100%

11a Murat 10%11b Michael (when11a is ready) 0%12 Ronald /Helo Subs 0%13 Juhani 100%14 Peter 0%15 Peter 100%16 Harald 0%17 Ronald 100%

From the feedback of the group the following points where raised and discussed: - We need to find common vocabulary. - Shall we have one main definition for each level (1 -know – 2-apply –3-

analyze)? - Agree on degree of detail in each module and sub-module/level - How detailed do we define practical tasks? - The suggested LO’s for each module should be distributed to others for

reading and commenting. Shall we select who is reading what?

As a result the following actions were suggested: Vocabulary for Learning Objectives for different levels:

Level 1 - know - familiar with - give simple description - use typical terms - name - list - simple calculations


Last printed of 44

- become aware of Level 2

- apply (his knowledge) - explain - demonstrate - understand - describe (general) - define - perform - use formulae, handbooks

Level 3 - analyze - clarify - describe (detailed) - perform troubleshooting - knows about interrelationships - demonstrate knowledge - combine and apply separate elements of knowledge - detailed description - practical use of formulae - test - interpret

Level of detail

The description should be detailed enough to identify the LO properly and at the correct level but not to the point of restricting the user to specific systems, equipment, procedures or tooling. Module LO ownership and subsequent reviews

WG agreed that each module responsible reviews his LO’s in view of the vocabulary used and level of detail until November 2010 and then passes it on to the person selected for the first review. Some modules were re-asigned. Thorsten has to clarify if LTT can take on the re-assigned modules.

Module Responsible

Status 02.09.10 1st Review

Status/ Spring 2011

2nd Review

Status / Fall 2011

1 Harald 100% Peter Seppo 2 Harald 100% Peter Seppo 3 Seppo 100% Harald 4 Seppo 100% Harald 5 Jan 60% Peter 6 Murat / Peter 0%


Last printed of 44

7 Peter 100% Juhani 8 Seppo 100% Jan 9 Elinor 100% Hannu

10 Wenche 100% Olli Thorsten 11a Murat / Thorsten ? 10% 11b Michael (when11a is

ready) 0% 12 Ronald /Helo Subs 0% 13 Juhani 100% Peter 14 Peter / Thorsten ? 0% 15 Peter 100% Thorsten 16 Harald 0% Seppo 17 Ronald 100% Peter

3. National Interpretations of the law and regulations

Mr Kari Siitonen of LAPPLAND VOCATIONAL COLLEGE presented his experiences with the NAA in respect of training acceptance of non-Part 147 approved organisations by the finish CAA and the dispute about what the actual maintenance environment requires, Part 145 or can it be 147 organisation. Does “operational aircraft” mean airworthy? – See also next presentation... 4. Practical training in the Part 147 organisation versus in the Part 145 organisation

Mr. Juhani Anttila of Tampere College raised in his presentation the question if the practical training in an actual maintenance environment requires the involvement a Part 145 organisation. The following discussion between the WG members concluded that by adoption of Part 145 procedures and documentation a Part 147 organisation with acces to operational (not airworthy) aircraft can also create the actual maintenance environment for practical training. 5. Basic practical assessment

Mr. Olli Mankimäki of SAVVO presentet the WG with the question of required numbers of practical assessments during basic training. The regulation state that an practical assessment should be carried out at the completion of each visit period to the workshops / facility. The results ranged from 4 to 120 based on the number and duration of the practical training visits in the organisations. 6. Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Logbook

Peter van Heijst presented the completed draft document to the WG. All WG members had the possibility to comment on format and content already before the meeting. Few such comments were received and were already incorporated in the document presented by Peter. As the document was presented page by page some minor changes were made and all references to existing “soft rules” such as AMC’s and GM’s removed in order to prolong the currency of the document for years to come. In order to allow the adding of pages WG agreed on a loose paper version rather than having a bound book. Finally WG agreed that


Last printed of 44

this version with the changes discussed should be presented to the EAMTC at the October meeting in Lucerne, Switzerland. September 3rd 2010 7. Basic Training and Industry Perception

Hannu Kokkonen presented the existing views of the industry regarding the standards of the trainees who complete basic training and move on to the type training. He called for a better co-operation between authorities, training organisations and the industry. As a tool for improvement of the trainee skills he promoted the Euroskills competition. 8. Open Discussion

Once again the different interpretations of the rules by the authorities in the different skandinavian countries became a topic. Thorsten suggested to organize a meeting between all 147 organisations of one country with their authority to discuss these problems between all parties involved since a similar meeting resolved some of the problems in Germany. 9. Next WG Meeting – Suggestions for the Agenda

Peter van Heijst offered to host the next WG meeting in Hoogerheide in the Netherlands next spring. The date for the meeting will be traditionally abou 4 weeks prior to the EAMTC meeting. Following the EAMTC meeting on October 5.-6. 2010 the next WG meeting date will be announced. Main Agenda for the next meeting will be the LO’s completion and review. 10. Closing of the meeting

Mrs. Helena Koskinen of Tampere College provided the closing remarks Finally, all WG attendants would like to thank Tampere College for their hospitality and the excellent organisation of the meeting.


Last printed of 44

6 ACTION LISTS

6.1 Group Action Rules

All Working Group Members

Comments (positive or negative) on meeting products (reports) to team leads within 7 days

Confirmation of attendance to next meeting ASAP Web site EAMTC President to post minutes to the web site Recorder (Note Taker)

Issues minutes within 7 days to Working Group and EAMTC President

Working Group President

Incorporate meeting highlights, updates Master Document and advises EAMTC President to post minutes to web site

Advise next meeting agenda and date to all within 14 days prior to planned date


Last printed of 44

7 MEETING SCHEDULE

7.1 Overview 2009 1. Meeting with EASA Feb 27, Cologne, Germany 2. WG meeting March 31, April 1 , Istanbul, Turkey 3. WG meeting Sep 17/18, Innsbruck, Austria

7.2 Overview 2010 4. WG meeting Feb 27/28, Lulea, Sweden 5. WG meeting Sep 2/3 Tampere, Finland


Last printed of 44

8 TASK GROUPS WITHIN THE WG: M4/M5/M11/M13 Syllabus content suggestions: - closed/delivered to EASA for

existing appendix I 1. TEC & LTT – Persons TBA 2. AEA / WG communication Harald Strehling

Question / Credit distribution for different Categories – in progress/delivered for

existing appendix I but pending for new B3 category 1. Wenche Hardeland 2. Murat Demirci 3. Peter van Heijst 4. Detlev Schwertmann

Study in favour of 3 versus 4 MCQ answers – closed/ delivered to EASA

1. All: WG / EAMTC 2. Follow up on existing specialist contacts: Harald Strehling

Logbook for basic and type training – closed/ delivered to EAMTC / EASA 1. Peter van Heijst 2. Xavier Honoré

Learning Objectives for all modules - in progress

Module no Responsible1 Harald 2 Harald 3 Seppo 4 Seppo 5 Lulea 6 Murat 7 Stork 8 Seppo 9 Elinor 10 Wenche

11a Murat 11b Michael (when 11a is ready) 12 Bodo 13 Johani 14 Stork 15 Stork 16 Harald 17 Ronald

EAMTC QDB Working Group MasterDocumentR4€¦ · EAMTC WORKING GROUP MASTER DOCUMENT Last printed...

Documents

Transcript of EAMTC QDB Working Group MasterDocumentR4€¦ · EAMTC WORKING GROUP MASTER DOCUMENT Last printed...