Military To Civil Licences - Don't Delay!!

[BEagle]

Word I have from a highly reputable source is that one of the corollaries of Incapability Brown signing us over to Europe and the mercies of people in Brussels and Cologne is that:

Under EASA, current UK miltary accreditation is virtually certain to end.

This was originally brought in under JAR-FCL as a recruiting and retention measure. Join the Mil., do your time and you can get an (almost) free licence depending on your aircraft type.

But with the likelihood of this going under faceless €urocracy, the message for anyone thinking about doing their licence conversion is not to wait and see what the future may hold. DO IT NOW!!

I don't know who is looking into the future of military/civil conversion in the RAF - I suspect nobody.

Or maybe in the future, EFT+BFT+AFT=CPL/IR?

I cannot see any reason (apart from cost) why it shouldn't. If the will is there, of course.

[Alex Whittingham]

Thanks BEagle, there's a thread on Wannabees that includes dates etc. Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=315677)

[FFP]

I assume that those who have their ATPL through any sort of accrediation are protected / in the clear when it comes to renewing it ?

When I say "assume" I really mean "I pray".....;)

[BEagle]

All CAA-issued JAR-FCL CPLs/ATPLs are supposed to be acceptable under EASA. But don't let it lapse or all bets are off!

[abbotyobs]

The problem with mil accreditation schemes are that the various JAR states use different rules, some have accreditation, some do not and they are all at differing levels.
So unless there is a joint consensus under EASA it looks like we lose mil accreditation after Apr 09, which would be and is a nightmare!
Oh dear.

[LFFC]

Well I suppose we should standby for a recruiting blitz by the airlines as they compete for the last few RAF pilots who manage to get their licences before the present system folds in about a year.

Anyone want to bet that the MOD comes up with some new-fangled pilot retention scheme in about a year - just as the stable door is slammed shut?

[Ivan Rogov]

Will this encourage/force UK military pilots to remain in their Services for longer and go some way to improving retention and return on investment?

[PPRuNe Radar]

Or maybe in the future, EFT+BFT+AFT=CPL/IR?

That would make sense, provided the mil guys are taught the civil Air Law and RT Phraseology stuff :ok: Then it would get my 110% support.

Busy air lanes ain't the place for 'top gun' RT and lack of knowledge of what's expected of you in a civil environment.

[StopStart]

No, it'll just mean a surge of people volunteering to go hours-building on det, a rush of idle people (like me) to do their Air Law and lot more money for all those groundschool places....

:hmm:

[Lima Juliet]

I guess Pilots will now have to join Navs and Flight Engineers at Oxford or Cabair in the futrure:{

Still the Navs and Flight Engs used to get exemptions from the CAA until the Pilots "hanged them out to dry" when JAR was introduced and the current JAR exemptions were agreed by a bunch of GD/Ps back in 2000. I bet those that we're let down are laughing they're c@cks off now!

I guess the only loophole available in the future would be to get a FAA, Aus or NZ ATPL (the latter who still recognise nav's and flight eng's quals and part hours) and then convert it to EASA?

I guess for now the ECDL clerk, Bristol or OAT groundschool and the IREs are going to be busy over the next year then...:E

LJ

[BEagle]

Leon, rather a whingeing post.....

Under JAR-FCL, the only credit the CAA was permitted to grant was for pilot experience. In fact, at the time there wasn't even JAR-FCL recognition of Flight Engineers - and JAR-FCL still doesn't know what a navigator or air loadmaster is.

However, this is not true for national licences. So at least I was able to secure some credit towards the NPPL for navigators and flight engineers. Not much, but better than nothing.

It was also assumed that accreditation towards equivalent civil qualifications for experience gained in military service would be sought by other areas of the military (e.g. Air Traffic Controllers) who could benefit substantially. But as far as I'm aware, only the 'GD/P's to whom you refer have actually put pen to paper....

[Brain Potter]

Beags,

Were you involved in negiotiation of the whole accreditation package - or just the NPPL aspects?

It would be mildly interesting to know if the retention effect has ever been quantified - I bet it hasn't.

