Airtanker reservist pilots

[Whippersnapper]

I am wondering what the general feeling is from RAF aircrew towards the Airtanker plan of having a mix of serving military aircrew and civilian reservists alongside.

I was previously (and relatively briefly) the holder of a "proper" commission, but have worked in the airlines for the last decade. While I don't like the principle of the Armed Forces being reliant on contractors and PFIs, and believe that the budget (and its distribution) should allow the three Services to be able to conduct their operations without external civilian support of this nature, it does interest me as I think it could be a far more satisfying job than taking drunk benefits claimants on holiday.

I have no idea what the remuneration packages would be as Airtanker haven't published any indications, but if they want to attract experienced jet airliner pilots, it'll be quite different from what the RAF crews are on, which I suspect would be a major source of friction. I also wonder about the impression that people like me would be encouraging more cuts and mis-spending of the budget, undermining the RAF from within, and that as a reservist on a "plastic" commission (despite having previously held a real one), could be considered as an outsider with nothing useful to contribute.

Does anyone have a view?

[BEagle]

What type of previous military service did you have?

If an 'experienced jet airliner pilot' turned out to be from some bottom-feeding loco airline then, unless he/she held already held an A330 Type Rating, I can't see him/her being greatly welcomed.

For example, most 'proper' airlines won't even look at a CV which includes the word 'Ryanair' - it's the kiss of death....'If you lie down with the Devil, you will wake up in hell'. Perhaps AirTanker are equally prescient? I don't know.

Certainly when this was discussed many years ago, the opinion amongst tanker aircrew at the time was that the simple A-to-B trash-hauling requirements might be no problem for some civvy pilot.

AAR operations, however, would be a totally different matter.

[Trim Stab]

You've asked a question that I too have been pondering for a while!

I'm a former army officer (and UAS pilot), who seriously got the flying bug only after I had passed the maximum age for aircrew in any of the services, so left the regular army for the TA and then qualified as a civ pilot. I'm hoping to join Air Tanker - but like you I wonder whether there is really any possibility for non QSPs like myself. Even if I were able to join, would QSPs just sneer (which most do at civ pilots) or would I just be regarded as an equal (which my army peers regard me, despite my now TA status)? Incidentally, I am not the slightested bit interested in how the pay compares to the airlines - I want to do it for the right reasons.

I guess the only way to find out is by applying - but interested too to canvass views here.

Beags - why would AAR be a problem for a civ pilot? I bow to your superior knowledge - but is it really that difficult to learn?

[BEagle]

Basically, because most civil pilots have never been subjected to the rigorous aptitude testing essential for military flying. How would anyone know whether a plain vanilla civvy had the additional levels of capacity required for effective formation management and the frequent in-flight mission re-planning demands essential in the AAR environment?

Many ex-truckies found AAR quite difficult to start with - and they were all experienced military aircrew who had demonstrated the required aptitude before being selected. And at least they knew how to l00kout of the flight deck windows when turning in close formation!

Of course there are many very capable civilian pilots. But someone whose has never been 'selected' and who has just self-funded their right hand seat postion with a LoCo could well be a considerable risk.

In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr.

[Scruffy Fanny]

As you have asked the question ...can i ask what your previous experience is..? you seem to hold civi pilots in low regard?

[BEagle]

Why? It's a fact that aptitude testing is rare these days in any airline. Virtually no airline selects using the same criteria as are required for military pilots - that is a well-known fact.

Opinion amongst my very senior ex-airline colleagues is the same. Different horses for different courses.

[STANDTO]

SF lights blue touch paper............

from what little I know of Beags, he is more than qualified to comment

[Trojan1981]

Basically, because most civil pilots have never been subjected to the rigorous aptitude testing essential for military flying. How would anyone know whether a plain vanilla civvy had the additional levels of capacity required for effective formation management and the frequent in-flight mission re-planning demands essential in the AAR environment?

Many ex-truckies found AAR quite difficult to start with - and they were all experienced military aircrew who had demonstrated the required aptitude before being selected. And at least they knew how to l00kout of the flight deck windows when turning in close formation!

Of course there are many very capable civilian pilots. But someone whose has never been 'selected' and who has just self-funded their right hand seat postion with a LoCo could well be a considerable risk.

In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr.

Seriously Beagle....It is just tanking. Plenty of pilots undertake military aptitude testing and then opt for the airlines, and for those that haven't, a short and simple flight screening process would determine those likely to perform in the role (I passed, so it is not that demanding!).
Omega don't require ex-mil pilots and they do a fine job. In Australia we have civilian contracted aircraft providing tanker support (no choice), parachute training/display support, aircrew training (Yes, civilian instructors!) and admin transport to areas of operation (and tactical in the past!).
There are civilian pilots out there who are as good or better than the majority of military pilots; who are formation rated, aerobatic rated down to the ground, posess helicopter and fixed wing licences and fly airliners, freighters or air ambulances for a living.
Just put the applicants through aptitude testing and flight screening before posting them to a squadron, simple.:ok:

[MATELO]

it does interest me as I think it could be a far more satisfying job than taking drunk benefits claimants on holiday.


If this is the case...... then why the...

previously (and relatively briefly) the holder of a "proper" commission.

[c130jbloke]

Tanking is not difficult-it is another aviation evolution that one deals with. It is not a master art-otherwise it would be given to guys other than VC10 drivers......

Ding, ding ! Seconds out round 2 :uhoh:

And in fairness to Beags, IMHO he is well qualified to have an infiormed opinion on the subject.

[Trim Stab]

In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr.


Agreed they would have the right skills and experience - but would RAF aircrew necessarily want to leave the RAF, obtain civilian licences, then effectively rejoin?

[Mr C Hinecap]

That's like asking the pope what his experience he has in the Catholic church.

Are you saying you think BEagle has been responsible for the corruption of thousands of minors over many years and implicit in the cover up of rogue terrorist priests some 38 years ago???? I think we should be told!

[TyroPicard]

Aptitude testing .. ISTR the pass-mark was 65% .. hardly two-winged master-race stuff..

[Scruffy Fanny]

Sorry which book is that?

[Pontius Navigator]

Tyro, you are near enough correct. Remember though that is days of yore maks over 90% were practically impossible. A typical superb score might be 80%. It is only in today's grade inflated exam results that we are used to regarding as mediocre anything less than 90%.

The BM university exams are marked out of 100 and traditionally a mark over 80 is never awarded as an undergraduate is never that good.

Once in the training system however an exam pass of 60%, while a pass, actually shows that you didn'y get 40% of the questions correct.

So taking today's youth and telling them that the pass mark is 65% doesn't tell them the truth as they see it.

[A2QFI]

Trimstab - They might, they would have the full salary for the job and their pension as well. I met a pilot the other day who had retired with a full Grp Capt pension and then did 5 more years as a Flt Lt reservist, on full salary, flying Tonkas. Nice deal if you can get it!

[BEagle]

With less emphasis on basic stick and rudder skills these days, the focus is now more on 'spare capacity' than in the days of yore. Sure, basic military pilot aptitude is assessed at OASC, but it is only with progress through the system that an individual's spare capacity can be fairly assessed.

As far as I'm aware, the crew operating concept for the FSTA hasn't yet been finally established. The basic A330 normally spends its life in protected airspace under positive radar control on a flight plan which rarely includes significant changes en-route. The odd 'direct' or minor re-route for sure, but rarely complete mission changes. The routine Airbus workload has been optimised for PF/PNF duties in such controlled circumstances and most pilots can cope with it pretty easily.

But if you now add additional tasks necessary for AAR, particularly if, by virtue of non-optimal flight deck design, those include tasks which would be better allocated to the mission specialist, the need for additional mental capacity and flexibility for the safe management of large formations in unprotected airspace becomes significant.

In particular, it's no longer a question of simply doing what you were told pre-flight. As a wise old Victor person once said "The only thing certain in the AAR game is the time you came to work".

And yes, I have 'written a book'. More than one in fact. But nothing which you could buy in a shop - they were military AAR manuals.

The RAF has a good reputation for the standard of its AAR force. The aim being to offer the most flexible and efficient service possible to receivers, but without fuss or drama. I sincerely hope that such standards will not be eroded in the forthcoming PFI era.

[MrBernoulli]

Agreed they would have the right skills and experience - but would RAF aircrew necessarily want to leave the RAF, obtain civilian licences, then effectively rejoin?Trim Stab, that is pretty much what has happened to some folk over the last couple of years. I know of chaps who left the RAF in the fairly recent past, joined airlines, have been made redundant some time shortly thereafter, and one or two of those have ended up back in the RAF.

The job market in civvie-street is not exactly 'inviting' at the moment, due to the global recession. Some folk may be coming up to the end of their commission engagements, will not have an opportunity to be assimilated past their engagement (think of the savings the MoD are being asked to make), but such people may be attracted to the AAR contract because of their experience ..... and they may be able to get employment as such. Because of their experience, they are likely to be relatively cheap to 'train'/re-employ in the role. With the dearth of other aviation jobs going, I would say they might consider that a fortunate opportunity, don't you think?

Beags, well said! (Was wondering when you would come back in on this thread - SF is obviously ****e-stirring. :ok:)

[Tourist]

Stepping aside for a moment from the comedy willy-waving.
I have a question which I am sure has been debated before somewhere but I have never seen.
Does the Airbus intend to be able to AAR from others as well as AAR to others, and if so will the Airbus sidestick control system make this tricky?

[Trim Stab]

Mr B - you're probably correct. I'm just wistfully weighing up my own chances of getting into ATr. I guess very low, given likely competition from ex-RAF tanker pilots, and my own experience only on civilian light jets.

It'll be interesting to see how they pitch the Ts and Cs. Although the general civ market is abysmal at the moment, there is ironically a shortage of A330 pilots, and so pay for A330 drivers is as good as it gets. I suspect that they will not need to match those rates though.

Tourist:

Does the Airbus intend to be able to AAR from others as well as AAR to others, and if so will the Airbus sidestick control system make this tricky?


No - the option to receive was deleted. I believe the RAAF A330 did keep this option though. Beags will be along to reveal all in far more detail I am sure.

[MrBernoulli]

Tourist, I have been out of the AAR game, and the RAF, for a handful of years now, but I don't believe that the RAF Airbus tanker will be capable of onloading fuel from another tanker.

[Wander00]

Puts paid to Black Buck type missions then.

[Squirrel 41]

Mr B,

I don't believe that the RAF Airbus tanker will be capable of onloading fuel from another tanker.

Indeed it won't - and in this sense it's a backwards step.

More interestingly, buying the whole PFI nonsense contract out should be on the table for the SDSR on the basis that FSTA PFI is cr*p value for money, and that we should buy the bl**dy jets.

If this (entirely sensible) decision is made, then the reservist crew issues could go away in a hurry.

S41

[grandfer]

What's the betting that in a couple of years time they'll be scurrying around the museums robbing IFR probes from grounded Nimrods for the new tanker fleet !
:hmm::mad:

[MrBernoulli]

Squirrel 41,

As sensible as it might be to actually buy the jets, it just ain't going to happen. Until the stupid system* by which the Treasury runs the country's finances is utterly overhauled, there won't be money to buy the jets.

*A system that forces departments to spend what remains in a pot of cash, before financial year's-end, in order to prevent it being clawed back by the Treasury. If 'excess' cash could be saved, and wisely used on another project, in other than a current financial year, this country might make massive savings. But the civil service mandarins wouldn't like that loss of control, would they? Chimps.

[Trim Stab]

More interestingly, buying the whole PFI nonsense contract out should be on the table for the SDSR on the basis that FSTA PFI is cr*p value for money, and that we should buy the bl**dy jets.



Maybe - but then the RAF would still be flying them sixty years later when completely clapped out and inefficient. At least with the PFI plan, at the end of the lease-term, they will replaced by new aircraft.

[BEagle]

Squirrel 41, you can bet that there would be fairly punitive financial terms attached if that happened.

FSTA will not equipped to operate in the receiver role.

The KC-30A is fitted with a boom system and UARRSI receptacle; the RAAF intends to operate in both tanker and receiver role.

Does the FCS cope? Yes - and there is an option to modify the control laws in the receiver role. Or at least there was planned to be - I don't know if it ultimately proved necessary:

Gallery (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Multimedia/Gallery.aspx?AlbumId=136)

[Saintsman]

A refuelling probe was in the original spec but was subsequently deemed un-necessary by the powers that be.

I think that another Black Buck would be quite possible.

In a deployment mission, the A330 MRTT enables four Eurofighters, to fly 3,600 nm by refuelling them en-route, or, when carrying 20 tonnes of payload, to fly these four fighters a distance of 2,800 nm.

The A330 MRTT can also be used on towline mission, whereby it can be on station at about 1,000 nm from its base for some 4 hours 30 minutes, with the capability to provide 50 tonnes of fuel for needing receivers. Or to provide 60 tonnes of fuel while remaining on station for 5 hours at 500 nm from base. This exceeds by far what any other current tanker can offer


A330 MRTT (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx)

[Telstar]

Beagle, I agree with your points about a lack of aptitude testing and a lack of standardized testing for airline entry wholheartedly:

For example, most 'proper' airlines won't even look at a CV which includes the word 'Ryanair' - it's the kiss of death....'If you lie down with the Devil, you will wake up in hell'. Perhaps AirTanker are equally prescient? I don't know.

That is just talking out of your back bottom! You'd be hard pressed to name an airline almost anywhere in the world that doesn't have a former member of the evil empire working for them.

You've posted at length about your dislike of the airline in terms of the passenger experience and of your dislike of the CEO, fair enough. Just try not to let your bias and what I suspect is also a xenophobic/racist leaning get in the way of the truth.

[D-IFF_ident]

How hard can it be to fly along straight and level with the autopilot on?

:E

[NURSE]

I would sugest HMgovt look very closley at the contracts and work out a stratagey to Bankrupt air tanker then nationalise it like the previous one did with railtrack.

[Torque Tonight]

Concur. Beags generally speaks a great deal of sense but in his earlier post my 'master twaddle caution' illuminated. Beags may be interested to know where Emirates have just headhunted about 100 new flight crew from (and it wasn't the shiny fleet, that's for sure).

His petty prejudice against the evil yellow and blue is his own prerogative but is an absolute irrelevance to this thread. I trust that Beags would have the professionalism, if he was in a position of influence in recruitment, to distinguish a pilot's merit and qualification from the customer service standards of an airline for which he previously worked. RYR isn't short of ex-mil pilots either, Britmil et al.

[Squirrel 41]

BEagle

Squirrel 41, you can bet that there would be fairly punitive financial terms attached if that happened.

AFAIK, it's rather more complex than it looks on the financing side. The NAO report suggests that buying the jets will cost £75m, along with the costs of the ground works and the posh new shed at BZN. It's going to be interesting to see how the numbers fall out based on the demand for AAR from the post SDSR front line, especially if the FJ fleet contracts signficantly.

And given that the NAO tellus that the self-protection suite will ensure that Timmy needs to keep flogging out to Afghanland for a while yet (2016? 2018?), the number of A330K and their delviery schedule should all be up for grabs - meaning that buying out the contract with ATr looks like better value as it increases flexibility.

And for TS

Maybe - but then the RAF would still be flying them sixty years later when completely clapped out and inefficient. At least with the PFI plan, at the end of the lease-term, they will replaced by new aircraft.

Do you have any evidence for this? IF (and I stress a very big IF) the contract runs through to termination (and I'd be really surprised if this was the case), I suspect the MoD would probably buy the jets at that point.

S41

[Trim Stab]

If the MOD were to buy out the ATr contract, would the MOD be able to charter out the aircraft commercially?

[Pontius Navigator]

Do you have any evidence for this? IF . . . the contract runs through to termination . . . I suspect the MoD would probably buy the jets at that point.

It would depend on how the contract was written. How are the FRADU and MFTS aircraft provided? If they are GOCO then they would revert to MOD at contract end. When FRADU had Canberra and Hunters these were GOCO; now I suspect the Falcons are COCO.

Even if the contractor does own the assets the contract could contain a handover clause at the end of the contract.

Unless you know the details then the permutations are legion.

[cornish-stormrider]

I think we ought to settle this one here and now - on one hand we have Beagle, old, a bit doddery, possibly getting a bit chubby and going mutton. On the other hand we have Mikey the ***** "evil empire".

Who would you rather fly you home???

Despite not having the pleasure of meeting him, Beags gets my vote every time. Even though he's an old fart.

Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with - with an attitude like that how much do you want to bet maintenance is cost/benefitted out as thinly as possible.

Wny do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)

[airborne_artist]

Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with

Remind us of the date of Ryanair's last fatal incident, would you? :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Why do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)

Yup, crap business model, large depreciation, frequent turnover of kit, need to maintain a large disposal sales organisation.

Much better to buy outright and run for 40-50 years; corner the world market in spares as sole user and get them cheap.

[Whippersnapper]

OK, your opinion I'll ignore. Ryanair and easyJet pilots are among the most sought after by the legacy airlines, as the targeting of both by Virgin, BA and Emirates has demonstrated for some time. The airlines may have a bad way of treating their staff, but that doesn't mean their pilots aren't good - they have very high quality experience in the airline world, given how many sectors they operate into postage stamp airports in mountainous regions, using non-precision approaches to contaminated runways. The legacy carriers don't do that.

With 10,000 hours flying for those two, I think I have more experience of multi-engine jet ops than a lot of service pilots, but if you can't do anything but slag of your civil colleagues then I hope you find yourself unemployed soon.

I was in the RAF and got about half way through pilot training before being chopped, but times were tough in the mid 90s and only a few of the 50 pilots recruited that year made it to the end - too many defence cuts and a lot of front line guys extending their commissions because the recession meant there were few airline jobs (sounds familiar, doesn't it), meant that they had to chop students left right and centre because of the backlogs in the system.

For what it's worth, I have flown with ex-RAF truckies, and their quality has been quite varied, just like within the airline world, and some of them have seemed to show pretty poor ability, so let's have less of the arrogance.

[cornish-stormrider]

a_a. Thats exactly my point - they haven't YET.

I would not to put money on when and how bad. Let me suffice to say there is my airline **** list - Ryanair might not be at the top but it's on there.

Pontius - my point was that if they buy new and shiny so they can cut back the spanner monkeys then there are less spanner monkeys available to do any task. Add in some pressure and demands from some accountant shiny arse and people will start trimming the odd corner. one thing leads to another.

Can you say the engineers at whoever does Mikeys maintenance will turn round and say, sorry skip - you can't have the jet we are not done with it on anything other than a blue moon??

[Whippersnapper]

I have worked for four 737 operators including EZY and RYR. Those two were the most awful for how they treat their crews, but they had the best operational standards. RYR is surprisingly high quality operationally, whatever you feel about their customer relations. They're certainly a lot safer than EZY, in my opinion, but the ignorant seem to love them.

[Whippersnapper]

So, written technical, mathematics and English test, psychological profiling, hour long interviews and sim sessions on an unfamiliar type handling procedural instrument flight and unexpected, unbriefed emergencies and attempts to overload candidates' capacity are worthless assessments then? Staring at inverted images of stick men with marshalling bats and playing computer games with simple cross hairs and circles is so much more relevant and indicative...:ugh:

Thank you gentlemen. You have confirmed my fears that many of the tankies and truckies will be an immature and arrogant bunch of fools with false preconceptions about their (probably more experienced) peers. I pity the wiser and more decent members of that fraternity who have to put up with you.

I don't think Airtanker planned to have the civvy crews do the refuelling sorties, just the troop and cargo flights, given that there is no similar experience to be had in civilian aviation, but it would not be outside the capability of many of the better civil pilots if given the training, which is the group that Airtankers's assessments should be able to select.

I think I'll give this a miss - there seem to be too many big headed kids amongst you to be worth the effort and the pay cut.

[BEagle]

Notwithstanding your operating skills and experience, Whippersnapper, which are probably considerable, given some of the aerodromes certain airlines use these days - but did you actually take pride in your work?

Or was it 'just a job'?

I really cannot imagine anyone being proud of flying for one 737 operator in particular...

Tough times in RAF training aren't new - you should have seen the late 1970s!

[Whippersnapper]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider View Post
Why do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)
Yup, crap business model, large depreciation, frequent turnover of kit, need to maintain a large disposal sales organisation.

Much better to buy outright and run for 40-50 years; corner the world market in spares as sole user and get them cheap."

RYR bought all their fleet when Boeing was on its knees post 9/11. The aircraft get sold off after seven or eight years for more than they cost new.

So, we get brand new, reliable jets, to our own specification, guaranteeing fleet commonality, run them for several years and then sell them at a profit before they start getting expensive to maintain or having tech issues that disrupt the schedule. Yeah, bad business model...


Sorry PN, I didn't spot the ironic tone in your post when you wrote the part I quoted - we're singing from the same sheet.

[Whippersnapper]

"Notwithstanding your operating skills and experience, Whippersnapper, which are probably considerable, given some of the aerodromes certain airlines use these days - but did you actually take pride in your work?

Or was it 'just a job'?

I really cannot imagine anyone being proud of flying for one 737 operator in particular...

Tough times in RAF training aren't new - you should have seen the late 1970s!"

Yes, I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company, and that is very disappointing, even demoralising after a long time. The same goes for many of my colleagues. That's why I want to get out of the low-cost sector and do something more challenging, important and psychologically rewarding - the guys in loco airlines that do the best they possibly can tend to get stomped on the most by managers that want to beat everyone down. It's the old "tall poppy syndrome".

I don't know exactly what went on in the 70s, but I imagine with the cuts and economy of the time, it must have been comparable to the present.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I think we ought to settle this one here and now - on one hand we have Beagle, old, a bit doddery, possibly getting a bit chubby and going mutton. On the other hand we have Mikey the ***** "evil empire".

Who would you rather fly you home???

Despite not having the pleasure of meeting him, Beags gets my vote every time. Even though he's an old fart.

Flown Ryan Air and Easy Jet on numerous occasions and provided you can get your head round the "you get what you pay for" notion as we have then they are fine and dandy.

Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with - with an attitude like that how much do you want to bet maintenance is cost/benefitted out as thinly as possible.

Go read the Chinook thread and you will quickly see that we in the Armed Forces seem to have been some what negligent when it comes to airworthiness for years.

Wny do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)

New aircraft, love that idea lots. I would much sooner fly in any of the Ryan Air or Easy Jet modern stock than much of the "flogged to death" inventory that we military chaps have available to us :(

[galaxy flyer]

Why not a reserve system like the Yank "associate" program? Get ex-RAF pilots to do their airline job and part-time AT flying. If you want, you could "grow" pilots like our system does, send them thru RAF selection process, flying training and then they get an airline career but are committed to a mini,um amount of RAF flying. Winners all 'round!

Oh, wait a minute, an outside idea that works? PREPOSTEROUS

GF

[cornish-stormrider]

Jeez - can esploded, Wurms everywhere!

Sorry whip, I was bringing a flight safety point to a business model - thanks for proving my point.

So you sack pilots who make an honest mistake and own up? not very human factors friendly is it?

Coz the last guy in the world who will forget wheels is one who slid a herc down the runway isn't it.

Wheels? am I sure? one more for luck?

Keep going down your business case model - we don't need the kit, it costs money. can we slip that 50 bazillion hour check (or whatever)

Once an airline (like any business) has trimmed all the fat out of its operation and has started to trim the muscle then pain and failure will inevitably follow.

Oh and Sleezy is on my **** list too.

[sp6]

Moving away from the LoCo good/bad pilots compared to QSP argument, I reckon there is a double standard with regard to medical requirements.

Passing the time of day with the AME while at OASC for a RAuxAF commission, I enquired about whether all Air Experience Tutor pilot's had to be QSP's, and whether any Reserve personnel with FIC's could instruct.

AME's response was that AEF medical requirements were getting stricter, and that a JAR Class 1 medical did not translate to a RAF medical pass, even for ground roles.

So does this mean that the crew flying a tanker asset, in a potential conflict, with millions of euros of fast movers relying on them, will have a lesser medical requirement than the QSP taking an Air cadet up for a 20 min air experience flight?

(Oh, and if I could, I'd want to be in that A330 crew, just need the A330 TR and a bit (ok an awful lot more experience....))

[BEagle]

Yes, I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company, and that is very disappointing, even demoralising after a long time. The same goes for many of my colleagues. That's why I want to get out of the low-cost sector and do something more challenging, important and psychologically rewarding - the guys in loco airlines that do the best they possibly can tend to get stomped on the most by managers that want to beat everyone down. It's the old "tall poppy syndrome

You have my every sympathy. To be good at your job, but have to work for an organisation in which you cannot take pride, must be soul-destroying. Which was my point.

I hope you will be able to find employment with someone you can feel proud to work for.

[cornish-stormrider]

course-profile - I would not compare the abilities of mil vs civ.

I just stated my preference to who I'd fly with. from the sounds of it the civ world has a quite in depth selection and training regieme - why don't we let them fly into the stan then? it sounds easier than some of your tricky approach airports.

while we are on this topic Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back - reason being pilot not qualified to land in fog. poor planning wot?

Seldom - I do follow the chinny. herc and nimrod threads - I never said the mob was perfect. Sadly in having leaders that have become business managers and cost of everything/value of nothing this s where we found ourselves.

I bet Beags and some the other old guys saw the start if the changes with a sense of dread foreboding.


I also think it temps the gods (who are fickle) to bang on about your 100% safety record, pride cometh before a fall. (and I hope its of Mikey down a flight of steps who ends up with a spilled drink and injured pride) rather than a full jet out of the big blue.

fly safe - whatever takes your fancy.

[BEagle]

Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back

I was amused by Jeremy Clarkson's comment:

"They had to turn back to Cardiff.....

That's amazing. There's actually an airport at Cardiff?".

Probably got him in the dwang, yet again....

[Whippersnapper]

Beagle, thank you.

Sp6, I can see no reason why Airtanker would need to restrict themselves to a JAA Class1 medical - they could set higher standards and I would have already expected them to do so. However, RAF medicine is not always the best and can be well behind the times, like many protocols within the services and public sector at large (and the airline industry too, in case anyone thinks I'm trying to be anti-service). There is no reason to apply the same medical requirements to a tanky or trucky as to a GR7 or Typhoon driver. Somewhere in between is a sensible compromise.

C-S, that sort of thing does occasionally happen, but it's rare and is usually down to the rostering/crewing clerks messing up. It happened to me on a night stop in Madrid: I took a 737 300 (Classic) out. The next day, I walked out to the aircraft that had just come in with the next stopping crew, and they had brought a 700 that neither I nor the Captain were qualified to operate! Most airlines face such cock ups when they are replacing fleets, but issues like the Low Vis Ops example are rare - almost all European operators with Cat III equipped aircraft train all their crews for LVOs. Airlines like to have their fleets of aircraft and crew equipped and trained to a common standard for simplicity of scheduling, which is why RYR are all 737-800 and why EZY are going all Airbus 319.

Galaxy Flyer, the "not invented here" syndrome is just as prevalent in the airlines, each of which claims to be Airbus or "Boeing standard" in its operating procedures, yet all manage to write markedly different Standard Operating Procedures, and all claiming their way is the only safe way...:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

I'm not a pilot, although I am "aircrew", and I don't want to get involved in a military vs civil p***ing contest.......

However, I would say that Whippersnappers comment "I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company....." struck a chord. It is how I have felt increasingly about the RAF, based on my personal experience of some of its senior leadership, for several years now. Just as well that I haven't got long left to do...

[Scruffy Fanny]

Having re read your post BEagle you obviously have a very low regard of civil pilots- I find your attitude unwelcome and very turgid. The person who posted how difficult is it to fly straight and level with the A/P in also needs to refrain from offensive remarks. The reason I have posted is to clear up the idea that certain groups of pilots are better than others wrong- I've flown with some brilliant F15/16/18 pilots and I've flown with some crap Harrier/F4/F5 pilots - I've flown with brilliant pilots from BMI/ Virgin and yes Ryanair! I ve flown with crap pilots from other airlines- So you can't just make irresponsible remarks saying civil pilots don't have the capacity to run a complex tanker missions it's just not true- remember anyone can log into these forums and some guys take a real interest in what people post, so making wild remarks about capacity and ability when you really don't have a clue is irresponsible at least. If your ranting on about appitude tests etc perhaps you'd like to explain why tanker pilots were generally not top of the tree after basic flying training ? Also not every pilot is a born gifted natural - I know i wasn't it took me a VERY long time to develop spare capacity - one thing I learnt about trying to be a good pilot is being humble. I've screwed up at 90 kts in a chippy and I've screwed up at Mach2 in a shiny jet- never forgot your only as good as your last sector. So my point is don't knock civil pilots coz actually some or a lot of them are bloody good just as some military guys are- oh and for the poster who says how hard is it to fly straight and level auto pilot in ....think about this . When the military scrub because it's foggy and stack to the bar you average BA pilot gets airborne and completes his job. Also I ask you have you landed a 380 ton jet in a 35 kt crosswind on a snowy runway off a vor approach? Rant over give each pilot the respect they deserve what ever they fly

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Biggus,

I concur fully with all you say :(

[Whippersnapper]

However, I would say that Whippersnappers comment "I do take pride in what I do, but I can't take pride in the company....." struck a chord. It is how I have felt increasingly about the RAF, based on my personal experience of some of its senior leadership, for several years now. Just as well that I haven't got long left to do...

It seems this disillusionment is everywhere now, a sign of the times where managers/senior commanders talk about CRM, teamwork and loyalty to subordinates only as a hollow and cynical exercise. I had been hoping to go to Virgin, but that seems to be becoming more like the locos too. Friends in non aviation or defence related jobs feel the same way too. Perhaps that's what is most disappointing of all, knowing that you can't escape the culture to a place that treats people with the respect they have earned. Maybe it was ever thus?

[Trim Stab]

AME's response was that AEF medical requirements were getting stricter, and that a JAR Class 1 medical did not translate to a RAF medical pass, even for ground roles.



There was a thread some time ago started by an RAF pilot that suggested the reverse was true - he was serving aircrew but failed Class 1. I suspect the two medicals test different aspects to different degrees, and it is not possible to say that one is a "higher" requirement than another.

while we are on this topic Iam reminded about the headline from the flight to gay paris from the taffistan that had to turn back - reason being pilot not qualified to land in fog. poor planning wot?

No - just that the TAF was inaccurate. The pilots were qualified to land in the forecast conditions. If you want every pilot in every regional commuter to be CatIIIb qualified then you will have to pay more for your tickets.

It seems this disillusionment is everywhere now, a sign of the times where managers/senior commanders talk about CRM, teamwork and loyalty to subordinates only as a hollow and cynical exercise. I had been hoping to go to Virgin, but that seems to be becoming more like the locos too. Friends in non aviation or defence related jobs feel the same way too. Perhaps that's what is most disappointing of all, knowing that you can't escape the culture to a place that treats people with the respect they have earned. Maybe it was ever thus?


That is definitely my motivation to apply to Air Tanker too. I want to feel proud of the organisation I work for.

[BEagle]

Having re read your post BEagle you obviously have a very low regard of civil pilots- I find your attitude unwelcome and very turgid. The person who posted how difficult is it to fly straight and level with the A/P in also needs to refrain from offensive remarks. The reason I have posted is to clear up the idea that certain groups of pilots are better than others wrong- I've flown with some brilliant F15/16/18 pilots and I've flown with some crap Harrier/F4/F5 pilots - I've flown with brilliant pilots from BMI/ Virgin and yes Ryanair! I ve flown with crap pilots from other airlines- So you can't just make irresponsible remarks saying civil pilots don't have the capacity to run a complex tanker missions it's just not true- remember anyone can log into these forums and some guys take a real interest in what people post, so making wild remarks about capacity and ability when you really don't have a clue is irresponsible at least. If your ranting on about appitude tests etc perhaps you'd like to explain why tanker pilots were generally not top of the tree after basic flying training ? Also not every pilot is a born gifted natural - I know i wasn't it took me a VERY long time to develop spare capacity - one thing I learnt about trying to be a good pilot is being humble. I've screwed up at 90 kts in a chippy and I've screwed up at Mach2 in a shiny jet- never forgot your only as good as your last sector. So my point is don't knock civil pilots coz actually some or a lot of them are bloody good just as some military guys are- oh and for the poster who says how hard is it to fly straight and level auto pilot in ....think about this . When the military scrub because it's foggy and stack to the bar you average BA pilot gets airborne and completes his job. Also I ask you have you landed a 380 ton jet in a 35 kt crosswind on a snowy runway off a vor approach? Rant over give each pilot the respect they deserve what ever they fly

...and breathe.

:rolleyes:

[Scruffy Fanny]

BEagle - I bet those winter evenings crewed with you must have just flown by- with apologies to Capt E Blackadder

[Roland Pulfrew]

Scruffy

Also I ask you have you landed a 380 ton jet in a 35 kt crosswind on a snowy runway off a vor approach

Have you?

Congratulations on that A380 qualification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliners_by_Maximum_Takeoff_Weight). That really must be like flying a block of flats!! ;)

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Scruffy,

What you allude to in post 67 is precisely why the RAF invested heavily in CRM training a few years back :ok:

[Scruffy Fanny]

As it happens I have- mtow t/o about 370 tons landed about 255tons 35 kts on a wet runway with a minima cloud base- I'm not blowing my own trumpet it was a dash of skill with a bit of luck that resulted in a smooth landing. My point again is don't slag off one group of aviators just because you perceive what you did was the worlds greatest aviation feat- I was a military pilot and did some pretty crazy flying but I've done some equally scary stuff in civil flying with some very gifted aviators. Just because you wrote the 1 group AAR tanker SOPs doesn't make you the voice of pilotage!

[Rigga]

From what I understand of the manning of ATrs the mil/civ split would enable the experienced mil staff to train the civ staff to the right standards under a sort of in-house TRTO arrangement. In return the civ staff will teach the mil staff how to fly large airliner types properly.

This interchange of training could also enable some of the lesser qualified mil staff to volunteer for ATrs and get qualified for a future career - in the same way that all the inexperienced military maintenance and engineering staff will be/are being given specific (and Bonded) training and qualifications to enable their work on this fleet - but they will be overseen by better qualified and more experienced civil maintenance and engineering staff and will work to civ rules at all times- even when it means restricting or denying flights due to MEL limits.

All of the technical and business management will be airline and commercially experienced personnel. No military. Military staff will be involved in the operational management system, but under EU-OPS management rules except for those (if any) aircraft with military registration.

As for the reputation of Ryanair? They have the best flying rate I've ever seen for 737 - I remember the Buzz "fleet" of 6 aircraft all doing 11 sectors per day and it didn't take long for O'Leary's mob to buy the maintenance programme and catch up.

As far as I know none of the Ryanair Fleet has ever done a 'D' Check - O'Leary gets rid of them by then as it costs too much.

...and I've never met any crew, civ or mil, that were totally happy with their lot.

[Blighter Pilot]

Good rumour doing the rounds that even military pilots will require an ATPL with valid type rating as the aircraft are on the civilian register and will not actually be military assets as they are owned by Air Tanker PLC:ok:

[Trim Stab]

Good rumour doing the rounds that even military pilots will require an ATPL with valid type rating as the aircraft are on the civilian register and will not actually be military assets as they are owned by Air Tanker PLChttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Not a rumour - it is a fact.

[Blighter Pilot]

That'll be good for retention then - where do I sign up:ok:

[3engnever]

SF, sorry, can I confirm that you landed at 255T not 380T, wet not snowy and on minima?

Guys, I find this thread ridiculous.

How do you guys get away on holiday. Most of you seem very good at blowing sunshine up your own backsides whilst offering no respect for any other pilot.

If you feel the quality of every other pilot/airline is so poor how on earth do you put your delicate pink bodies (and probably those of your families) in the metal tube of another to get away.

Back to the point:
I really hope that we can learn a hell of a lot from each other during this PFI. I honestly believe the new Sqn, once up and running properly, will be an awesome place to be where we can gain the benefits and experiences from both the military and civil sector. Don't forget, there will be a vast amount of experience from both sides, from non AAR, 2 man Flt deck types to AAR 4 man flt deck experts?;)

If we go into this new sqn with the viewpoints expressed by many here, then we may as well give up now. Too many ego's thinking theirs is the only way to do business. The beauty of a new jet is the ability to reshape the old and redefine the art of the possible.

Those of you who have belittled others on this thread, I hope not to meet you on the new 10 Sqn, your views are probably not required; however, new ways of thinking probably are.

[Pontius Navigator]

Now what will they use?

Will the civ pf use QNH with the mil pnf using QFE?;)

[Kreuger flap]

Oh watch out the Navigators are trying to get in on the act. Let it go pontius, it's a modern aircraft and has computers and stuff to do your job. The flight deck doesn't need to be cluttered up with flight engineers and navigators any more, nor does it need the likes of BEagle on it either.

[Torque Tonight]

Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with - with an attitude like that how much do you want to bet maintenance is cost/benefitted out as thinly as possible.

Wny do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)

my point was that if they buy new and shiny so they can cut back the spanner monkeys then there are less spanner monkeys available to do any task. Add in some pressure and demands from some accountant shiny arse and people will start trimming the odd corner. one thing leads to another.


Cornish, me old, have a word with yourself. New jets: you say that like it's a bad thing. By that logic, to improve flight safety, you should operate some clapped-out, 50 year old, maintenance liability, hangar-queen that's been to the moon and back 1000 times. (Sounds familiar, Ascot?)

Let me tell you that Ryanair's serviceability and maintenance standards put the RAF to shame - and I've experienced both at first hand. Acceptable Deferred Defects basically do not exist. The few minor snags that do occur get rectified that night.

Anyway, for the love of God, can this not turn into another Ryanair bashing thread. Back on topic, please!

[Roland Pulfrew]

3engnever

SF, sorry, can I confirm that you landed at 255T not 380T, wet not snowy and on minima?


You got it, I was obviously too subtle for SF ;)

And now back on topic:

Why will military pilots require an ATPL? The jets when flown on military tasks will be on the military register. Abo pilots coming through training will not have enough hours for a CPL let alone an ATPL. Or is the future 101 Sqn going to be a retirement home for experienced pilots leaving the RAF and needing an A330 type rating?!? :}

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Successfully and smoothly landing an aircraft full of fare paying punters at 255t on a wet snowy runway in a 35kt crosswind is an impressive feat so not quite sure why their is a need for the bitchiness :confused:

Getting a 380t aircraft full of fare paying punters airborne in the first place is not that shabby an achievement either :ok:

[BEagle]

Admittedly the runway was bare/dry and the aircraft was being flown by a test pilot, but this clip of an A380 being tested with 40-50 kt cross-winds at BIKF is pretty impressive:

YouTube - Airbus A380 crosswind landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5pGlw4o3Ks)

I'm told that, of all the FBW Airbus aircraft, the easiest to fly are the A380...and the A400M.

[cornish-stormrider]

TT, don't be daft. If you'd care to read my last with your brain engaged the point I was trying to make was that because Mr Mikey has bought new jets he has downscaled the maintenance costs - what happens when he needs the resource that isnt there? you know, the spanner wielding ones

Of course a new jet TENDS to be a safer jet than some knackered old heap but when you fly the arse off it and only do the minimum maintenance required it stays safe for how long??

Flight Safety does not belong in the hands of the finance dept. Let me put it this way - I don't care whether the jet is new or old, I care that it is safe. I don't care whether the pilot is mil or civ - I care the pilot is correctly trained, briefed, authed and in good health with the right amount of sleep.

I care if the pilot hates his oppo (or her) or has a huge ego that makes CRM impossible, I care if the pilot will fess up rather than hide it and is man enough to ask for help.


I also judge who I trust my life to on some other factors - thats why Ryanair, sleezy and a few others (and there are big boys there too) including Virgin (until the pilots resolve their arguments with Dickie!)

And I won't be flying BA again either.

In summary - I'm not just out to get Mikey, I have concerns about a lot of things - now does anyone have a yacht for sale?

[Tourist]

Trim Stab.
You say it is a fact that ATPL will be required because the aircraft will be civvy register and civvy owned.
There are plenty of aircraft around at the moment in that bracket that are flown without civvy license by British military

[airborne_artist]

There are plenty of aircraft around at the moment in that bracket that are flown without civvy license by British military

Is that under an exemption that has not been applied to the big stuff?

[Torque Tonight]

Cornish, I don't know whether that all came to you in a dream or what, but your opinion of Ryanair maintenance is without foundation. As I said RYR engineering compares very favourably with the RAF. The RAF gingers are a fantastic, hard-working, skilled bunch, but are working with pitiful budgets, a supply chain that doesn't, well 'run-in' or sometimes obselescent kit etc. The SH cab that I used to operate was generally held together with speed tape, stop-drilled cracks and INOP stickers. I used to have to get the red FRCs out on a good proportion of sorties and sometimes the aircraft were missing parts like cabin windows, because there weren't enough to go round the fleet.

Compare that with the yellow and blue, where no expense is spared when it comes to safety and engineering. Snags get rectified immediately and the aircraft are extremely reliable. MOL is no fool.

If you and Beags wish to put the boot in, then feel free to unload on: the customer service, the hard sell, the jingle, the cabin layout, distance from some airports to their cities. Crack on, you have some fair points. If you try to suggest that the aircraft, safety, pilots or training are inferior then those who know will shoot you down. Don't be daft mate.

[BEagle]

From the ANO*:

Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for members of HM Forces

58. A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.

TT, I've no doubt that the piloting and engineering at Ryanair are quite fine. But working for a company whose actual product is of such a nature must surely throw some doubt on the motives of those prepared to work for it?

Regarding maintenance, with new aircraft Ryanair has the huge advantage of being on the plateau of the maintainability bucket curve - whereas most RAF ME aircraft are now crawling up the right hand side....

the customer service, the hard sell, the jingle, the cabin layout, distance from some airports to their cities.

Somewhat Pythonesque?

"All right... all right... but apart from the customer service and hard sell and jingle and cabin layout and distance from some airports to their cities... what have the Romans ever done for us?" :p


*(Anyone who hates 'Defence Writing', should try reading the ANO - you'll soon change your tune!).

[Saintsman]

I believe that the aircraft will have both civil and military registrations and will be operated under Military Registered Civil Owned regs whilst being used by the RAF. Should they ever be leased to take punters to their sunny destinations, then they will be operated under EASA.

[Torque Tonight]

Beags,

Pythonesque, yes very funny. Fortunately we can take a joke (and have a good laugh whenever we see Easyjet).

TT, I've no doubt that the piloting and engineering at Ryanair are quite fine. But working for a company whose actual product is of such a nature must surely throw some doubt on the motives of those prepared to work for it?

I think your questioning my motives is a bit naughty. When I was 'in', I was very much Queen & Country, duty first. I, like everyone else, tolerated a lot of s--t in the RAF, made a lot of sacrifices and did my duty to the best of my ability with a smile on my face. Sometimes it felt like a bit of a one way relationship. Now that I have left my motivation is a duty to No1 and a desire to carve out a satisfactory lifestyle. In my first year in the evil empire I already take home not far short of Gp Capt pay, I get more flying hours and I get more time off. I haven't once been called to salute an ensign at 0630 on a drizzly Sunday morning and have spent zero months in a sandy tent full of camel spiders. I don't feel too bad for the passengers because they vote with their wallets and keep coming back. Can't be that bad then. I think my motives are quite honourable.

[Torque Tonight]

Incidentally, for about the last year I too have regularly checked the AirTanker site, as doing a flying job of strategic importance (rather than flying bucket and spaders to the costas) was always something of great interest. Howver, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that being a civvy reservist in the military role will probably be the worst of both worlds, not the best of both.

[Whippersnapper]

TT, don't be daft. If you'd care to read my last with your brain engaged the point I was trying to make was that because Mr Mikey has bought new jets he has downscaled the maintenance costs - what happens when he needs the resource that isnt there? you know, the spanner wielding ones

Of course a new jet TENDS to be a safer jet than some knackered old heap but when you fly the arse off it and only do the minimum maintenance required it stays safe for how long??

Flight Safety does not belong in the hands of the finance dept. Let me put it this way - I don't care whether the jet is new or old, I care that it is safe. I don't care whether the pilot is mil or civ - I care the pilot is correctly trained, briefed, authed and in good health with the right amount of sleep.

I care if the pilot hates his oppo (or her) or has a huge ego that makes CRM impossible, I care if the pilot will fess up rather than hide it and is man enough to ask for help.


I also judge who I trust my life to on some other factors - thats why Ryanair, sleezy and a few others (and there are big boys there too) including Virgin (until the pilots resolve their arguments with Dickie!)

And I won't be flying BA again either.

In summary - I'm not just out to get Mikey, I have concerns about a lot of things - now does anyone have a yacht for sale?

You really do have no idea of what goes on within the individual airlines, do you? I can promise you that the public perceptions of which are well run and which are gash from an operational and maintenance perspective are entirely wrong. Some companies have fantastic PR departments and are poor at everything else, while some are very good at all the technical stuff but have poor PR and patchy customer service. You have to be in the companies or have close friends who have moved around a lot to know which is which, so impenetrable are their facades.

[sp6]

This is a great thread - more convuluted than MoD purchasing policy. Is the following too simplistic?

AirTanker Crew Permutations

QSP with Tanker Experience Deployed ok, Civvy contracting no
JAR CPL with A330 time Deployed no, civvy contracting ok
QSP with JAR CPL All working for Virgin & Emirates
65 yrs + QSP & ATPL Needs a younger co-pilot

or a new category, JAR CPL, not QSP but RAF Reserves or RAuxAF. Deployed ok if crewed with a QSP, Civvy ok?

[Whippersnapper]

From the ANO*:

Quote:
Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for members of HM Forces

58. A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.
TT, I've no doubt that the piloting and engineering at Ryanair are quite fine. But working for a company whose actual product is of such a nature must surely throw some doubt on the motives of those prepared to work for it?
Yes. That motive would be paying my mortgage and keeping my kids in school. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of duty and responsibility, Beagle, but most parents would take a job they hate if it provides well for their family.

Regarding maintenance, with new aircraft Ryanair has the huge advantage of being on the plateau of the maintainability bucket curve - whereas most RAF ME aircraft are now crawling up the right hand side....

I'm not sure what side of the argument you're siding with this, but for those that seem to think that RYR buy new aircraft because they are unable to maintain them, then you ought to know that RYR maintenance is all in-house (except if an aircraft goes tech as a non-base destination) using its own hangars at Prestwick, Stansted and Dublin with its own, mostly ex-RAF and FAA engineers. They sell them off before going through the heavy C checks or D checks because by that age, their resale values start dropping. That may be about to change, though, as the last 50 aircraft are to be delivered soon and there are no more existing follow ups to continue replacing the older fleet members.

With over Eu3bn in the bank and a net profit last year of over Eu270m, despite the fuel price and volcano issues, the company does not need to cut corners on maintenance. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the Forces, whose budgets have been slashed year after year by incompetent and uncaring politicians who force the Services to mend and make do with worn out, defunct relics and a lack of spares and maintenance budget. It's testament to the Services' engineers abilities that they can keep such old equipment going on such a shoe string.

[Whippersnapper]

From what I understand of the manning of ATrs the mil/civ split would enable the experienced mil staff to train the civ staff to the right standards under a sort of in-house TRTO arrangement. In return the civ staff will teach the mil staff how to fly large airliner types properly.

This interchange of training could also enable some of the lesser qualified mil staff to volunteer for ATrs and get qualified for a future career - in the same way that all the inexperienced military maintenance and engineering staff will be/are being given specific (and Bonded) training and qualifications to enable their work on this fleet - but they will be overseen by better qualified and more experienced civil maintenance and engineering staff and will work to civ rules at all times- even when it means restricting or denying flights due to MEL limits.

that's more of the positive attitude I had hoped to see - civil and military crew members learning from each other and creating a sum larger than its parts. We all have some things to contribute and some things to learn.

I had been under the impression, from what I have been able to find about the company plans on the web, that Airtanker were planning to operate a common fleet of aircraft, but that some would be military registered and other civil registered, with the respective crew operating their split domains. I got the impression, though only through hazy inference, that the civilians would not be conducting AAR, so i can only assume that the civil registered aircraft may have a ghost miltiary registration or that they could be operated under the quoted ANO directive allowing non-JAA licensed HM crews to operate CAA registered aircraft in the interests of the country.

I also got the impression that the aircraft would be configured to receive as well as deliver fuel, and that there may be a mix of centre line station fits of probe and drogue and flying boom (the latter for the F35, perhaps, but I'd have expected the B and C models to have retractable probes to be used in conjunction with USN carrier-borne F18 with tanker pods.

[Roland Pulfrew]

SFFP

It's called banter, sorry.

Whippersnapper

I had been under the impression, from what I have been able to find about the company plans on the web, that Airtanker were planning to operate a common fleet of aircraft, but that some would be military registered and other civil registered, with the respective crew operating their split domains. I got the impression, though only through hazy inference, that the civilians would not be conducting AAR, so i can only assume that the civil registered aircraft may have a ghost miltiary registration or that they could be operated under the quoted ANO directive allowing non-JAA licensed HM crews to operate CAA registered aircraft in the interests of the country.

It is my undertanding that ALL FSTA will be dual registered. When doing a military task they will be flown by military crews on the military register.

When they are being flown for a civilian task ie with a partner airline or on a 3PR flight for ATr they will be flown by partner company or ATr crews on the civilian register.

Civilain crews will not be doing AAR, but "sponsored reservist" ATr pilots may as they will need to retain currency - I assume they will need to be "activated" for that task.

Regarding the ANO I understand that one of the reasons the RAF King Air fleet is gaining military registrations is that a number of nations complained about aircraft flying over their territory, on civilian registrations, with military markings and flown by "unlicensed" pilots - contrary to the Chicago Convention (but stand to be corrected on that one).

I also got the impression that the aircraft would be configured to receive as well as deliver fuel, and that there may be a mix of centre line station fits of probe and drogue and flying boom (the latter for the F35, perhaps, but I'd have expected the B and C models to have retractable probes to be used in conjunction with USN carrier-borne F18 with tanker pods.

FSTA is not configured to receive fuel in flight nor will it come with a boom system; some FSTAs (but not all) will come with a centreline hose. More sensible nations, that are buying their KA-330s/KC-30s, are getting them with booms and centreline hoses and the ability to receive fuel from other tankers.

[BEagle]

A bucket curve is one whose slope initially decreases at a high rate, then follows a plateau, then rises steeply again. Like a 'U' with a flattened bottom.

If maintenance cost is expressed on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis, you have a situation where initial cost might be high due to delivery snags, bedding-in issues etc, but then it ramps down to an on-going low level before rising again as parts wear out, corrosion takes hold and critical items become scarce.

Ryanair is fortunate enough to be on the flat bit - just regular maintenance costs to meet. Whereas HM's ancient beasts are mostly climbing up the right hand side of the curve, being long past their 'Best before' dates.

TT:

However, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that being a civvy reservist in the military role will probably be the worst of both worlds, not the best of both.

You may well be right. We tend to remember the better times - and how the service was 'back in our day'. Much will have changed since then; whether for good or bad may not be immediately obvious.

By the way, don't forget that the 'Gp Capt' will also end up with a nice pension - I hope that you're able to salt away some of your new-found wealth for your latter years.

[Torque Tonight]

And that is, of course, a valid point. Cheers Beags.

[cornish-stormrider]

Yeah, but Beags pension is in Groats, Sheckles and old Boots:E

[Top West 50]

Beagle. I think your point about CAA exemption to fly a civilian aircraft is meant to cover one-off or emergency situations ie military aircrew recovering a civilian aircraft. I think if this loophole were to be used to allow military aircrew to routinely operate civilian registered aircraft, then the Authority would probably change the ANO.

[Pontius Navigator]

NATO E3 at Geilenkirchen are registered in Luxemburg. The have the prefix LX; the civil aircraft register also uses LX. The E3 are therefore technically registered with a civil registration.

[BEagle]

I think your point about CAA exemption to fly a civilian aircraft is meant to cover one-off or emergency situations ie military aircrew recovering a civilian aircraft.

As a legal document, the ANO is not open to interpretation.

However, the exception was indeed probably never intended to include military operation of civil-registered aircraft in military roles.

[F.O.D]

Top west 50,

The Grob Tutors used by the RAF for UAS and AEF training are civilian registered and are routinely flown by Qualified Service Pilots most of whom don't have a civil qualification.

F.O.D

[Roland Pulfrew]

FOD

In UK airspace only, though.

[Trim Stab]

Abo pilots coming through training will not have enough hours for a CPL let alone an ATPL.


If ATr is run to airline standards, I can't see them accepting inexperienced Abo RAF pilots (even if they have proven their superior ability by tracing a wiggly line on a rotating drum, and interpreting upside-down stick men). I don't know of any A330 operators that take RHS pilots with less than 2000 hours jet time - and for good reason too.

[Dengue_Dude]

God this hurts . . . I have to agree with BEags again.

Having spent over 10 years flying with perfectly adequate airliner captains, only a few of them would have been any good when dealing with a trail that's suddenly gone to rat****.

A relative numpty could do race tracks until someone pitches up to make them lighter, but the AAR skipper/crew on a trail is a different animal.

Once again, experience and ability will be diluted. There will be tears before bedtime and NO, 'they' never learn.

Evenin' BEags - I promise not to agree with you too often - it would be much too boring.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Trim Stab

Sorry chap. The requirement was for military pilots straight from the training system to be routed through the posting system to any type in the RAF's inventory. That means Abos going straight to A330.

What ATr do for their company pilots is a different matter, but the majority of FSTA pilots will be regular RAF, and that means they will have to accept abos or the fleet will die.

One of the bigger challenges, that certain of our more senior brethren have yet to cotton on to, is that the RAF will soon be in a position that it won't need average "group 2" pilots (group 2 being streamed multi-engine from the training system). The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise. There will soon be no "soft options" available to the lower average pilot from training.

[BEagle]

D_D, you bitch!

If you have a decent Mission Computer System which has been designed to be used by aircrew who do not have extensive role experience, in-flight AAR trail re-planning can be achieved far more quickly and accurately than by use of the primitive, inaccurate and mathematically dubious 'RAPS' methodology....

For example, a 6 receiver trail across Australia. Just before the first bracket, one hose fails to trail.... Effort and time required to re-plan a single hose trail?

With the MCS as now flying in the A310MRTT, 2 keystrokes and less than a second.

You can also drag and drop the brackets to earlier positions if you wish - the abort points are automatically re-calculated for every bracket. The single hose plan also assumes that you will keep the hose trailed for the whole trip until the end of the last bracket and recalculates the tanker burn accordingly. After each bracket, the receiver fuel states are entered and the subsequent brackets are all adjusted. So good-bye to the wasteful technique of keeping receivers in contact until the geographical end-of-bracket point.

Have you got the same degree of simplicity in your big new jet, my Oz PPRuNe-ing chum?

Hmmm...:\

The A310MRTT MCS is a bit like an AARC-in-a-box. Except that it works considerably faster, doesn't trash hire cars in Palermo, have blonde moments or get itself banned from Atlanta....:uhoh:

[Rigga]

Someone said:
"....then they will be operated under EASA."

Operated? maybe, Maintained... Definately!

Once these aircraft are maintained under Military rules they will need all the work conducted re-done to bring the aircraft back into the "Controlled Environment" of EASA rules. Also under EASA rules each aircraft will be maintained under its own unique Approved Maintenance Programme - not some cobbled together set of jobs good for all aircraft in whatever conditions, like the RAF does.

To transfer between AMPs means conducting a maintenance check to bridge between the two programmes.


To belay another Myth appearing on this thread - there is no such thing as DUAL regstration!

Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time and to change registers is not done at the flick of a switch but takes at least three weeks of admin and transfer work between Reguators and maintenance staff. It is for this reason that some (if any) aircraft may be permanently military registered to keep a minimum mil fleet available..

Amused at the ramblings on here...

[Trim Stab]

Sorry chap. The requirement was for military pilots straight from the training system to be routed through the posting system to any type in the RAF's inventory. That means Abos going straight to A330.

The poor guy in the LHS in going to have a stressful time then, no matter how brilliant the abo in the RHS may be.

I agree with the rest of your post though.

[Trim Stab]

Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time


Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.

And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year.

[BEagle]

The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.

It will be interesting to see how the TRTO requirements are applied to the RAF 'ab initio' A330 pilot. Because the input standard for civil TR courses assumes that the pilot has been trained to at least CPL/IR standard....

An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.

The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.Amongst other requirements, the pilot must have 70 hrs PIC, of which 50 hrs PIC must have been on cross-countries, including one 2 stop 300nm solo cross-country. I doubt very much whether RAF (or MFTS :rolleyes:) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....

Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?

[Whippersnapper]

So, the RAF is going to be palmed off with the lower spec model again.:rolleyes: It shouldn't really surprise me, but I had hoped for more.

I don't know why a few of you maintain this holier than thou attitude. I readily admit I have no idea about AAR, but given that the civvies would seemingly not be doing it, what difference does it make? And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous. I fly with plenty of ex-military pilots, and their quality and capacities are as variable as the rest. Being RAF is not as much of a guarantee of ability as a few of you would like to believe. I'm not one of those military pilot haters at all, like so many airline management pilots are - I have plenty of respect for you all, having started down that route myself, but you really need to lose that superiority complex as it will stuff you after you leave the service.

[Whippersnapper]

Quote:
The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.
It will be interesting to see how the TRTO requirements are applied to the RAF 'ab initio' A330 pilot. Because the input standard for civil TR courses assumes that the pilot has been trained to at least CPL/IR standard....

An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
Quote:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.

The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
Amongst other requirements, the pilot must have 70 hrs PIC, of which 50 hrs PIC must have been on cross-countries, including one 2 stop 300nm solo cross-country. I doubt very much whether RAF (or MFTS ) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....

Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?

Don't forget, Beagle, that those are the absolute minimum criteria for the frozen ATPL and issued CPL. There are plenty of those cadets about who can't get a job until they gain a significant amount of experience.

Ironically, it seems the only major players interested in these cadets are EZY and RYR, and that's mainly because they can screw them with low pay for the first year or so (EZY cadets not only pay for their type rating but also pay to fly), such is their desperation to find a jbb. both companies run their training departments at considerable profit. Good for the companies, but terrible for the cadets who find it hard to afford to live (EZY cadet bankruptcies are growing fast). However, because there is so much competition for the places within the companies, they can be quite selective about who they take on. I have come across a few who seem to lack awareness or technical prowess, but not many - the standard seems to be pretty high, and is certainly higher than I saw in Excel ( a more conventional "old school" airline, and great to work for while it lasted) or have heard of from colleagues who have been in the same companies as me and have gone elsewhere. I have found in both EZY and RYR that most of the best FOs were cadets with about a year's line flying behind them, not experienced entrants from other companies.

Just like with new RAF pilots, a lack of experience and flight hours doesn't necessarily mean they are no good.

As for the specific aircraft type being an issue, it isn't. A330s are very similar to fly as A320s, with an almost identical cockpit and fly-by-wire that makes them similar to handle. It's heavier, but has more thrust and bigger wings, so take off and landing speeds/distances are not that different. The 737 NG is harder to fly than the Airbus family because it has some odd characteristics, principally being so damned slippery in the descent and having nasty landing handling qualities. If so many cadets can fly it without too much trouble, then the RAF should manage to but the newbies on the A330 without much fuss.

It's not the aeroplane that makes the difference but what you do with it. It's the AAR which involves the complex skill, and I imagine it's the calculations of how much fuel to give away and when, especially when the plan is screwed up by weather or faults, as per the examples given, that is really complex. Given that each aircraft will have a refuelling operator in the specialised flight deck who will be trained and experienced in the role, and given the fact that the tankers won't be able to receive fuel, it begs the question again, why can't the civvy pilots do it too?

[BEagle]

And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous.

Think of it this way. An AT/AAR pilot needs to be competent in aircraft operation, AT role operation and AAR role operation.

There's no doubt that any airline pilot could meet the first 2, but the 3rd is an 'unknown'. The course needed would perhaps be longer than converting an existing AAR pilot to a new AAR aeroplane and there would be some risk that the airline pilot might be unsuccessful as you say. But at the end of the day it boils down to one thing alone - cost. If it costs more to train an airline pilot to become a competent AAR pilot than it does to convert an RAF AAR pilot to the new aeroplane, the military being as it is a 'price-sensitive' customer is going to take the latter option.

The 'fATPL course' includes rather more than the RAF ME course does. But you have to bear in mind that RAF candidates are given pre-entry screening, whereas in theory anyone with enough money can buy their own 'fATPL' and 737/320 TR. However, the new MPL course does require end-user airline involvement - so it's in the financial interest of the airline to pre-select its 'MPL' candidates.

[Whippersnapper]

Quote:
And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous.
Think of it this way. An AT/AAR pilot needs to be competent in aircraft operation, AT role operation and AAR role operation.

There's no doubt that any airline pilot could meet the first 2, but the 3rd is an 'unknown'. The course needed would perhaps be longer than converting an existing AAR pilot to a new AAR aeroplane and there would be some risk that the airline pilot might be unsuccessful as you say. But at the end of the day it boils down to one thing alone - cost. If it costs more to train an airline pilot to become a competent AAR pilot than it does to convert an RAF AAR pilot to the new aeroplane, the military being as it is a 'price-sensitive' customer is going to take the latter option.

The 'fATPL course' includes rather more than the RAF ME course does. But you have to bear in mind that RAF candidates are given pre-entry screening, whereas in theory anyone with enough money can buy their own 'fATPL' and 737/320 TR. However, the new MPL course does require end-user airline involvement - so it's in the financial interest of the airline to pre-select its 'MPL' candidates.You'd be surprised at the failure rates on ATPL or type rating courses. Command courses have even higher rates (40% of experienced FOs, with typically 4000 hrs of company operations, having been screened for initial employment, trained in house and then screened very carefully for command training, fail the command course in RYR), so don't be fooled into thinking that you can buy a UK CPL or ATPL. US licences maybe, but not European and certainly not British issued. Don't forget that a large proportion of the CAA is staffed by ex-navigators -they're not going to make it easy for pilots now, are they?;)

I'm not trying to suggest that all the civvies be trained to conduct AAR, but if AirTanker are as selective in their recruitment as I believe they will be, then their crews should be perfectly capable of completing the AAR course. I would expect AT to be recruiting only high quality, experienced and adept applicants, not just any old crew who hold a licence. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if their recruitment was more thorough than the Service's.

All that aside, surely it would not be unreasonable for those civvy pilots that demonstrated a high level of ability within the AT fleet to subsequently be integrated into the military group of pilots, completing the AAR training a year or so after starting on the line on the noddy stuff, sort of a cross-pollination, if you will.

[cessnapete]

I'm sure you know that there are RAF AT co-pilots who have successfully converted to type with about 200 hours total time, straight off their King Air wings course.
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.

The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.

The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances on the AT/AAR fleet. Only two main destinations, and much unserviceability, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights for recency.

Civilian A330 pilots would normally get at least 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.

Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be well in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an airline.

A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!

[Whippersnapper]

I'm sure you know that there are RAF AT co-pilots who have successfully converted to type with about 200 hours total time, straight off their King Air wings course.
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.

The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.

The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances. Only two main destinations, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights.

Civilian A330 pilots would normally get 400 to 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.

Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an Airline.

A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!

Loco Captains get about £100k per annum by the time you include flight/duty pay, but will do just shy of the maximum 900 hours. Legacy carrier pilots on wide bodies will do about 750 hour for a gross pay of £120-150k, depending on company and seniority. That's the sort of money AT would need to be matching if they want experienced civvies, and I can see that becoming a major bone of contention on a mixed civvy/RAF Sqn.

I am concerned if they just want civvy crews to fly the aircraft on wet-lease sub charter to airlines. I really don't think it'll work. These aircraft are going to have significantly more weight and drag than standard A330s and in these times of high fuel costs and great excess fleet capacities of airlines all around the globe, I can't see AT offering competitive sub charter rates unless they fly at a loss. It might be cheaper to AT than having the aircraft sit around unused, though.

[Clockwork Mouse]

The first A330 MRTT for the RAF has now been rolled out. Looks very impressive.

[Justanopinion]

Whippersnapper
Source: National Audit Office report 2010

Aircraft Air-to-air refuelling capability:



Fuel capacity of 111 tonnes for dispensing to aircraft.All aircraft capable of simultaneously refuelling two fast jet receivers.


Seven aircraft capable of, and five fitted for, refuelling large aircraft.
Air transport capability: Seating capacity of 290 seats.
Various configurations for medical evacuations of up to 40 patients. Commercial standard freight-carrying capacity.
Able to operate in military and civilian roles.
Crewing services 14 Sponsored Reserve pilots able to operate on military and
civilian flights.
48 qualified cabin crew
Infrastructure at
RAF Brize Norton
Maintenance hangar capable of servicing two FSTA.
Flight operations, storage and office facilities.
Training building.
Training services Training for military and AirTanker flight and cabin crews, technical and support personnel.
Provision and support of FSTA flight simulator.

One of the Captains at Brize has just PVR'd as Airtanker have recruited him to create their training package.... I don't think there will be an issue between civilian and military crews and pay - we currently work alongside many reservists both rich and poor and generally no one cares less. You will always get the odd one or two folk whom have issues but the same people winge about everything being 'not fair'. I am sure you have them in your world too.

With ref to your comment on BEags and his CRM qualities, i flew with him many times whilst he was serving and he was great to fly with (he is actually very amusing in real life). ... if you can take the banter ....
I agree that AAR is not rocket science and i am sure many civilian pilots would be very good at it given the chance.

BEags - you crash one hire car...................

[A and C]

I bet the DFO & management of airtanker are having a good laugh at this thread!

[Art Field]

To return to the original question with particular reference to AAR training for civil trained pilots I would offer the following thoughts as an ex OCU and Staneval pilot on both the Victor and the VC10. A good AAR operator seems to require little more than the basic training and the experience of a few operational trips but those individuals are not that common. They seem to have an inbuilt sense of spatial awareness, good airmanship and the ability to anticipate the needs of their customers right from the start. The average pilot is another matter and requires guidance throughout the course and beyond for a good six to nine months before they become confident in role. Indeed some never progress beyond a rigid following of procedures and that is particularly true of the older pilots from other types both multi and fastjet. A good AAR pilot needs regular practice to keep his thinking sharp, there is a lot more to the role than just trailing the hoses.

[BEagle]

....an ex OCU and Staneval pilot on both the Victor and the VC10.

Rather more than that, I would say!

Although we might have shared the occasional professional difference of opinion ;) , Arters has flown every V-type (except, perhaps, the Vimy, Victoria and Vildebeeste - although I'm not totally sure..:p) in the AAR role and his wisdom and sagacity should always be heeded.

PS - why weren't you at the ex-241 OCU barbi' the other week, you old bugger?

(PPS - Justanopinion, how much do I owe you? Please say it doesn't involve tongues....or baby oil!).

[Rigga]

Trim Stab:
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time

Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.

And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "



Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever registration they carry, they will only appear on one register. Another example are those of certain helicopters with no registrations.

Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!

[Rigga]

Trim Stab:
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time

Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.

And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "

Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever markings they display, they will only appear on one register. Another example of registration "mixes" are ex-military types such as Spitires, RE8's and FE2B's.

Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!

The issue with having ATr aircraft with military markings on the military register will be their inability to return to the civil market - they won't be able to do CAT work on the military register, so the project will be unable to make a running profit - and if they can't make a running profit you will get a reduced quality service akin the that of using decrepit old jets like you already have - and you'll be much, much poorer for it. Even by next years standards!

[Trim Stab]

It is for this reason that some (if any) aircraft may be permanently military registered to keep a minimum mil fleet available..



Rigga, I'm not doubting your knowledge on the ins and outs of aircraft registry - but surely there must be some way round this? I can't see how ATr can be run efficiently if some aircraft are for military use only. Likewise, it doesn't make sense (as others have suggested) to have RAF crew fly the AAR jobs, and airline crew fly the AT jobs. If ATr wants aircraft utilisation rates and aircrew rosta efficiences to match those of the airlines, then surely all aircrew and aircraft will need to be fully interchangeable.

That begs another question - will there be mixed crews of RAF and sponsored reservists? Will the sponsored reservists have RAF rank?

[Blighter Pilot]

And with SDSR about to cut aircrew numbers across all fleets how much bad feeling might there be towards these 'sponsored reservists' who could be seen to be taking jobs for the boys?

[D-IFF_ident]

Wow - you'd have thought they might have thought about a few of these issues BEFORE they signed the contract. :rolleyes:

[Arty Fufkin]

As I understand it, all ATr crews will hold military rank albeit as reservists for when they fly military sorties. I cannot see a civilian company selecting civilian pilots to be awarded with Queens Commissions, so I would have thought that the caveat would be you must be an ex QSP to qualify. Just a guess though.
If not, then I'd imagine they would have to at least do the tarts and vicars course at IOT. I guess they have already thought of all this though. Like they did with DAS and FTI......

[Juan Tugoh]

The issue with having ATr aircraft with military markings on the military register will be their inability to return to the civil market

So how do you explain the Belfasts and the Andovers that went to the civil market after RAF service?

[BEagle]

All these points were raised about 10 years ago, so they're nothing new.

Given the size of the RAF at the time the PFI AT/AAR requirments were released, compared with its post-SDSR size, the viability of the PFI business plan will be...well, let's just say 'probably rather challenging'. But ATr will be well aware of that.

I recall going to one of those FSTA stakeholder meetings about a thousand years ago - and the requirements which led to the numbers and equipage of the A330MRTTs to be used by ATr were somewhat different to those which one sees today. Some senior chap asked me what I would suggest - and I told him that, having heard the AAR requirements stated at the meeting, I considered that the RAF should replace all its VC10s and TriStars with the 24-ish A310MRTTs then on offer from BAe Filton and bin the whole PFI notion...:rolleyes: 3 squadrons of A310MRTTs, all with 2 pods and AAR probes and of which 2 squadrons' aircraft would also have centreline hoses.

He agreed, but said that the politicos had already made up their minds............:\

And don't ask about any AAR role for the UK's A400Ms...:hmm:

[A and C]

I think that some of you misunderstand Rigga when he talks of transfering between civil & military registers.

Transfering to the civil register requires that the aircraft is IAW the civil type ceritficate and all the required maintenance has been done.

Essentaly it is a paperwork excersise but as always the devil is in the detail and the whole deal will hinge on maintenance history, If the RAF has the maintenance done IAW EASA 145 the transfer would be reletively easy.

If the maintenance is done by the RAF under military oversight then the transfer paperwork would be troublesome time consuming but not imposable.

The long and short of this is the transfer between registers is to become a regular happening the MoD (RAF) needs to become an EASA 145 company for the maintenance of these aircraft or the costs will be prohbitive.

[D-IFF_ident]

Some interesting points raised by A and C and Rigga. So let me pull the pin on this one, and chuck it over to the forum...




How will FSTA comply with ETOPS?

[Lockstock]

How will FSTA comply with ETOPS?

Probably the same way everyone else complies with ETOPS - regulations, training and certification.

:rolleyes:

[Jig Peter]

Flightglobal reports (27/8) that the first A330 for AirTanker has been rolled out after indoor testing for pre-flight tests outdoors, before first flight due in the coming weeks. The time to have all the loose ends noted in this thread to be sorted (if they haven't been already) is getting short !
:ok::ok::ok:

[Impiger]

Lets try and understand the concept of SRs chaps. They are an integral part of the contract with Air Tanker who have to provide a certain number of air and groundcrew SRs. To be acceptable all the normal requirements for Reserve Service have to be met: nationality, medical, age etc. The aircrew will also have to pass the Service medical but they do not have to pass through our flying training system to wings standard. To be given commissions (unless they've held them before) they will have to pass the Reserve Officers Initial Training course. The groundcrew - unless ex-servicemen, will attend Halton and undertake the Basic Reserve Training course. Oh and they'll have to pass the fitness test too!

Other Sponsored Reserves are the Serco groundcrew who maintain the Royal Flight aircraft, the Mobile Met Men, and I think there are a group of Boeing employees who do something clever for the E3D. As more capabilities are placed in the hands of contractors we can expect more Sponsored Reserves in future. I think the next likely project (after FSTA) to include them will be the new Air Traffic system which I believe the IPT want to staff with contractors rather than Blue Suiters.

Like it or not - it's part of the future so get used to it.;)

[BEagle]

Lets try and understand the concept of SRs chaps. They are an integral part of the contract with Air Tanker who have to provide a certain number of air and groundcrew SRs. To be acceptable all the normal requirements for Reserve Service have to be met: nationality, medical, age etc. The aircrew will also have to pass the Service medical but they do not have to pass through our flying training system to wings standard. To be given commissions (unless they've held them before) they will have to pass the Reserve Officers Initial Training course. The groundcrew - unless ex-servicemen, will attend Halton and undertake the Basic Reserve Training course. Oh and they'll have to pass the fitness test too!

Who on earth will want to go through that load of hoop - and probably have to take a cut in pay? The worst of both worlds, as someone has already written.

Sponsored Reservists are just a handy way for the MoD to avoid being accused of employing mercenaries.

[Impiger]

Surely you're not a mercenary if it's your own country's forces you're fighting with? This smacks more of privateering - something we did for years!

[Rigga]

If what you say is true. Impiger, then all of the air and ground staff will be military or ex-military and therefore the whole project will be a waste of investment as they will not work to the required EASA standards or regulations and will not initially have the required experience to maintain these jets.

I say this because no A330 Type Rated LAE (on £50K+) is going to go through those hoops for a return to service pay and conditions - just not worth the hassle.

I would guess that, within two years, the whole shebang will be degraded to military standards and unable to conduct CAT work - instant profit loss - with subsequent service provision drops.

If true, this scheme is destined to seriously degrade the whole project. Pity.

[EGT Redline]

I say this because no A330 Type Rated LAE (on £50K+) is going to go through those hoops for a return to service pay and conditions - just not worth the hassle.

I couldn't agree more. They were advertising recently for a senior LAE to assist with the introduction into service. After a few telephone calls and a reluctance on their part to disclose the package on offer it transpired you were looking at somewhere in the region of £40k. Your average aircraft mechanic in civvy street makes that kind of money with a few days overtime here and there.

As a multi-type rated LAE on £60k (£75-80k if you factor in the overtime) working for a large UK Airline/MRO there is no way I would live out of a suitcase in digs at Brize away from my family on what is effectively the equivilent of service pay and conditions. When you consider the sponsored reservist requirement it does not appeal at all.

I envisage a few problems along the way with this project. For starters civil and military regulations/standards differ greatly and RAF personnel will have to completely change the way they work. Any serving RAF member employed on FSTA in a maintenance capacity without a licence, A330 type rating and company approval will be nothing more than a spanner monkey and that includes SNCO's. As for EngO's, well I guess you are still going to need somebody to sign leave passes.

[BEagle]

Interesting posts from the engineering chaps!

If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.

There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??

When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......

[Whippersnapper]

Interesting posts from the engineering chaps!

If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.

There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??

When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......


It is interesting, and is parallel to the civvy pilot issue. How do you attract civvy staff who are paid significantly more than their military counterparts, especially when those staff members will be exposing themselves to more risk and potentially to worse working conditions (leave, duty periods, etc)?

At the moment, there are hundreds of moderately experienced UK pilots looking for jobs who are currently unemployed following the collapse of their last airline. They would be fairly desperate and some may be willing to work for low pay, but with Emirates taking on 700 pilots, almost entirely from the UK, within the next year and BA looking for 300, I can't see many UK pilots accepting a full time job on half the money they're used to. Then there are many people like me, who are in secure jobs with good pay and decent rosters, but lack satisfaction in what they are doing and want to feel a part of something more challenging and important... I'd make the jump if the money was similar, despite the increased risk, as long as the terms of duty and rostering allowed me to continue a reasonable family life.

As far as engineering and maintenance are concerned, I had assumed that it was to be done in-house by ATr, given that the consortium is the manufacturer of the aircraft and its systems. They'd need some sorts of contracts to support the aircraft down-route unless they arrange for RAF engineering support, and that regulatory hurdle must already have been cleared.

Beagle, I still don't understand why you insist that AAR would be beyond the wit of civvies. AAR wasn't in the OASC test, so the RAF took just as much of a chance with you as ATr would be in recruiting civvy, the key difference being that at least the civvy pilots would be experienced and trained to fly the aircraft, unlike all RAF new entrants. I have no doubt it's a complex skill, but since the civvy pilots will not have to work too hard at operating the A330 in any other aspect, being entirely familiar with large aircraft operation and procedural flying, it should be a relatively simple task to train the civvies to do the job under the tutelage of the RAF. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are just not that superior or special. Whether ATr choose to invest in the training in order to maximise its operational flexibility and efficiency is down to them - they're the ones with the figures and projections of costs vs efficiencies, so I'd trust them to make that informed decision, but I really can't see those experienced pilots that pass ATr's selection process struggling with such training any more than Service pilots.

[MrBernoulli]

Whippersnapper,

They would be fairly desperate and some may be willing to work for low pay, but with Emirates taking on 700 pilots, almost entirely from the UK, within the next year and BA looking for 300, I can't see many UK pilots accepting a full time job on half the money they're used to.
"BA looking for 300"? BA has hinted that it may look for 20 - 30 pilots in 2011. But 300? Where did that figure come from? That seems very unlikely.

[StopStart]

WS - AAR and many other disciplines the RAF trains its pilots in aren't rocket science and most intelligent, able pilots can be taught them. The problem comes with maintaining the individual in the particular skillset and also with the organisation retaining the expertise they've invested in.

With a military pilot you have someone who hasn't signed a "contract" per se and who can be retained for a period as dictated by the RAF should he wish to resign. A civilian or reservist will be employed under contractual terms; if the RAF is going to invest in training him up then they want a guarantee that he won't up sticks and go at the first signing of a blossoming civilian market. It would have to be a fairly restrictive contract and I suspect many civilian pilots wouldn't want to be so tied down.

One could employ civvy pilots as reservists, initially as strat pilots, onto the sqn with the offer of training and qualification as an AAR operator further down the line. This would enable the RAF to assess the motivation & abilities of the individuals whilst in service prior to offer them further training (along with a change in contract terms).

I don't see why there should be any resentment within a sqn towards a civilian/reservist doing the same job on higher pay. There are plenty of existing situations in the RAF where that happens already. Problems might arise however if the reservists weren't required to properly "integrate" into the sqn. Many civilian pilots without prior RAF experience might not be that interested in coming into work to do secondary duties or other, peripheral duties. You run the risk of having a two tier unit where the reservists just roll into work as per their roster whilst the RAF personnel are in work doing all the usual sqn triv between trips.

These are generally just management issues but I suspect that if a reservist without previous AAR experience wants to get involved in that side of the business he'll find himself tied into a more restrictive contract than he might be used to in the civilian world. As I said earlier, there's no reason why a competent, motivated individual, regardless of background, can't be taught most of the stuff we do. Don't assume, however, that a million hours of A330 time is an indicator of ability to absorb new skills well outside of their previous experience. The same goes for the military of course - I've taught highly experienced military operators (in terms of hours) who have struggled to get to grips with new, more esoteric skillsets. The RAF and/or ATr are going to want to sure their investments go to the right people and that that investment can be retained.

Notwithstanding all of the above and as already mentioned by another poster, I suspect that someone somewhere has already thought of all this stuff already :)

[Whippersnapper]

"BA looking for 300"? BA has hinted that it may look for 20 - 30 pilots in 2011. But 300? Where did that figure come from? That seems very unlikely.
That's what I had heard from guys that are looking at them far more intently than me, but it may be well off the mark. I would think they're after more than 20-30, though, given the amount of new aircraft they're getting and the number of replacements for retirees and resignees.

[Impiger]

With the typical Pprunistic approach of pontificating about things we don't really understand I thought a bit of research might enlighten us all - so look at:

http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/tactical/toolkit/downloadsindexed/sponrese/sponrese_cps.pdf

Seems to me that the contractor has to provide a percentage of his work-force as SR as stipulated in the contract. The RAF will provide a percentage of the whole as GFX (government supplied personnel) also, in this case, stipulated in the contract. The SR remain throughout employees of the contractor on whatever terms the contractor offers/agrees. They are mobilised as necessary to give them the protection of crown servants while undertaking certain tasks but they are still paid for by the contractor. The RAF stipulates the hoops that have to be jumped through to make the personnel SR - this includes some purely military training.

Once the work-force mix has been agreed and recruited the rest seems to be entirely a matter of local management and leadership.

[Whippersnapper]

StopStart, your post is straight down the lines of my thinking. In terms of restrictive contracts to ensure an economic return on the training investment by the employer, it's normal in airlines for the pilots to be "bonded" to the airline for a three year period for the cost of the training course on a pro-rata basis. This usually applies only to type rating courses, which run at about £25k, but some companies (you can guess which :hmm:) have started bonding for command courses, instructor courses and anything else that can have cost implications. It may be possible to have civvy crews who have demonstrated suitable ability volunteer for AAR training and duties on such a basis, extending their bond beyond the original type rating bond. Bonds are seldom an issue in companies with fair terms and working conditions, though, as pilots don't tend to leave such companies in significant numbers. Bonds or self-sponsored type ratings suggest an airline whose pilots want to leave quickly, and that only happens where they are treated badly. Self sponsored training, especially where coupled with a pay to fly scheme, should be a significant warning flag to prospective applicants as to what to expect - these not only companies want to screw every penny out of staff, but also clearly expect them to leave very quickly and have concerns about resignees not paying off bonds.

Ultimately, it's the RAF's and ATr's decision, and if the RAF permit it and ATr believe the flexibility outweighs the initial costs, then there is no technical reason it can't be implemented.

[BEagle]

They are mobilised as necessary to give them the protection of crown servants while undertaking certain tasks but they are still paid for by the contractor.

= stops them being treated as mercenaries.

If someone would like to fund the experiment, I'd happily put a 'plain vanilla' airline pilot through a 3 week CBT and part-task-trainer AAR course to see how they would cope. The assets for such an experiment already exist.

[Arty Fufkin]

Whippersnapper,

I tend to agree with most of your points. Having done the AAR job on 2 types and seeing the very low hours and experience of young pilots embarking on current wide body airliner training within the RAF ( yes trim stab, it can make for hard work in the LHS!) I see no reason why pilots without a military background could not get AAR qualified. After a few years, they could even become tanker captains!
However, I'm sure I'm not alone in objecting to purebred civilian pilots pitching up ready type rated and donning a RAF uniform to fly for this new company having passed an interview and sim check. I (like a lot of folk on this forum) have worked bloody hard over the years for the RAF. As an organisation we may be a bit dog eared after years of cost cutting and underfunded overwork, but all of the people I work with, regardless of their talent, are first and foremost, members of the military. I like working with them because we all seem to have a common outlook and sense of humour. I know plenty of civilian pilots, and would love to work along side them in their work environment, but for the large part, they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
There are some truly great pilots out in the airlines, I know. And when my time comes to join an airline, I look forward to learning from them. But for the moment, I like to see people wearing the uniform who have earned the right.

Arty out.

[Whippersnapper]

However, I'm sure I'm not alone in objecting to purebred civilian pilots pitching up ready type rated and donning a RAF uniform to fly for this new company having passed an interview and sim check. I (like a lot of folk on this forum) have worked bloody hard over the years for the RAF. As an organisation we may be a bit dog eared after years of cost cutting and underfunded overwork, but all of the people I work with, regardless of their talent, are first and foremost, members of the military. I like working with them because we all seem to have a common outlook and sense of humour. I know plenty of civilian pilots, and would love to work along side them in their work environment, but for the large part, they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
There are some truly great pilots out in the airlines, I know. And when my time comes to join an airline, I look forward to learning from them. But for the moment, I like to see people wearing the uniform who have earned the right.

Arty out.


That was the sort of answer what my initial enquiry was aimed to solicit, though I was hoping people would feel ambivalent about it, rather than negative.

Like I said, I don't believe the RAF should have to pursue such PFI, but there's nothing we can do to increase political commitment to the Forces and the RAF is not going to be able to retain its independence.

I would never support the civvy crews wearing RAF wings on their uniforms. I did Cranwell and about half the flying training before being canned, like most in my year. I have worked hard at getting where I am, too, and having earned a Commission in the past, a uniform with the reservist pins would not seem unreasonable, but I know what RAF wings mean and would feel a fraud for wearing them. Most of us on this side of the fence would feel the same way. People like me are not especially rare in the airlines, and hopefully we'd be amongst the sort they're looking for, though I'd expect ATr to be aiming primarily for ex-tankies who have been in legacy carrier wide body fleets for a few years. Surely they'd be fit for the uniform, in your eyes?

[StopStart]

Dust these off!

http://www.atamuseum.org/IMAGES/ATAWings.gif

[Impiger]

Wings ....

During a briefing about FSTA at HQ Great Ideas the then CINC got very hot under the collar about the prospect of non-Service pilots wearing RAF Wings if mobilised as SRs.

Of course his fears were groundless as we already had a category that covered this eventuality: when I was at a not so secret Scottish base our AEF commander was a non-regular VR pilot who had never been through any Service flying training (except perhaps Tutor conversion) he was badged as a flt lt (or maybe a sqn ldr - I forget) and wore wings which either said RAFVR or just plain VR in the middle. There's always a way around these things!

[Whippersnapper]

they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
That's the best response to the original post sofar. I think it sums up what has been proposed. The potential for things getting really bad and the crew being in a bad place is not impossible. Under difficult circumstances, the crew need to know they have at least ccs to fall back on, without wondering how the "civvy drivers" are going to manage on hostile ground.

When it's all going well, it may be fine, but when the going gets tough, someone is going to get hurt.

So, anyone who is not military is incapable of duty or courage? I think most applicants would have a good idea of what they are getting into, just like most RAF applicants. And, as I have to once again re-iterate for the hard of thinking, many of the candidates are likely to have been ax RAF, either fully trained and retired at the end of their Commission, or part RAF trained and civvy experienced like me. Either way, what's the difference? Am I deemed incapable of performing my duties just because there were too many defence cuts in the 90's?

It seems a few people have a terrible set of unfounded prejudices which are not only arrogant but insulting.

[MrBernoulli]

(Apologies to all for the slight thread creep .......)

I would think they're [BA] after more than 20-30, though, given the amount of new aircraft they're getting and the number of replacements for retirees and resignees.Sorry Whippersnapper, I still can't agree. Many of the crews for the new jets will come from the 747-400 fleet as it is slowly wound down. That is one of the reasons that BA are buying A380s and 777-300s - to replace ageing, relatively fuel inefficient 747-400s. The 787s will sort of fill the 757/767 slot.

Sure, there will be pilot retirements, but with the Iberia merger and the American Airlines tie-up, more aircraft does not necessarily mean more routes/route expansion. For example, to get the AA deal approved, BA has had to give up slots at Heathrow!

As I said, BA may recruit 20-30 pilots in 2011. Any of those that are in the hold pool now, from the recruiting processes of the last couple of years, will have to reapply all over again.

This is the best info I currently have on BA, and I am on the inside. :ok:

[Art Field]

In the days when things were rather more relaxed I was doing a rating check on a squadron pilot and we had a checker on board for the chaps civilian rating. The checker was an ATC officer but had never been a regular military pilot. He had flown the VC10 for BA many years before. By way of return for services rendered I let him have a bit of handling. He produced an A cat standard in all aspects including formation. As for loyalty, he had many years of ATC service under his belt.

There is no guarantee that all civilian pilots can produce results like this but undoubtedly some can so let us wait and see how things turn out shall we.

[Tourist]

I feel that there are a few points that must be made.
1. I have a ex mil friend who has been flying A320s for 2 years since he left and has just gone onto A330s.
He says that the 330 is easier than the 320 to fly and both are "a piece of piss, I can't believe that I get paid for this sh1t"

2. Is it just me that finds RAF multi types complaining about the fact that the civvys involved in flying this beast will not be military enough absolutely hilarious? I mean, seriously?!! Pot this is kettle, etc....

[A and C]

Above is some of the worst small minded predudice that I have seen in a long time, according to some civil pilots who join ATr will be unable to have the brain to fly the task, unfit wear the uniform, are likely to be disloyal and are likely to be unreliable when things get tough.

I know that these opinions are likely to be those of a small minority who can't see past the gates of the station but why would you want to work in an enviroment that seems encourage this small mindedness?

I think I would rather stay in an airline that has an open minded culture and a lack of predudice..............................Oh ! the crew are much more pleasing to the eye as well!

[Trim Stab]

they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
That's the best response to the original post sofar. I think it sums up what has been proposed. The potential for things getting really bad and the crew being in a bad place is not impossible. Under difficult circumstances, the crew need to know they have at least ccs to fall back on, without wondering how the "civvy drivers" are going to manage on hostile ground.

When it's all going well, it may be fine, but when the going gets tough, someone is going to get hurt.


I know a few civvy pilots that would be far handier in those circumstances than the average RAF AT type. For example, Easyjet pilot who is serving RMR and has done a tour of Iraq, a training captain at Ryan Air who is ex SAS(V), and a serving RNR on another fleet.

[Redcarpet]

Given the lack of variety and lack of hours the average RAF Multi-Engine pilot gets these days, it is extremely arrogant to suggest civilian pilots, who probably average 3 x the hours per year, could not do AAR.

[airborne_artist]

I know a few civvy pilots that would be far handier in those circumstances than the average RAF AT type. For example, Easyjet pilot who is serving RMR and has done a tour of Iraq, a training captain at Ryan Air who is ex SAS(V), and a serving RNR on another fleet.There's also a First Officer Nigel who has a tasty job :E

[cessnapete]

You will always get these attitudes ref civil/military flying due lack of knowledge of each others operations, and reluctance to acknowledge that they may be a better way of doing things.

In a previous Post I tried to comment on a possibly unsatisfactory trip pattern in the AT fleet ref lack of proper rest before duty.
I was then shot down by the '' I lived in a tent in the desert for six months and flew my Harrier/Tornado etc etc. with no problems, and lived,'' brigade!!

But it is good to share the various opinions, that's what PPrune is all about.

[StopStart]

Thread drift - No, you were passing presumptuous judgement on things you have no experience of. You weren't "shot down", you were corrected by the people with first hand experience :rolleyes: There's no "reluctance to acknowledge that they may be a better way of doing things" (I am well aware a fluffy hotel is much nicer than a grotty portacabin or that 20hrs rest beats 11) but there is an acceptance that military operations require an element of privation and "making-do" to get the job done. Quoting union rules at people serves no purpose but nor does just accepting every stupid order thrown at you. That's why flying military aircraft isn't just black and white.

I have no first hand experience of flying an A330 but I can safely bet that 90% of the folk that do it aren't idiots and that there's no reason why those that are suitably motivated couldn't perform discrete military tasks such as AAR given suitable training. :hmm:

who probably average 3 x the hours per year

Hours are utterly meaningless. If you do 10 x 15 hour sectors is that 150hrs "worth" more than 100 x 1hr sectors? On paper 150 beats 100 but the bloke with 100 landings vs 15 wins hands down in reality. Don't confuse hours with experience.

[Jambo Jet]

Redcarpet said "Given the lack of variety and lack of hours the average RAF Multi-Engine pilot gets these days, it is extremely arrogant to suggest civilian pilots, who probably average 3 x the hours per year, could not do AAR."


Agree. However military pilots tend to use the full flight envelope with their flying (especially C130 guys). My civvy employer got a hardon if anyone flew below V enroute icing except on final approach.

( VER ICING – Minimum En-Route Climb Speed (Icing Conditions)
Gives the optimum climb gradient as well as rate of climb with residual airframe ice. This speed gives a margin of 1.4 VS. )

[Dengue_Dude]

When I was on 216 Sqn, we still did flights that allowed - in fact it was the whole purpose, pilots to fly manually.

This was NORMAL, touch and goes, EFATO (simulated), different sorts of approaches too - manually.

I'm not sure any airline would accept the cost overhead - and I'm not talking about the check ride as part of the licence, this was pure currency flying.

I've known civvy operators who stipulated that the AP be engaged as soon as possible, it was rare for the FOs to get their hands on the aircraft manually at all - virtually simulator only.

I am not convinced that the assertion above is wrong, perhaps a trifle arrogant, but civvy pilots are not 'encouraged' to explore the envelope, merely because they ARE just that (and quite right too).

Personally, I wonder where all this cost-cutting mania will stop. I always feel there has to be a hull loss or body count before 'someone' realises that it can't be done - safely.

I daresay with this too, we shall see. It's just very depressing - all driven by the lowest form of life . . . the bean counters (the very people, along with most politicians, with absolutely no idea what it is their spreadsheets are demanding).

[Snow Dog]

Don't forget, the aviation world is based on the 'if you haven't done it this way, you can't do it' attitude! That goes whether you're crossing 1 Gp to 2 Gp, ISTAR to ATAAR or mil to civ (and vice versa in all cases). I know a civ guy adjusted his attitude once he noted the difference between his and my hours tally. I just smiled, knowing what I knew AND finding out what I could learn from him - and I think that's the key. This point of view seems more relevant to either the new and inexperienced, and the experienced and insecure!

There was an addage:
At 100 hours, you think you know it all.
At 1000 hours, you know you know it all.
At 10,000 hours you know you're still learning.

I know pilots who could cope and pilots who couldn't - it doesn't actually matter if they're mil or not. On the other hand, we weren't born one type of pilot or the other - it is influenced by supervision, training (beyond the OCU) and cross-pollination; the further we seem to progress down that list, the less emphasis we apply to those influences.

Happy to fly with and learn from anyone ...

Snow Dog

[A and C]

I do fear the lack of hand flying & raw data flying in the civil world, it is becoming a real issue.

I do as much hand flying of the aircraft as I can if conditions permit and encourage FO's to do the same. Fortunaty I work for an airline that values hand flying skills and the management know that these skills can only be kept current with practice.

Some airlines use the FDM as a tool to beat the pilots, one airline has a policy of sending a text message to the captain of an aircraft if he busts an FDM limit to explane his actions, this "bust" might only be a few KTS below Vref.

The airline that I work for would take no action for a small Vref "bust" as long as the FDM showed that action was quickly taken to increase the airspeed.

The FDM was intended to increase flight safety, what it had done in some airlines is de-skill the pilots by encouraging the over use of automatics (Vref bust....... "not me John ! it was the autothrottle guv").

So getting back to the thread I do have some time for those who suspect the civil flying world would not fit in to the military tanker business however two good pilots on the interview team should be able to weed out the button pushers.......................but don't let the personel depatment within a mile of this job.

[Shell Management]

I can't help thinking that some in the military seem to focus on job preservation by claiming superiority over civilians rather than fielding innovative and effective capability with modern technology.

[Justanopinion]

I can't help thinking that some in the military seem to focus on job preservation by claiming superiority over civilians rather than fielding innovative and effective capability with modern technology.

For all those getting a little bit grumpy about the 'military' saying the 'civvys' are not up to the job..... Not one person who is currently on the AAR fleet (or indeed still serving in the military) has voiced a negative opinion on this subject.... but feel free to show me the thread i have perhaps missed as my attention to detail is not great.
.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

For all those getting a little bit grumpy about the 'military' saying the 'civvys' are not up to the job..... Not one person who is currently on the AAR fleet (or indeed still serving in the military) has voiced a negative opinion on this subject.... but feel free to show me the thread i have perhaps missed as my attention to detail is not great.
.

Nail on head :ok:

But then again go back through almost every thread and you will find some sad sorry ****er who having left feels compelled impart "knowledge" :p

[Lockstock]

It's not difficult to see that some civvies on here have severe inferiority complexes... and chips on their shoulders about military pilots.

Strange, as I've flown with some really good civvy pilots who are open-minded about guys from both worlds.
:ouch:

[Tight Seat]

I'm ex 216, I fly the A321 LHS at the moment. Does that make me a gash civvy or a hardend AAR pilot?

Most of the posts here are crap. Us 'civvies' always use the autopilot ( try the Greek Islands at night in crap weather), we dont explore the envelope ( try it on an airbus, it doesn't let you).

You'll find the 330 a huge sea change in the way you operate large aircraft.

I've flown with great RAF pilots, I've also flown with some great civvy pilots.

[Blighter Pilot]

I think the biggest issue with FSTA is going to be the cost - some great rumours of these AR platforms working out at £70000 per hour wet!:eek:

[hunterboy]

Would it be fair to say that it doesn't really matter whether it is a sensible idea ?
If the politicians decide that is going to happen, then money will be chucked at it until it does.....or there is a change of direction.
It wont matter what the squadron personnel think/say or do.

[Biggus]

hunterboy,

You need to appreciate that it (usually) doesn't really matter what people posting on pprune think, say or do....! :ok:

Not that this fact in any way inhibits threads like this getting to 178 posts.....

[Saintsman]

I think the biggest issue with FSTA is going to be the cost - some great rumours of these AR platforms working out at £70000 per hour wet!

I don't know what the exact figure are but it will include the cost of getting here today, which must be getting near 10 years. The legal costs associated with sorting out the PFI were enormous (ever met a cheap lawyer?) and every time someone changed the spec the cash register rang up another huge amount. AirTanker and the companies behind them, need to recouperate these costs. You can bet the money borrowed to finance the whole thing won't be attracting low interest rates either.

If AirTanker thought it was a licence to print money, there would be no need to consider 3rd party income. Besides, the whole cost is a consequence of the MOD not having the funds to set it up in their own right.

[brit bus driver]

Can't post a link as I don't subscribe to The Times online, but it appears that ministers are finally investigating the fact that £2.5 billion's worth of aircraft should not be costing over 5 times that over the life of the PFI. It would appear that the hangar cost £100 million to build - quoted cost for a similar structure at a civilian airport was approx £10 million. And the Chief Executive's salary was, if I recall correctly, in the region of £350k last year.

Mind you, these figures could be wrong as I was also eating my breakfast whilst the autopilot was driving me home in my Airbus. FWIW, I have also manfully wrestled the TriStar around many an eng-out NPA because 'we don't use the AP for that'. Well, now we only fly NPAs with the AP engaged - and pretty soon we'll join the other fleets by effectively flying an RNAV approach overlaid on the NPA. It lets you concentrate on the gorilla that might just bite you in the ar$e.

[Docfly]

You can only wear RAF "Wings" if properly awarded them. There are plenty of ex Army pilots now flying airliners. If joining ATr as a SR they would of course be entitled to wear the Army Flying Badge as awarded during their previous military service.
I would expect many of the jobs to go to ex service pilots, from AirTanker's website they are expecting to recruit 19 next year, 34 in 2012, and 15 in 2013.

[Whippersnapper]

For those who seem to think that civil pilots are just trained monkeys, unable to to fly manually, think about what they are doing and rack up hundreds of hours in the cruise reading the FT, that's not always the case. The Loco guys do close to the maximum 900 hours per year, and that equates to about 550-600 sectors. they land on postage stamp sized airports with non-precision approaches through the mountains in all sorts of horrible weather and with 100% ice or snow contamination on the runway. They also do plenty of hand flying if working with pragmatic captains like me who don't fully trust the automatics or avionics and like to keep a good grip on the mental air picture. Most of the brand new cadets might be rigid adherers to SOPs, but the more seasoned guys know how to fly within the spirit of the procedures but apply intelligence and experience to get the job done quicker, safer and more efficiently. They're not just inflexible button pushers. There is very little difference between the average abilities and mindsets of the RAF ME and civil pilots.

The question comes back to my original enquiry - how are they likely to be received on a mixed Sqn? I think we have seen that most of the RAF guys are OK with it, but a handful (who are reputedly not on the relevant fleets anyway) seem to be very upset and prejudiced. Pretty much what I had expected.

Thanks for all of your input. I'll let the debate die down now, as the intended information was so well supplied.

[Brain Potter]

WhipperS,

There isn't going to be a 'mixed squadron' as such. ATr will operate certain MoD AT tasks under their own AoC and using their own resources. Pilots employed by A Tr will spend the vast majority of their time engaged on these tasks and will not routinely be part of a squadron. As SRs they will undertake a limited amount of AAR sorties, maintaining (just enough) currency in the discipline to allow them to be 'activated' in the event of an operational surge.

[deltahotel]

What's the feeling on non type rated pilots? Would ATr be prepared to pay for the type rating to get the person they wanted? Which is most important - the person or the current type? Will they have their own TRTO for LPC/OPC purposes or contract that out?

Just curious

DH

[doubledolphins]

Dear, Doc, you wear the correct wings for the service uniform that you are wearing. It does not depend on which service you qualified in. But you must have qualified as a "service" pilot. (Unless you are PMoK) A PPL will not do.

[I'm Off!]

Not always true doubledolphin...

[SkidMX]

Am a bit late to this thread but am Airbus rated (6000 + hrs) & also have a couple thousand hours Phantom time supping on AAR.

Maybe I should apply for the job, & hope that as many as possible would take offence at my Nav brevet! :ok:

Bring it on!

Skid

[BEagle]

Just don't mention 'fishing' in the Nocton Hall bar, eh Skid?

[Docfly]

Incorrect dd, you can only wear the "wings" to which you are entitled by successfully completing the course. An ex Army Pilot could no more wear the RAF version (or want to) than could an ex RAF Nav (apologies skid!), neither of them have done the course. While we are using acronyms even the PoW who already had the wings to go on his blue suit had to complete the Army course before he could wear the Army Flying Badge on his brown suit. Admittedly he was in a course of one which only lasted a morning and had his own wings parade in the mess that lunchtime, or was it in the museum?

[SkidMX]

BEagle - not guilty your honour!
A young lady was providing me with an alibi elsewhere!...

well remembered though!

Skid

[Trim Stab]

What's the feeling on non type rated pilots? Would ATr be prepared to pay for the type rating to get the person they wanted? Which is most important - the person or the current type? Will they have their own TRTO for LPC/OPC purposes or contract that out?

My guess is that they will type-rate the majority of their recruits themselves. They have invested in their own sim, and were advertising for an experienced A330 TRI a few months ago. Also, A330 pilots are one of the few types who are in relatively high demand even in the current market - so it would be expensive to recruit only experienced type-rated pilots.

[Wrathmonk]

you can only wear the "wings" to which you are entitled by successfully completing the course

Agree that for RAF VR who have never completed a wings course but try telling that to the RN/RAF crossovers (in both directions;)) who went home on the Friday in one colour uniform and reappeared days later, doing the same job, in a different colour uniform.

There are a couple of PPRuner's who have done such a swap .... perhaps they may soon appear and dispel the myth!:E Or were those before them incorrectly dressed!

[Army Mover]

All fascinating stuff this; so if I've understood it all properly, you could have SkidMX, an ex RAF F4 navigator, turned pilot, turn up as an employee of the PFI supplier, to fly an A330 as an RAF VR, wearing the uniform of the day, sporting navigator wings. :eek:

I think I'll stick to Volvo trucks; they may cost me £250k a throw, but I don't have half the issues you guys have :ok:

[teeteringhead]

I was involved in the not-too-distant past in the "crossing-over" of a number RN and Army pilots to the RAF. The general rule (or at least practice) for the wearing of RAF wings ("The Flying Badge" to be pedantic) required the "successful completion of an approved RAF course of instruction", which was held to be either an OCU or one of the CFS courses (which they may have already completed in their previous service).

Strictly speaking, the wings shouldn't have been worn before the end of the course (if they hadn't completed one before) , but blind eyes were turned. Particularly necessary for ex-RN pilots; RN regulations specifically prohibit the wearing of RN Wings on RAF or Army uniforms. But I know of at least one transferring Army pilot who wore her Army wings on RAF uniform until the course was completed!

(which confused the bejabers out of some Old Boys at a cockers P, who thought the GPR had been reformed!)

[2 TWU]

SkidMX old son, at least if you became a tanker capt you would make better decisions than the prat who lead the formation when we were bringing a singleton F4 back from ASI post the conflict.

I remember it well, looking ahead we could see that the next bracket was going to be right in the ITZ which was really active that day. We requested to take some gas before the zone and then some more after. The answer was a big NO---the plan says we tank there so that's what we will do. As we plunged into the cloud, the hose was streamed and we were cleared astern to watch the basket whipping up and down by a considerable distance and with impressive violence. We managed to get the gas by guess or by God so avoided a trip to Banjul Yundum, to which you admitted you hadn't got any TAPs if I recall!. At least the other tanker capt phoned up with an apology the next day but really---flexibility is the key to Air Power?

[Dan Winterland]

''Incorrect dd, you can only wear the "wings" to which you are entitled by successfully completing the course. An ex Army Pilot could no more wear the RAF version (or want to) than could an ex RAF Nav (apologies skid!), neither of them have done the course.''

Not sure about that. In my IOT we had an ex SNCO AAC pilot transferring to the RAF. He wore RAF wings while a cadet and before he did any RAF flying. And another mate got chopped as a RAF Nav, joined the Navy as a pilot and when he left the FAA, joined the local AEF and wore a Blue suit with RAF wings.

[BEagle]

I remember it well, looking ahead we could see that the next bracket was going to be right in the ITZ which was really active that day. We requested to take some gas before the zone and then some more after. The answer was a big NO---the plan says we tank there so that's what we will do.

Incidents such as that are just one reason why I required the Mission Computer System for the A310MRTT to provide the ARO with the ability to relocate the brackets and re-plan the entire trail as necessary under such circumstances. Which it does very well indeed - and it takes only a few seconds to do so....:ok: All subsequent brackets, abort points and the mission plan are automatically updated as well. Compare that with the archaic inaccuracy of RAPS!

I do hope that someone has provided something similar for FSTA......:hmm:

[3engnever]

Beags,

Unfortunately your quote about RAP's there is hoop. You can move the Bkt back as long as you move the AP back the same distance as per the single hose scenario, therefore allowing you the flexibility for such a situation. Failing that you could use the fuel transferred in the previous bkt to move that AP away to maybe allow you to refuel before the cloud. The Route AARC could be used to work a new plan or you could use the AARWIN. But clearly our archaic RAPS is useless.

I do concur, however, that a well written software program will produce more accurate and timely results.

RAP is not perfect but we haven't lost one yet due to a fuel issue. Touch Wood.

[BEagle]

Trust me - RAPS was never proven with any mathematical rigour. I have the original paper written by JP and it is riddled with generalisations and approximations. When RCR is almost the same as TCR, it produces meaningless results. Similarly, assigning one of 3 values (-1, 0 or +1) to a cosine instead of using the actual value is a gross over simplification (the ill-defined 'ahead, abeam, astern' RAPS conditions).

The only point in RAPS favour was that at least it was better than 'NAPS'!

The MCS is effectively an AARC-in-a-box with an embedded flight planning tool - instead of all the archaic RAPS methodology, it recomputes a trail for any standard refuelling contingency (partial transfer, slow feeder, high burn rate, single hose) much as the old AARWIN program might - only rather quicker. It has 'single click' single-hose replanning functionality and is highly accurate, very quick and easy to use with intuitive HMI. It also writes the FPL and produces a computed flight plan.

Because the plan is updated after every bracket, the wasteful process of keeping receivers in contact until the 'geographic bracket end' is no longer necessary. Disconnect when complete, plug in the next pair, disconnect them when complete, allow a few minutes for receiver fuel quantity systems to stabilie, then do a gravy check, whack the values into the entry fields and click update plan. Seemples.

Recomputing a 6 receiver trail across Australia when one hose fails to trail takes about 2 seconds.....

[Wander00]

Ref the "wings on uniform" point, I know there is a specific Army dress regulation that authorises the wearing of RAF "wings" on Army uniform, which as an ex-RAF pilot I did when a TA officer. The benefit of that regulation was also taken by a Deputy Lieutenant of a county who had been a National Service pilot.

[sargs]

Teeters


RN regulations specifically prohibit the wearing of RN Wings on RAF or Army uniforms.


Very strange, considering the reverse is not true. I know of an RN chap wearing (with official blessing) an RAF flying badge on his best rig.

[teeteringhead]

That's odd Sargs .... I always understood that RN also forbade other Wings on their uniform. Did he wear it on the chest or on the arm?

As to Lords Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants, there's an old SH mate (M*** D******) who's a DL in London and wears wings on his DL kit.

[Wander00]

TH - not the one whose Father was an erstwhile DIrector of Flight Safety, and who was on 88 Entry at Sleaford Tech?

[teeteringhead]

Wander00 - the very same. London has a different system from the rest of the country; from the website of the Greater London Lieutenancy: Because of the size and constitutional structure of London, a non-statutory title and office of Representative Deputy Lieutenant was created in 1951 by Viscount Alanbrooke. The Lord-Lieutenant selects one of his Deputies to represent him in each of the 32 London Boroughs (except the City) shown below. Their main functions are to represent the Lieutenancy and occasionally the Lord-Lieutenant at civic and other official functions, and also to promote voluntary, charitable and youth activities. ... and MD is the Representative Deputy Lieutenant for Hammersmith and Fulham.

[Wander00]

Might just go on their site & e-mail him. Cheers
W

[SkidMX]

Well remembered 2 TWU.

18 Jul 1982 for that little tanker trail Ascension to Coningsby!

Seem also to remember having to join one tanker using only air-air tacan as radar was u/s!

Skid

[sargs]

Teeters:


Did he wear it on the chest or on the arm?



He's a current Airborne Image Analyst, he had it pinned to his chest on graduation but as far as I know, he's probably going to wear it on his sleeve. He's not the first, by the way - two or three RN Freddies have had official sanction to wear RAF FC flying badges.

[PURPLE PITOT]

All a bit moot since the bit you are talking about is civvy. You will get a pseudo navy uniform, and whatever guilded logobudgie they have chosen on your chest.

If they follow service/ryanair tradition, you may have to buy your own! :p

[RetiredF4]

I´m reading on that thread since the beginning, and i feel the need to put in my thoughts from the "receiver " point of view.
First of all, i´m retired GAF F-4 front seater and did some flights across the pond to goose-bay and back with lots of AAR over the years. And a very operational crew saved our day on one event.

When you are out there in a fighter aircraft, your only asset might be the tanker and a proficient crew with a lot of understanding for the little necessities. That applies in peace time, and even more when you are in harms way (which i have no expierience myself, but trained for it for 20 years).

Flying a wide body as a flying guest house or trailing hoses might not be that different, the pure handling of the aircraft should not be a problem at all. But just answer yourself a few questions:

Do you feel happy with a schedule and it´s changes done by order and not developed in agreement?

Do you feel happy with 5 fighter aircraft within 30 feet of your aircraft for 6 hours without seeing them, also in bad WX?

Are you happy to do your job when risking being shot at by MXL´s and Gun?

Are you willing to do the same job during the same hours in the same places as the other military officers do?

Is your family willing to cope with the job like any military family does?

Only few questions out of a lot possible ones. And if you can honestly answer all those questions with a loud and clear "YES", then let me ask the last question:

Why did you not apply for the military from the beginning?

franzl

[newt]

Good call Retired F4!

Having flown fastjet and heavy jet I know who I would prefer operating the tanker.:ok:

[Torque Tonight]

Why did you not apply for the military from the beginning?


But I would expect the vast majority of the civvy strength of the squadron to have military experience behind them. I would have thought that those with no military experience whatsoever would be in a very small minority (but who am I to second guess Air Tanker's recruiting policy).

[doubledolphins]

I am refering to BR81 and I am correct. As to other types of aircrew wings, who cares?

[Whippersnapper]

Fanzl, if you read the thread carefully from the beginning, you would know that I, as the original poster of the thread, am ex-RAF (albeit for less time than I had wanted), and that the answer to all of the other points in your post was "yes".

[RetiredF4]

Whippersnapper
Fanzl, if you read the thread carefully from the beginning, you would know that I, as the original poster of the thread, am ex-RAF (albeit for less time than I had wanted), and that the answer to all of the other points in your post was "yes"

Noted, understood and for clarification, i´m with you on that one.

Pilots with military background would be my first choice for such a task. We did lots of AAR with the National Guard-Crews, and it always was a pleasure to work with them.

My comment is pointed at the discussion, that any civilian pilot can do the job, regardless of a military flying background. And there i´m in a total disagree!

franzl

[Trim Stab]

My comment is pointed at the discussion, that any civilian pilot can do the job, regardless of a military flying background. And there i´m in a total disagree!



So on the one hand, you might have an RAF ab-initio recruit, fresh out of 45Sqn, with maybe 150 hours TT, no jet experience, and not even the experience needed to hold a CPL. He is possibly not even very interested in a military career, and sees getting on the FSTA as a way of getting a valuable type-rating to move into civvy flying as soon as possible (not an unusual attitude in the RAF).

On the other hand, you might have an experienced civilian pilot with many thousands of hours on widebody jet, who happened to have previously joined the another branch of the military (eg submariner, infantry officer) for genuine motives, then got the flying bug a bit later in life when too old to start military flying, but is now really motivated to fly for the RAF (albeit as a reservist).

And you tell me you would rather have the first candidate flying FSTA just because he has done "military flying" on a Grob Tutor and Beech King Air?

[Arty Fufkin]

I'd probably prefer to have the young abo on the Sqn because he won't whinge when you ask him to organise and host a RAFA visit / charity something-or-other. And if he's doing it, I wont get pinged for it.
Also, if he genuinely is rubbish or a t**t, you can chop him without his lawyer getting involved.......Winner!!!

I would guess that it will all be fine in the end, because time will show that military and civvy pilots are all about as good or bad as each other. It is just a question of who can put up with huge amounts of BS and keep smiling (yearly gas chamber visit, JPA expenses, RAFFT, OJARs/SJARS annual swimming test, OIC pingpong club etc etc etc.) That is the mark of a true military aviator:}!......that and a healthy appetite for beer.

That said, if you just wanna pitch up and do the flying, good on ya. I've been looking for that job for the last 18 years!!

[RetiredF4]

Trim Stab
Trim Stab
So on the one hand, you might have an RAF ab-initio recruit, .....L. He is possibly not even very interested in a military career, and sees getting on the FSTA as a way of getting a valuable type-rating to move into civvy flying as soon as possible (not an unusual attitude in the RAF).

On the other hand, you might have an experienced civilian pilot with many thousands of hours on widebody jet, who happened to have previously joined the another branch of the military (eg submariner, infantry officer) for genuine motives, then got the flying bug a bit later in life when too old to start military flying, but is now really motivated to fly for the RAF (albeit as a reservist).

And you tell me you would rather have the first candidate flying FSTA just because he has done "military flying" on a Grob Tutor and Beech King Air?

First of all, your example would not happen, the military canditate you mentioned would have been washed out of any military flying program well before and would not come back now or later. And assume he has an interest in a military career, then he would be properly evaluated and if found capable trained for the job he is supposed to go to. If that is a flying gas station, so be it.

So in answer to your question, as a military comander i would take the guy most suitable for the job, which could be either one.

The main statement i want to communicate is, that it´s not only hours and flying expierience what counts, it is the capability to do the flying job in a military environment in peace and war. The former military people have already proven their ability to cope with that part of the job, so they would be my primary choice.

A civi probably looks at it like any job, a military person should see it with dedication and honor with all necessary consequences. Its no use to have crews run away when the sh*t hits the fan, flying gets dangerous and more crews are needed than in peacetime. And that is what the taxpayer is ultimately paying for, not for peacetime training, but for readiness and reliability in bad times without discussion.

If your above mentioned civi-pilot can cope with that requirement and can prove it without doubt, he should throw his hat in the ring!

franzl

[Whippersnapper]

Arty, it is almost unheard of for civil pilots to sue their employers without very good reason and a lot of documentation to back it up and only ever happens over contractual issues. Sue one employer and your working environment will be so bad that you'd have to leave, but no other airlines will touch you because of it; they don't want people who will go to such measures to stand up for what is right.

Getting chopped in training happens in every airline - litigation by passengers over accidents from poor crew training is a big threat to airlines which the RAF doesn't face. It's very hard for a pilot to prove his trainer was being unreasonable or unfair, and I have never heard of one suing over such a matter, even when stitched up.

[Trim Stab]

I'd probably prefer to have the young abo on the Sqn because he won't whinge when you ask him to organise and host a RAFA visit / charity something-or-other. And if he's doing it, I wont get pinged for it.


Arty - that's about the first rational argument on this whole thread!

[Arty Fufkin]

Thanks, I will try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

By the way, I wasn't being serious about the lawyer thing. And sorry whippersnapper, didn't want to bring back bad memories by mentioning the whole getting chopped thing. Damn, I said it again! I won't mention getting chopped again. Bugger! Don't worry about it....I mean I once had a few mates who were chopped...haven't seen them for 15 years but not because they were bad people, just unlucky i guess. Anyway, must go, I know I mentioned being chopped once, but I think I got away with it!

[Whippersnapper]

And to think you have concerns about the mentality of civil pilots. How can the service justify letting people as puerile hold a commission, never mind fly their aircraft.

Sure, getting canned was horrible at the time, but it gave me a much better life outside of aviation than being in the RAF would have done, so your goading just isn't going to achieve what you want. I dislike the company I work for, but I'm happy with the rest of my life. Sounds like you might not be, though...

[BEagle]

Just a query, Whippersnapper, but if the prospect of flying military tankers involved flying some 30 year old non-glass TriShaw, rather than a spanking new A330, would you be quite as keen?

If not, why not?

Not criticising you, just asking.

[Whippersnapper]

In all honesty, I think I'd prefer it. I'm no Luddite, but I'm not a fan of Airbus' fly-by-wire philosophy, and the L1011 was an incredible machine in its heyday. I have only flown Boeings, so am likely to be biased, but I see them as more of a pilots' aeroplane then a 'Bus, which I see, rightly or wrongly, as more of an engineers' machine. For all that, though, all my friends and colleagues who have converted onto Airbus all say that once you've made the mental transition, they're great machines to work with...

At the end of the day, though, I'm more interested in the job and the company than the specific airframe ...

[airpolice]

Arty, I think you are wasting your time trying to rile Whippersnapper. I don't see any evidence that he's in the least bitter about being chopped. Some people take it on the chin and some people search for reasons other than not being good enough. Cutbacks, bad time for pilot hiring, not enough people retiring, usual MoD cockups, cfi and personality conflict, grudge pregnancy, the list is huge.

I've never met anyone chopped from flying for not being good enough.

In my own case I wasn't clever enough, or anything like officer materiel, so my under par eyesight wasn't an issue in me not being an RAF pilot.


On an another note, can anyone help me find the Sarcasm font?

[Runaway Gun]

Open your eyes Sunshine, it's right in front of you... :rolleyes:

[D-IFF_ident]

Does anyone have any rumours to share regarding the important stuff? Like pay and conditions for AirTanker pilots?

[airpolice]

Runaway Gun,

So it is, I should have seen that when I was compsing the message, after all , the emoticons have a tooltip that pops up to say what they indicate, so it should have been more obvious.

Oh, there I go again, being sarastic without using the icon or making it particularly clear that I am trying to sound that way.:rolleyes:


Anyway, we are wandering off the point of the thread. Let's get back to why Whippersnapper was chopped, er............. I mean, how the reservist people will we welcomed at Brize.

[Arty Fufkin]

Whippersnapper,

That would be a bite then.

With your finely tuned sense of banter I can see how you would be a right laugh to have about the place!
Seriously though, I have no doubt your lack of flying prowess was not the reason for you being chopped from flying training. It is obvious to even the casual observer that your flight comander didn't like you.