Seven or eight years (ie 2-3 cycles of staff officer tours) down the line, it is likely that the original concept of encouraging people to stay in the service to 2000-ish hours has been forgotten. It would be very easy to see a simplistic decision being made to not "waste" any staffing effort to defend a system that allows pilots to leave more easily. In fact, a cynic might even suggest that a career-minded personnel "manager" might even advocate dropping the scheme as new retention measure!

Of course, the flaw in the latter argument is that the effect of removing the accreditation scheme will be to encourage pilots to get on with the ATPL exams at an early stage of their career - as there is no benefit in delaying the inevitable. That process puts youngsters into direct contact with the route to an airline job and many of them quickly see the benfit of jumping ship as soon as they can.

PPrune Radar - I agree about Air Law and RT. But it would be much less of a problem if the military dropped the practices that are unnecessarily different.

[BEagle]

BP, originally I wrote a letter on the subject of accreditation which was pushed up the line. Apart from a stuffy response from some Wg Cdr staff officer about 'normal staffing processes' (which of course I ignored), little further happened until I was able to raise the issue again following something Blair had said in the House about due recognition for military training, this time with the backing of the Stn Cdr.

When not much action was forthcoming, I raised the issue at one of Sir John Allison's meetings at Waddo; I received a written reply from Sir John and thereafter things moved rather more quickly with the setting up of the MoD/CAA working group. I saw a letter from 'The Scottish Officer' stating that he expected positive results from the WG...

I gave some JAR-FCL advice to a couple of folk, but the MoD/CAA WG deserve all the credit for the associated leg work needed to get the accreditation scheme finally approved.

The NPPL side was entirely my own work though.

[Brain Potter]

Well thanks anyway :)

Without this scheme will the ability to do National Ratings (IRT and skills test) on military ac that are not on the civil register also disappear - ie VC10, C-130J, Nimrod?

[Prop-Ed]

If anyone has had experience changing a US CPL/IR or an Aussie CPL/IR to JAR/UK one, please let me know how easy/painful the process was.

Please feel free to PM me, or let me know if you would mind getting one from me.


God, I wish I'd pulled my finger out sooner.........:{

[BEagle]

BP, sorry - I don't know.

I've already written to the CAA to ask what measures will be taken to retain military accreditation - and whether there will be a transition period whilst EASA sorts itself out.

Prop Ed - see LASORS D1.5, E1.2 p4 and G1.5. But please don't shoot the messenger!

[Lima Juliet]

Beags

Leon, rather a whingeing post.....

Not the intention. I seem to remember that back in the good old days pre-JAR (ie. CAA) that FEs and Navs could count half of their flying hours upto a maximum of 500hrs total. Also Nimrod Nav Captains could count Command hours as well...

I totally agree that there should be recognition of all skills and trades, unfortunately, I don't believe that this would be in the Service's best interest with regards to retention - MoD "Investors In People"! :{

LJ

[Alex Whittingham]

I'm afraid the situation is more confused today than it was yesterday. The information from one of the two UK representatives on the EASA Flight Crew Licensing Committee, who does not work for the CAA, was that there is no provision in the document which will be released in mid-April for any form of military exemption - he was absolutely certain about it. The CAA policy department, however, are relying on an earlier document which allows for military exemptions but acknowledge that, even if this still applies, they may need approval from EASA first. It is possible/probable that any permissions granted to the UK CAA will have to be available across all EASA states and, because of that, they may not be granted. See abbotyob's post above

All agree that there are provisions for transitional arrangements for training already in progress by April 09 but don't know what those will be or how they may be applied. Probably the best thing would be to hang on until the NPA document is officially released for consultation. If it turns out that the news is bad a year is more than enough time for a military pilot that meets the bridging requirements to get a license issued.

Interestingly the CAA say that they would consider any new representations from the MOD working group including the possibility of lowering the hours limits for military exemptions. It looks like, in the short term, the ball is in MOD's court.

[Prop-Ed]

Thanks Beags,

Still trying to compute the info in the documents but a great steer all the same.

As the fountain of knowledge I would appreciate your informed opinion on a few things.

Will LASORS be defunked under the new EASA system? i.e., will we be completely starting from scratch in terms of current rights and reg's?

How do the Germans gain their civilian Qual's through military training? IIRC all German Mil' pilots must hold civi licenses. i.e. are they taught by civilians or is it a military accreditation scheme? A potential model for us?

Is the BA link up scheme still in existence? A mate on the squadron has mentioned it a few times but seems very sketchy on the details and I haven't heard anyone else mention it in a long time.

Lastly, if it all goes to pot, can you put my name down to be an A400M driver please?:ok:

[BEagle]

Will LASORS be defunked under the new EASA system? i.e., will we be completely starting from scratch in terms of current rights and reg's?

As far as I’m aware, LASORS will still be published. See AW’s post above regarding the current uncertainty over military accreditation.

How do the Germans gain their civilian Qual's through military training? IIRC all German Mil' pilots must hold civi licenses. i.e. are they taught by civilians or is it a military accreditation scheme? A potential model for us?

I gather that the Luftwaffe accreditation system is similar to ours, but I don’t think they have the same 2000TT requirement. It is probably a good model for the UK to look at though.

Is the BA link up scheme still in existence? A mate on the squadron has mentioned it a few times but seems very sketchy on the details and I haven't heard anyone else mention it in a long time.


I don’t know – 5 years now since I pulled my B&Y. Perhaps whatever-silly-name-the-Education section-now-has might know?

Lastly, if it all goes to pot, can you put my name down to be an A400M driver please?

Would that I could – I think that it’s going to be an excellent aeroplane!

[Brain Potter]

I don't know about the BA Link-Up, but the RAFCARS scheme is still running - owned by the Pilot desk Wg Cdr. I had 3 requests for my CV from it and responded to 2 - both of which brought offers.

I also heard that Easy-jet were looking at RAFCARS as a way of picking up suitable mil pilots. It's surpising that Net Jets haven't cottoned on, as it would be cheaper for them than setting up roadshows near RAF Stations.

The message is clear - get your Air Law and IRTs done as soon as you can. I think that the CAA sometimes allow the IRT to be done first if you have a good reason.

[gashman]

As a spot of info, the RDAF has secured training for its pilots to complete ATPLs on the grounds that to fly in the European airways structure, aircrew should be trained to deal with the environment. That means civilian quals by the Danish interpretation, regardless of the type of ac you fly.

If we are all going to be working under the same European rules, perhaps there should be a blanket agreement for airforces flying in European airspace wrt minimum quals for aircrew?

[Farfrompuken]

BEags,

I must thank you; you have given me the kick up the ar$e I needed.

One Mil Bridging package apllied for:E

[BEagle]

The position is, as Alex has said, still rather unclear.

I received the following from the CAA yesterday:

"The requirements for credit for military service are in the draft covering regulation on pilot licensing, not Part FCL which is Annex 1 to that document. It requires the national authority to decide what credit will be given, and furnish a report to EASA. We do not anticipate any change to our current arrangements."

[talking horse]

BP,

Netjets have cottoned on to RAFCARS. They contacted me after getting my details through it.

When I left (about 3 years ago) the Training and Development Centre had no idea about RAFCARS, but I was able to find the relevant GAI. Unfortunately, whoever at Innsworth had the job of entering my details into the database seemed to have little idea what they were writing about, and mashed my 'CV' a bit.

Nevertheless, I did get a response.

TH

P.S. Linkup still existed then too. It got me an selection day at BA, but not a job offer!

[Valerijs]

All information which was posted here by me is true!But I can not show it more!

[Rigga]

Dear All,
A few years ago (Approx 2003) all CAA Engineering Licences went over to EASA legislation too - and all UK military experience for maintenance was discounted as "unsuitable" for use in the great greener fields. (the fact that other countries pre-empted the EASA rules and qualified their military engineers - and particularly Swiss tractor mechanics - is another story...)

Today, there is a dire shortage of engineers, technicians and mechanics throughout the EASA regions - and EASA is thinking of reinstating military experience again!?

What goes around, comes around.

The rumour at the time was that Tony couldn't afford too many RAF types to get better paid jobs - looks like the same story is being passed around again but with the names changed.

Welcome to the wonderfully weird world of EASA!

And don't forget the basic rules:
- the British only get one vote in twenty-four, and
- the easiest compromise wins.

[Valerijs]

to Alex Whittingha
-----------------------------------------
I am often looking into this thread!:ok::ugh: