CAA Military Accreditation [Archive]

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 09:49

1. There are no credits from any exams (except for the NPPL) for anyone.
2. There are no credits from any Skill Tests for anyone.

You will note that there is no accreditation for the FRTOL; this is an omission which has been highlighted to the relevant people.

Regarding the FI certificate, there is no such thing as a 'Restricted FI' - it is an FI certificate with privileges restricted under the terms of FCL.910.FI FI - Restricted Privileges. Whether these restrictions can be lifted at initial issue, provided that the requirements of para (c) have been met, is something you will need to ask 22 Gp.

RW pilots seeking FW licences will first need to obtain part-FCL helicopter licences, then follow the same FW to RW requirements (as indlciated in CAP 804 Section 4 part L) which apply to civil pilots.

IR revalidation appears to require that it may only be acceptable for pilots who have "a class or type for which they hold a valid aeroplane rating in the Part-FCL licence". So yes, if you happen to have a King Air or a TriStar in your licence, by my reading. Whether the C-130 is considered to be the same as the Lockheed 382, I couldn't say - ask 22 Gp! But since the VC10 is not an 'EASA' aeroplane, then no if that's what you've flown......

The Cryptkeeper

27th Jul 2012, 10:05

Had a read through - I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's not very clear??

I'm due to leave next year and I've already got a CPL(H) but need to do an IR - as far as I can see there are no major changes to the credit available for QMP(H) with with regards to this?

I think I'll just go straight to the training provider for a distilled version!!!!

SammySu

27th Jul 2012, 10:09

Thanks Beagle.

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 10:11

VigilantPilot, please read 3.8 again (Section 4 part O page 8):

"....the proficiency check was conducted by the holder of a Flight Examiner Certificate issued under Part-FCL"

If the military IRE holds such a certificate, entitling him/her to conduct proficiency checks on the class/type, then fine. Now try to find one.....

wokkamate

27th Jul 2012, 10:39

Morning all! Does anyone who has read this in depth have a quick answer about how quick/easy it will be to get a CPL(H) now for a QMP with 3500 hrs total flying (mainly RW) under the new regs? ie how many exams have to be sat and is there a skill test?

I will now start to plough my way through the document to see if I can work it out myself, but any simple answers appreciated!

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 10:50

See CAP 804 Section 4 Part D, Subpart 2 Page 2.

You will have to pass all the exams and pass the CPL(H) Skill Test, I regret to have to tell you, irrespective of your years of military RW flying....:mad:

Part O merely allows entry into the EASA system. Unlike the previous system, it does not recognise the 'Experienced QSP', so will be very unlikely to act as a recruiting or retention incentive. No longer will people bite the bullet to reach the old 2000 hr TT mark, if they have any aspirations for a second career, because there is no incentive to do so in licensing terms. Whether that will lead to erosion of experience in front-line squadrons will doubtless be a matter for MoD to consider.

But if, as a PPL Examiner, you bowled up to CFS do your A2 and the CFS A1 trapper didn't hold even a PPL, you could perhaps offer to let him/her take the PPL exams 'under the auspices' of your flying club......:hmm:

wokkamate

27th Jul 2012, 10:55

Awesome! Very happy to know that all those years of professionalism and training, as well as hard won experience, count for nothing then.

On the flip side, perhaps doing all the exams before entering the civvy world is not such a bad thing in terms of learning. Is the exam package going to RW based though or is it still going to be a bastardised (A) exam package I wonder....

Thanks Beags for the quick summary though!

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 11:01

Awesome! Very happy to know that all those years of professionalism and training, as well as hard won experience, count for nothing then.

Perhaps you should make that point to 22 Gp?

The Cryptkeeper

27th Jul 2012, 11:35

BEagle,

You make a very valid point about retention - from a purely Army perspective not only is there no Bridging light at the end of the tunnel now but most young pilots (particularly NCOs) also have the prospect of the impeding change to pensions. I know of quite a few on the AH Force who have already said there's no point going beyond 12-14 years but they would stay to build up their hours for bridging. There'll be quite a few doing the 7 clicks to freedom on JPA in the next couple of years I'd wager.

Thank god I bridged when I did.

wokkamate

27th Jul 2012, 11:50

I agree. I can see people doing the time it takes them to enjoy an early career in the RAF, then leaving at their 1st exit option, in order to pursue a second career in the Civvy market. Have a quality of job experience first, then a quality of life experience second! It will undoubtably lead to an erosion of experience in an already eroded Service. This, as previously mentioned, coupled with changes to the pension scheme - with no choice of joining this new scheme or not, could result in a pretty bleak outlook for some.

That said, the quality of flying wil still keep a lot of people in beyond options, although the lure of PAS seems to be retreating with, I suspect, very few offers to transfer to PAS over the next few years.....

Easy Street

27th Jul 2012, 11:58

With 22 Gp itself expressing such low confidence in our training and experience - we even have to do a PPL skills test now FFS - shouldn't EASA be concerned that British military pilots are allowed to share controlled airspace with civil traffic?

I believe that a number of European air forces make their basic pilot qualifications compliant with civil licensing rules (groundschool exams, etc), which presumably makes their transition somewhat easier. I don't know how we justify the current dumbed-down situation, especially in the dreaded "risk to life" registers.

theboywide

27th Jul 2012, 12:38

I've read through the CAP804 and just wanted to clarify what I need to do please!!! Its very confusing!

I'm a current green rated C130J operator with about 3500hrs total and about 1500hrs Captain.

As I read it I need to do :
* Class 1 Med
* All 14 Exams - Do I need to do a crammer course or can I just take the exams without the course?
* Do a skills test with a TRE - can this be done on a C130J or will I need to do this at a civilian school?

Thanks in advance for your help
Wides

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 13:23

Wides,

The MAS completely fails to recognise that your experience and skill obviates the need for theoretical exams, unlike the previous scheme. In addition, you can only open a part-FCL pilot licence with an 'EASA' aeroplane type or class.

According to CAP 747, the Lockheed 'Hercules L382G' is an 'EASA aeroplane', whereas there is no listing for the L382J (C-130J).....:\

There will be precious few people able to 'benefit' from the terms of 3.5, although whoopy-doo, you won't need to do a crammer and can attempt all those expensive exams with self-study alone.

The skill test will be conducted by the holder of a Type Rating Examiner (TRE) Certificate for the aeroplane type, issued under Part-FCL, in:

• an appropriate multi-pilot type of military aeroplane on which the applicant is or has been qualified to operate as a QMP, suitably equipped for the purpose, which has an EASA civilian equivalent; or

• an appropriate multi-pilot type of civilian aeroplane provided the applicant has completed the Part-FCL requirements for inclusion of that type with IR in a Part-FCL licence except the type rating skill test.

So I guess that if the C-130J is considered an 'EASA' aeroplane and if you can find a TRE qualified on type, you might be OK? Put the question to 22Gp!

There is some daft school of thought which thinks that, having passed all those exams, you could approach an airline and ask to open an ATPL after completing type rating training with them. But would any airline entertain that nonsense idea? If you can even convince them to do your Type Rating, would you be able to convince them to wait for the Belgrano to send you a licence?

Whilst the new MAS opens the door to a licence for those poor sods booted out after Cameron's defence cuts, it is of damn-all use to most squadron pilots. Once you've achieved 70hrs PIC (or PICU/S) and an Unrestricted Green Rating, there isn't much point in staying on once you've passed the ATPL exams as they have a time limit towards the IR(A).....

MoD's guilt of involuntary military redundancy at the bottom end might have been assuaged by part O; however, the new MAS is a kick in the teeth for long-serving, highly experienced military aircrew...

5 Forward 6 Back

27th Jul 2012, 15:00

There are some throwaway lines about "BFJT graduates" taking their IRs in single-pilot single-engine aircraft. It uses the qualifier "shall," which worried me a section.

As a BFJT graduate and FJ-only pilot, is this expressly stopping me from taking a regular civil ME IR in a light twin as many colleagues have in the past?

The steps from an FJ job to an ATPL now appear to be same; sit all the exams (although you can self study and sit them yourself, rather than paying for a crammer course), then do a civilian IR?

5 Forward 6 Back

27th Jul 2012, 15:02

So that last-ditch effort from the team thrown together at 22Gp has achieved close to nothing. I know a couple of the guys involved and I am sure they tried their best, but this is bordering on madness.

I thought it was implied that the member states of EASA could come up with whatever accreditation they wanted, and therefore the poor state of this new MAS is purely down to 22Gp, and nothing to do with the CAA/EASA?

Or is it the case that 22Gp proposed more for us, but were beaten back by the CAA?

wokkamate

27th Jul 2012, 15:36

Or is it the case that 22Gp proposed more for us, but were beaten back by the CAA?

This is the crux of the matter I think. Does anyone know the truth? :mad:

TheInquisitor

27th Jul 2012, 15:48

Having read though it all, it appears, in plain language that you need:

- 70hrs PIC / PICUS / P1 non-Capt (Nimrod P1 / Copilot p1?) logged in your military logbook
- Class 1 medical
- Pass all 14 exams, no need for a formal cse
- Rock up at a FTO and complete whatever training they think you need, no need for a formal cse
- Pass skill test and IRT
- Apply for licence (assuming you meet the full requirements as laid down in part-FCL)

Effectively, as long as you have passed an OCU, and logged 70 hrs p1, the door is open?

Is that interpretation correct?

5 Forward 6 Back

27th Jul 2012, 15:51

It matches mine. Ironically, as an FJ guy with no chance of qualifying via a military IRT and being short of the 2000hrs mark, I think it actually makes it easier for me....!

TheInquisitor

27th Jul 2012, 15:56

Seems to make it alot easier for me too - I have very low PIC hrs (on manned aircraft, at least!) so didn't qualify for ANY credit under the old scheme - now it appears that I don't have to do a formal CPL / IR course.

Plus, the credits appear to be 'lifetime' - the old scheme gave you up to a year after leaving the service, but no mention of time-limits in the new scheme? More good news for me...

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 16:03

Or is it the case that 22Gp proposed more for us, but were beaten back by the CAA?

Emphatically NOT the case......

Having watched our training system atrophy over the last decade or so I wonder if this paints the professional military pilot in the best light.

After a kangaroo court, I was summoned for an Axminster shuffle "For telling the truth" about this, as one of our ex-Air Engineers described it..... I'd suggested to some colleagues that external regulation of standards, as is the case in civil aviation, meant that there was no option for training to be cut back to the level that a company could afford to pay for - unlike what was continually happening in the RAF at the time.

The loss of the 'Experienced QSP' accreditation reminds me of the old Roger Bacon story about an RAF VC10 captain applying for an ATPL. Thus spoke the Belgranist: "Good, now that you've passed all our exams, we just need you to pop over to do an 1179. Next week OK?"

"Sorry, I can't do it then. I'm flying the Queen back from Australia", came the reply....:rolleyes:

5 Forward 6 Back

27th Jul 2012, 16:06

I seem to remember you posting, BEagle, that it would be almost entirely up to each country's agency to decide what credits should be given for military experience, and in our case, the CAA had devolved it entirely to 22Gp.

So we can assume that 22Gp could have written almost anything for the MAS, and therefore the loss of experienced QSP accreditation is entirely down to them?

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 16:17

5F6B, the main issue with accreditation for experienced QSPs would seem to be that anything less than passing all the exams and flying a Skill Test might require recognition of assimilation of 'need to know' knowledge by practical experience and acceptance of test standards / qualifications of tests conducted by military instructors / examiners....... Something hard to do - allegedly.

Gone are the days when A2 / Master Green / IRE was considered God-like, it would appear.

You will have to ask 22Gp why they didn't insist on the retention of the 'experienced QSP' accreditation. However, should this now lead to a rush of experienced people PVR'ing, then perhaps the question will come from on high within the Service?

Although it is not possible to include a non-EASA aircraft Type Rating in a part-FCL licence, I do not know whether anyone actually put the suggestion to EASA that 'appropriate military aircraft which do not have civil equivalents' could be used for the initial issue of a part-FCL pilot licence, as was the situation under JAR-FCL. My guess is that they probably did not.

Megawart

27th Jul 2012, 16:47

I really don't see how any of us can legally operate in any kind of controlled airspace or even utilise air traffic services. We're just not trained or qualified ...it certainly begs the question of who would be culpable in the event of an incident.

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 17:05

A1, Master Green, IRE on Das Teutor and you would have to fly a Skill Test just for a PPL??

Quite ludicrous.

SAR Bloke

27th Jul 2012, 17:18

There are some throwaway lines about "BFJT graduates" taking their IRs in single-pilot single-engine aircraft. It uses the qualifier "shall," which worried me a section.

I'd like to know the answer to this too. I already have a CPL(A) with a MEP class rating but no IR. It will be a right pain if I need to add a SEP class rating and SEP IR (neither of which I want) just to allow me to conduct another IRT on twin that I am already qualified to fly.

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 17:41

5 Forward 6 Back

27th Jul 2012, 17:47

... anyone have any contact details for the team at 22Gp who put this together...?

wokkamate

27th Jul 2012, 17:51

Time to stop doing it then maybe! Either we are suitable trained and qualified (in which case we receive credit for that when it comes to licences) or we are not - and in which case we should not be flying in anything other than open FIR!

I think, legally, 22 Gp might have just shot the RAF in the foot, big style. Potentially a huge loss in not just face, but capability too.....:ugh:

SAR Bloke

27th Jul 2012, 18:11

If you already hold CPL(A) with MEP Class Rating, then you should be able to include an IR(A) in your licence under the same terms which apply to any other civil pilot licence holder.

True, but as far as I see it, that requires a modular course with a significant number of flying hours and expense. The other alternative is to use the Military exemptions to get a SEP IR and then convert it, but that also requires lots of hours, 2 IRTs and lots of money.

The contact details for 22Gp are on the first page of the Part O exemptions under the 'Applicability' heading.

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 18:54

Questions regarding eligibility criteria and/or the accreditation scheme should be directed in writing to: FT FJ SO2, Directorate of Flying Training, Building 1300, MoD Abbey Wood, BRISTOL, BS34 8JH or by e-mail to 22TrgGp-FT FJ1 [email protected].

Contact address as above.

- 70hrs PIC / PICUS / P1 non-Capt (Nimrod P1 / Copilot p1?) logged in your military logbook

It doesn't state that these are purely 'military' hours to be logged in a military log book - whereas the previous experienced QSP scheme gave recognition purely for military flight time.

So, as the RAF gives you sod-all solo time during training these days, you can still obtain an NPPL using exactly the same exam and test exemptions as applied hitherto, then top up your PIC time on a RAF FCA puddlejumper.....

Back in more enlightened times, I note that I already had 70 hrs PIC after my RAF Scholarship and UAS flying before I went solo on the JP3...:hmm:

iRaven

27th Jul 2012, 19:15

Well, I'm not one to revel in other's misery, but what has happened now is just the same that happened to Navs when CAA Licences went to JAR Licences around the turn of the millenium. No accreditation of training anymore, no carry over of mil hours to civ hours and no transfer of captaincy hours.

Welcome to the Club, my 2-winged master race buddies - it sucks the dog of death doesn't it? :(

iRaven

PS I got more exam exemptions as a 2nd tourist Nav in 1999 compared to a very experienced QSP under these new regulations. :ugh:

PURPLE PITOT

27th Jul 2012, 19:18

Sorry chaps, you will have to stay out of civvy controlled airspace, as we are just not sure if you are up to scratch.

Stay away from clouds whilst you're at it.

What a crock of Sh1t!

VinRouge

27th Jul 2012, 19:33

The other problem will be with lapsed atpl(a)for those already possessing an atpl(a)? As I understand, if your type isn't recognised, your license could expire in as little as three years as the green rating will no longer count as a renewal unless it's on a specific type?

Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the atpl syllabus? Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 19:48

Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the ATPL syllabus?

Indeed. Theoretical training and examinations for the equivalent civil licences should have been introduced years ago, instead of such training being progressively dumbed down at the whim of some senior officer or other.

Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22Gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?

Not so much the CAA as that wretched €urobolleaux of EASA. 22Gp should have ensured that a way was found to continue this highly worthwhile recruiting and retention incentive....:mad:

Hands up all those who think that the new MAS is A Good Thing.... "You, pratt at the back, what's your name?".

VinRouge

27th Jul 2012, 19:56

Thanks beags for the translations. It's not good news for most of us, but at least we know where we stand. Time to knuckle own,ditch pointless secondary duties and get our licenses sorted!

BEagle

27th Jul 2012, 20:36

A letter from SWMBO to your MP expressing her worry that her husband's RAF pilot training is so poor that the CAA will not grant a license, may be in order.

Being rejected from another countries airspace on safety grounds (quoting the CAA's refusal to recognise UK military experience) would be a more diplomatically expedient way of preventing us from delivering operational capability

Please note that your anger should be directed to 22Gp and EASA, not the CAA!

LFFC

27th Jul 2012, 22:06

:ugh:

Sadly, the world has moved on and as usual the British military hasn't moved with it.

Forget HQ 22 Gp, the real holders of the risk of operating military aircraft are the politicians that sign off a system. Once they realise what has just happened, and sadly that will probably come as a result of an enquiry following an incident of some kind, they will see that the obvious regulator for military aviation should be the Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA), not the training provider.

The new order of things is that the CAA regulate British civilian Flying Training Organisations and ensure that their product meets agreed European safety standards; the MAA should provide the same function for peacetime military flying training.

If that was the case right now, perhaps the MAA would be asking itself if British military flying training was an airworthy system.

BEagle

28th Jul 2012, 06:00

If that was the case right now, perhaps the MAA would be asking itself if British military flying training was an airworthy system.

For a start, does theoretical knowledge training in RAF flying training cover all the EASA learning objectives? If not, which ones doesn't it cover - and why?

Or was it the case that only EFT/BFT/AFT theoretical knowledge training was looked at?

BEagle

28th Jul 2012, 08:31

You are probably quite right, Just This Once.

But if this accreditation process was delegated to a 2-person team at 22Gp, did they actually float it past the MAA's regulatory department before it went to the CAA?

Military and Civil aircraft share the same airspace; to my simple mind military training should encompass everything which civil traning covers, PLUS military-specific items.

Perhaps the MAA should now take governance of this whole matter and assess whether any missing EASA learning objectives in military training pose a risk. Which may take a while.... They should also require that full recognition is made of the testing standards conducted by all military flight examiners as having full equivalence to civil flight examining.

The CAA used to consider that the RAF had a competency-based training system which obviated the 'hours' requirements of civil training. However, now that not even a PPL Skill Test may be credited, just what faith does the CAA have in the RAF's testing standards?

BEagle

28th Jul 2012, 09:39

I heard that the 22Gp guys were not able to match the military syllabus with the ATPL, which is the reason why the freebie ATPL doesn't exist any more.

I'd say the military groundschools covered about 2/3 of what ATPL covered. Plus, if you went rotary or FJ, then you missed out on anything specific to heavies (perf A, M&B, op procedures, air law etc.).

Specifically which items have been omitted as far as training to Op Standard on ME aircraft is concerned? And WHY??

Just This Once - thanks!

Easy Street

28th Jul 2012, 09:45

In the grand scheme of things, how expensive and time-consuming would it be to put all pilots through full-time ATPL groundschool on completion of EFT? I guess the volume of students would be such that it would be worth employing a couple of dedicated civilian instructors. It's my strong belief that this would do the world of good professionally - and FJ guys should do the Perf A and Op Procedures exams, ask any Tornado pilot who has grappled with unbalanced takeoff figures, flown an unsupported Oceanic leg or a long GAT deployment through Europe!

cedmondson684

28th Jul 2012, 09:53

Cranwell have a full time team of ground instructors or the MEAFT students. I wonder if it anyone has considered getting them registered as a training organisation for the delivery of the ATPL syllabus. The EFT groundschool syllabus, in theory at least, could easily be tailored to cover the EASA PPL syllabus as well as covering the the points unique to military pilots. This can only improve standards in the eyes of the regulators.

wokkamate

28th Jul 2012, 11:54

I guess the next obvious question is:

Are the exams still exactly the same or are there a new set of questions?

If so,

Is the Answer bank still extant or is there now a requirement for a new answer bank (which I am assuming will take time to pull together?)

Just wondering.....:hmm:

SAR Bloke

28th Jul 2012, 12:03

And if they are the same (or similar) then the question has to be asked as to who has it right and who has it wrong?

For instance, rotary licence exams asking questions about pressurisation systems on airliners and aircraft exam questions about type specific components such as 737 autopilots and FMS. Why on earth do you need that for licence issue? Surely that is type specific and should be in the type rating course?

Maybe it is EASA that needs to re-write their syllabus and not the RAF. The exams were a complete hoop jumping exercise with very little learning actually required.

BEagle

28th Jul 2012, 12:04

VigilantPilot, the tone of your post does you no credit.

There is no reason why the ATPL syallabus could not be included in military training. Although you might have passed through question spotting, that does not mean that others should do so.

In fact many airlines are, it seems, finally waking up to the fact that the current EASA CQB-spotting technique means that pilots have not properly assimilated basic knowledge, they've just memorised the exam answers without any clue as to the underlying theory.

The CQB is being re-written, I gather.

As for the suggestions that this new CAP suggests that military aviators are not fit to fly in the same airspace as civilian ATPL holders: grow up, pull your finger out and study for the ATPL theory. Stop using this excuse to suggest you deserve a free ATPL!

Perhaps thou should first remove the beam from thine own eye?

VinRouge

28th Jul 2012, 12:16

It's not the groudschool that's got my goat, it's the bloody skills test. I get a distinct feeling that the team put together by 22Gp had very little recency with respect of the front line.

How can pilots who fly in afghan class e airspace, regularly operating vfr, operating to natural and semi prepared strips, to significantly reduced safety factors, be still required to do a skills test? I did double asymmetric for 3 hours in the sim the other day stalling, operating to MOS, something the civvies don't do which requires far more skill than flying a procedural join and a procedure for an ndb. It seems that there wasnt enough input sought from the front line. At a time when we are flush with fl pilots looking for a job as there are not enough cockpits, quite frankly there was no excuse.

VinRouge

28th Jul 2012, 13:28

Vp, all it will mean is that people will start their grounschool on day one after the OCU, secondary duties will not get done and the mod Will be sending a fortune in caa examiner fees via enhanced learning credits, for very short term gain.

Lunacy.

LFFC

28th Jul 2012, 13:37

VigilantPilot,

Firstly, I did not mean to suggest that British military pilots are any less able than civilian pilots, but it's sadly true that outside observers might now perceive that to be the case. I actually believe that the vast majority of military pilots bring with them a wealth of experience when they move to the civilian world.

I'm not in a position to know, but I suspect that the HQ22Gp team didn't achieve accreditation for a number of reasons. Poor resourcing probably played it's part, as did late acceptance of the task because they didn't have their finger on the pulse. However, did they have ready access to the OCU training systems (not under HQ 22 Gp control) so that they could give a complete picture to EASA? Since many of the subjects included in the civilian ATPL theory exams are taught much later in the military (when they are considered more relevant), unless the 22 Gp team were able to gather the correct information from other Gp HQs, they would fail to tell the whole story.

In the civilian world, the CAA regulate the training provided by flying training schools and operators, so it is easy for them to provide a complete picture to EASA. Arguably, only the MAA would be able to present such a complete picture to EASA on behalf of the military. So this whole debacle just screams out to me that regulation of military flying training is systemically flawed.

:ouch:

BEagle

28th Jul 2012, 14:01

Poor resourcing probably played it's part, as did late acceptance of the task because they didn't have their finger on the pulse.

More likely the finger, or rather thumb, was occupying the traditional orifice whilst the corporate mind was in neutral?

VP, all it will mean is that people will start their grounschool on day one after the OCU, secondary duties will not get done and the MoD will be spending a fortune in CAA Examiner fees via enhanced learning credits, for very short term gain.

Exactly!

Come Monday morning at Abbey Wood, with the pleasant task of re-arranging paper clips and lining up their 4 coloured dri-markers ahead of them, as they begin their traditional morning chant of "L00kout, Attitude, Instruments, what about a FOEHL check?", Little and Large are somewhat surprised when the phone rings at 0831....

"ring.....ring"

"Hello, 22 Trai.....ah, good morning, Sir!"

"You two, your hats, my office...NOW!"

........

"Right. Sort this shambles out and come back when you've fixed it. Saxa Vord and Machrihanish have now closed, so whilst you're unbuggering this chaos, I will be looking for somewhere which might need an OC GD Flt, or whatever the latest stupid name is, should you fail in your task......

Understand? Right, why am I still looking at you?"

If only.....:\

starbright

28th Jul 2012, 14:26

Disappointing. Long wait for nothing. Tried to digest it and in summary we are exempt from the training requirements but have to do all the same tests (except MCC for ME guys). Am I massively off the mark?

Basically no accreditation for years of experience, hard work and commitment.

Chances of being allowed to do a skills test/IR on military aircraft? Probably as high as finding a IRE or TRE qualified on type!:ugh:

Aynayda Pizaqvick

28th Jul 2012, 14:55

Agreed, I don't mind doing the ATPL ground theory and will happily admit I will even learn a thing or two. But having do to do a skills test and IR as an IRE training captain with thousands of hours is, quite frankly, a joke.
They are basically saying that any experience I gain post 70 hours PIC is worthless. I know a few experienced people will be hitting the PVR button on Monday and heading off down the civvy multis route now:ugh:

Megawart

28th Jul 2012, 16:29

In essence there is no military accreditation any more. This surely is contrary to the 'military covenant' in that the military has provided all of us with NO transferable skills or qualifications.

If we'd joined as squaddies rather than the highest trained members of the military at least we'd leave with an HGV licence.

What a waste of thousands of hours of flying and literally hundreds of check rides and years of study and application!

What a shameful betrayal....

Megawart

28th Jul 2012, 16:34

The principle behind the Covenant is that the Armed Forces Community should not face disadvantage because of its military experience. In some cases, such as the sick, injured or bereaved, this means giving special consideration to enable access to public or commercial services that civilians wouldn’t receive. The Covenant covers issues from housing and education to support after Service, and in it veterans have great importance. It is crucial to the Government that it, and the nation, recognises the unique and immense sacrifices you have made for your country.

Whirling Wizardry

28th Jul 2012, 17:36

Having waited approx one month for a reply from the CAA wrt additional theory requirements to add an IR to an existing CPL I got a reply yesterday approx 10mins before the CAA shut up shop for the weekend, which was very good of them.

The news was not welcome; if you want an IR you must sit all 7 of IR exams, or all 14 for an ATPL. They also closed the email with the following statement:

"Please refer to CAP 804 for any credits towards the exams and
theoretical instruction which will be effective from 17 September 2012."

I infer from this that if I/you intend to gain an IR or ATPL before that date I/we have still got to go through an accredited trg provider which is another kick in the proverbials and a further dent in the ever-shrinking wallet. Disappointed doesn't even come close.

Anyone thinking of completing exams in August will also be pleased to hear that the deadline for exam applications was.......yesterday!!! :ugh:

The only aviators that I see benefitting from the MAS are the newbies, recently CR, green rated, that want to get out of the service as soon as they complete their return of service.

So glad I'm not out of the service in the next 2 months and that I haven't been waiting since April to find out this info :mad::mad::mad: and :mad:

SAR Bloke

28th Jul 2012, 17:50

Whirling Wizardry,

Did you have your CPL issued through the bridging scheme? I've just asked the CAA the same question and am awaiting an answer. The CAA wording was previously ambiguous and said that you would lose your theory credits if you hadn't had your licence issued before the deadline. I took this to infer that you would keep your theory credits as long as you had your licence issued (which I have but with no IR).

If they are making everyone do all 7 exams for the IR again then I will have to repeat exams that I have already obtained full credit for:ugh:.

Whirling Wizardry

28th Jul 2012, 18:36

SARBloke,

Got mine through the bridging scheme; to carry ATPL theory credit over (after 8 Apr 12) you needed to have had an IR issued and you must then upgrade to an ATPL within 7 years. It sounds like you are in the same position as me, i.e. 7 exams for IR or 14 for ATPL :(

The next available exams for IR are in Oct. I have been informed that you can start any necessry aircraft fg trg before completing all of the requisite theory exams but you would have to take your IRT/ATPL skills test after you have passed all of the necessary exams.

I was previously told by the CAA that any exams previously taken at ATPL level, i.e. Air Law and Ops Procedures would be credited beyond 8 Apr and you wouldn't have to sit them again (as long as you complete all exams within 18 months), however, the latest email the CAA sent me doesn't say that. I tend to get a different answer from the CAA every time I speak to them so I'd like to hear what anyone else has been told. It all adds to the frustration caused by the Campaign Against Aviation when simple answers are all that is needed so that you can simply organise what trg needs doing.

VinRouge

28th Jul 2012, 18:37

The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service shall be given credit for the purposes of the relevant requirements of Annex I in accordance with the elements of a credit report established by the Member State in consultation with the Agency.

Straight from easa basic regs. (article 10) Looks as if (IMHO) this requirement hasn't been met. It mentions Service, it doesnt say anything about training output standard. 22gp have only assessed up to a point at which knowledge,experience and skill is in its infancy. Like to see some civilian operators cope with an under resourced op setup, poor met services an very short notice destinations that fall outside of the company ops manual. We use our experience to act as met men, ir procedures publishers (when was the last time a civvie airline issued toppos?) planners, dangerous goods specialist yet none of this is recognised! How many times does a civvie captain have to pick up cargo handlers and their ops setups for incorrect and often dangerous assumptions? Complete contempt by the service if you ask me.

SAR Bloke

28th Jul 2012, 19:22

Whirling wizardry,

The more I hear, the more I find more questions that need answering. You mention that you will need to do the ATPL exams before a skills test but I thought the CPL and ATPL skills test were the same (and therefore there is no need to do it again). Does that mean you (and I) will also need to do another skills test before an ATPL can be issued? I assume not, and if I am right, then we don't fit within the current rules and someone will have to make the decision as to what we do next.

Who makes the decisions as to what is required in these sorts of cases? The CAA clearly state in CAP804 that they have washed their hands of it. Do 22Gp have the authority to make common-sense decisions in these cases (as the CAA have done with me previously)?

SimonK

28th Jul 2012, 20:14

I'm in the same boat as a few here with just a bone Cpl issued under mil bridging. I also asked the same question wrt converting a JAR Cpl to an EASA Cpl/IR, but am still waiting for a reply, I'll post if I hear anything different.

So essentially, unless I misread things, my cpl is absolutely worthless unless I wish to remain a cpl for the foreseeable future? If I wish to gain an IR I need to pass the 7 IR exams, a skills test and IRT and if I want an ATPL (why stay a CPL?) then I need to do all 14? So essentially the cpl, exams, hassle and expense was a massive waste of time and money?!

StopStart

28th Jul 2012, 22:10

VR,
How many times does a civvie captain have to pick up cargo handlers and their ops setups for incorrect and often dangerous assumptions?

As a newly created civvy aviator I can say we deal with this sort of thing far more frequently than I ever did during my time as the RAF's Most Awesome C130 Pilot.

I completely agree however that the failure to credit QSPs for the hours and experience accumulated during their career in the military is a slap in the face from the CAA. It also doesn't say much for the RAF for whom a well managed accreditation system would serve more as retention and morale booster than as an exit valve. As with most things however, the RAF would rather deal with the minor leak in the boat than with the huge waterfall they are slowly drifting towards. Hey ho.

BEagle

29th Jul 2012, 06:07

Stoppers, you are absolutely correct - and a number of other posters have made much the same point.

Before the wholly unnecessary and thoroughly unwanted leaden hand of EASA's €urocracy descended upon us all, the Military/Civil Working Group had worked together to achieve a far more reasonable system. As stated in LASORS 2010:

'...the MCWG determined a level of equivalence between theoretical knowledge training and subsequent operational experience and that required at JAR-ATPL(A) level. It should be recognised that the scope for accreditation was not the same for all military pilots and that role training and experience ultimately determined the level of equivalence achieved'.

That must now be restored, if the MAS is to enjoy any credibility.

The Cryptkeeper

29th Jul 2012, 07:56

Help! I am now thoroughly confused about what I need to achieve in order to gain an IR.

I currently hold a JAR-FCL CPL(H) and AS350B TR gained via the Bridging system and issued in early 2008. As far as I can see this is worthless without an IR - so in order to get one I have to sit a further 7 exams (including resitting Air Law?) prior to even starting a course with an ATO?

I am a current QMP(H) with a Restricted Green rating. I currently have 3600hrs (not, it seems, that it counts for anything) - I am signing off next month so I have a year to get my house in order so I am employable. Sitting a further 7 exams will obviously delay things considerably (as well as deplete the bank account further).

I have already budgetted for the QSP IR conversion course with Bond Helicotpers and I'm currently awaiting an answer from them on any changes with the new Section O to the CAP might affect their course.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Uncle Ginsters

29th Jul 2012, 08:02

BEagle

29th Jul 2012, 09:58

Uncle G, you're not wrong!

This is what the previous system was based upon:

JAR–FCL 1.020 Credit for military service
Application for credit: Military flight crew members applying for licences and ratings specified in JAR–FCL shall apply to the Authority of the State for which they serve(d). The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service will be credited towards the relevant requirements of JAR–FCL licences and ratings at the discretion of the Authority. The policy for the credit given shall be reported to the JAA. The privileges of such licences shall be restricted to aircraft registered in the State of licence issue until the requirements set out in the Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.005 are met.

Several years ago, we were assured by the EASA presenter who came to Gatwick for a pre-EASA meeting which I attended, that the same principles would apply under EASA. Nothing would change; it would remain the National Authority's decision as to the level of such credit and the senior CAA person present nodded in agreement.

wokkamate

29th Jul 2012, 17:36

so basically the RAF have done us over like kippers then....:mad:

VinRouge

29th Jul 2012, 17:54

What would stop a couple of determined individuals getting together and putting together an evidence base for more experienced mil operators or does it HAVE to be staffed at the Group level? Lots of frontline DSAT work going on at the mo, wouldnt be to difficult surely to translate these doc sets into something that could be used for compliance with EASA training requirements surely?

I would suggest that for front line, it could provide quite a useful TNA to bridge the knowledge gap for frontline operators between us and our civilian equivalents.

theboywide

29th Jul 2012, 18:02

I find it incredible that there is no accreditation for military experience past 70hrs.
Even if the line is drawn higher than before e.g. 3000hr TT or A1 QFI etc etc.
Surely there must come a point as a mil operator where you are credited for being an experienced ME operator?!?

Whirling Wizardry

29th Jul 2012, 19:05

As far as the CAA and 22 Gp were concerned they have honoured the recognition of experience gained through Mil trg by stating that you don't need to complete any ground theory instruction and can simply sit the exams, you also have the ability to sit an ATPL/IR skills test without undergoing any other form of trg, as long as your aircraft is compliant with EASA regs and the flight examiner is suitably qualified, i.e. your Sqn IRE would need to be an accredited CAA IRE/TRE; I'm sure that every fleet has at least one of them!! Chances of the Mob letting you have a CAA IRE/TRE onboard right now? I reckon you've got better odds on winning the Euro lottery!

I have been reading CAP804 again and note that the Status section on page one of the forward clearly states that CAP804 doesn't come into effect until 17 Sep 12, the only exception is Part O which is valid from 27 Jul 12, which should mean that we can apply for exams and/or skills tests now using the MAS. Do we still have to wait until 17 Sep 12 to get an EASA license or can we apply earlier?

We could really do with someone from the CAA with at least one finger on the pulse to give definitive answers because it seems to me even the CAA don't know what their own regs are.

Uncle Ginsters

29th Jul 2012, 19:19

As far as the CAA and 22 Gp were concerned they have honoured the recognition of experience gained through Mil trg by stating that you don't need to complete any ground theory instruction and can simply sit the exams,

I'm sorry WW, but you dont gain experience through training - you gain training through training:ok: And they also say that you can do this after 70hrs. That is training (as you yourself say), not experience.

I fear someone's been sold a pup.

SAR Bloke

29th Jul 2012, 19:20

The amendment was dated Jul 12 but the download page has the following note:

Notifying
the UK requirements for pilot licensing and also a guide to the new European
Flight Crew Licensing requirements. Effective on 17 September 2012; LASORS will
be withdrawn from that date. A5 paper copies are available for pre-order from
TSO.
IMPORTANT: The CAA has announced a new date for implementation of
European Regulations for flight crew licensing in the UK. Therefore any
reference to 1 July 2012 should now read as 17 September 2012.

If LASORS are withdrawn on 17 Sep, does that mean we can use LASORS as the rulebook until then? That might just be enough time for me to get an IR.

As an aside, what do all the commercial pilots with frozen ATPLs have to do to unfreeze them? Will they have to do the ATPL exams again? If not, what is the difference between them retaining their theory credit and those of us who have CPLs issued under the bridging scheme?

Sloppy Link

29th Jul 2012, 19:23

With a CAA ATPL(H) and civvie street looming, wtf do I have to do? It seemed straightforward, get a civvie type rating and convert to an EASA ATPL(H), worry about IR later but have I now got to sit some more exams?

SL

BEagle

29th Jul 2012, 19:44

Even though all other part-FCL requirements were delayed from 8 Apr until 30 Jun and subsequently until 17 Sep, the CAA did not apply this to Military Accreditation.....

Why?

For the MAS to have any credibility at all, a 'tiered' system, such as the previous 'experienced QSP' system is absolutely essential. In the big picture, if restoration of an accreditation system which was wholly acceptable for 10 years under JAR-FCL cannot readily be achieved under EASA, then it is EASA which is at fault, not the accreditation system!

LASORS 2010 is valid until CAP 804 becomes effective on 17 Sep 2012 - except for Section 4 part O which became effective on 27 Jul 2012.

Whirling Wizardry

29th Jul 2012, 19:51

Uncle G

Total agree, experienced Mil aviators $h!t out in every respect. Only a complete idiot would attempt to sit all 14 exams without getting assistance/guidance from a trg provider first.....it's a loaded gun. As soon as a Mil pilot fails an exam the CAA will claim they are justified in their decision to make us sit all of the exams....I think it sucks the fat one.

As far as the theoretical ability to simply sit a skills test in a Mil aircraft goes...well, good luck to anyone who can convince the Mil that it is in the wider service interest. I suspect the overwhelming majority will have to pay for the use of a civvy aircraft, having at least the minimum number of hours on that type, as specified in the AMC and GM document.

All in all it's very disappointing to have had to wait for the MAS since April and get what seems to be a massive slap in the face for amassing thousands of hours doing the Government's dirty work in difficult, demanding, dangerous situations.

I for one feel no remorse in getting out, the Service demands everything from you but currently gives very little back in return; loyalty is a 2-way thing. How many Mil aviators feel valued by their employer right now?

LFFC

29th Jul 2012, 20:05

VP,

When you say "frozen-ATPL" do you really mean a "CPL/IR with ATPL theory credits"? That's what most young civilian pilots start with when they join an airline - although some start with a Multi-Pilot Licence these days. All will convert their licences to ATPLs when they achieve 1500 hrs PIC/PICUS with an airline. So, ex-military pilots who gained those credentials through the MAC should be treated no differently than their civilian colleagues; after all, there are probably hundreds operating with the airlines as I write.

Although the changeover won't really impact military pilots if they already hold a valid CPL/IR with ATPL theory credits and an MCC exemption, if they have yet to achieve any of them, that it may hurt!

SAR Bloke

29th Jul 2012, 20:30

To have a CPL issued under the bridging scheme we have undertaken exactly the same exams as those military pilots who have been issued a CPL/IR. Why should we be treated differently? I can accept that to add an IR that we could be expected to do the IR exams but why should we have to repeat all 14 ATPL exams when the CAA have already accepted my theoretical training (else they wouldn't have issued my CPL). If they no longer accept that my theoretical training is valid then should they not withdraw my licence?

This begs another question. When mil pilots with CPL/IR try to upgrade to ATPL, they won't be able to demonstrate passes in all 14 ATPL exams. Will they have to do them again? If not, why should I have to?

It seems to me that the rules are hugely inconsistent.

VinRouge

29th Jul 2012, 20:30

As far as the CAA and 22 Gp were concerned they have honoured the recognition of experience gained through Mil trg

Thats different to what the EASA Basic Regs stipulate we are supposed to be given credit for.... :mad: "Military Service" Does not finish at OCU output standard!

Is this a noncompliance issue and if so, who is it actionable by? 22Gp, the CAA or EASA?

LFFC

29th Jul 2012, 20:56

SAR Bloke,

I hope you kept the covering letter that was enclosed with your new CPL; if you did, it probably said that you were the proud owner of a "CPL with ATPL theory credits". That will be on the CAA's system (in the same way that it is for all ab-initio civilian pilots joining an airline) for future reference when they achieve their 1500 hrs PICUS and qualify to upgrade to an ATPL.

If I understand your situation correctly, you haven't yet completed your initial civilian IR. That may cause the CAA a bit of difficulty as they get their heads around the new system, but I think they should see reason if you show then in black and white that you have the "ATPL theory credits" - if not, find yourself a good solicitor.

ShortFatOne

29th Jul 2012, 21:43

I bit the bullet last year and completed a CPL/IR. I also got MCC credit. My correspondence with CAA at the time indicates (as well as on my license) that I have a JAR-FCL CPL/IR with frzn ATPL theory credit. My understanding is that, in this case, my license will be automatically changed to an EASA Part-FCL license in due course. Or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

SFO

potatoe1

29th Jul 2012, 21:48

Hi,
Have only read the document very quickly but I cant see any mention of taxi time allowances. Is this in another document or should I be logging everything in a civilian logbook?

LFFC

29th Jul 2012, 22:28

SFO

When you next renew your licence it will indeed become an EASA document; the good bit is that you won't have to keep renewing that one.

You seem to be in the same position as a civilian cadet about to join an airline; once you have obtained a multi-pilot type rating and 1500 hrs PIC/PICUS, you can convert your licence to an ATPL.

TheInquisitor

30th Jul 2012, 00:08

Not sure where this requirement for '1500hrs PIC/PICUS' comes from - my reading of the regs tells me its 1500hrs TT, with 500hrs multi-pilot ops and 500hrs PICUS - unless I've read that wrong?

In other words, roughly half a Co's tour will qualify you for an ATPL, hours-wise - assuming you have the min requisite 100hrs PIC for a CPL to begin with... meaning all that is required is a multi-pilot type rating...

BEagle

30th Jul 2012, 06:06

The ATPL prerequisites are:

FCL.510.A ATPL(A) – Prerequisites, experience and crediting

(a) Prerequisites. Applicants for an ATPL(A) shall hold:

(1) an MPL; or

(2) a CPL(A) and a multi-engine IR for aeroplanes. In this case, the applicant shall also have received instruction in MCC.

(b) Experience. Applicants for an ATPL(A) shall have completed a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time in aeroplanes, including at least:

(1) 500 hours in multi-pilot operations on aeroplanes;

(2)

(i) 500 hours as PIC under supervision; or

(ii) 250 hours as PIC; or

(iii) 250 hours, including at least 70 hours as PIC, and the remaining as PIC under supervision;

(3) 200 hours of cross-country flight time of which at least 100 hours shall be as PIC or as PIC under supervision;

(4) 75 hours of instrument time of which not more than 30 hours may be instrument ground time; and

(5) 100 hours of night flight as PIC or co-pilot.

Of the 1500 hours of flight time, up to 100 hours of flight time may have been completed in an FFS and FNPT. Of these 100 hours, only a maximum of 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT.

LFFC

30th Jul 2012, 09:02

My mistake - it was getting late. Sorry. :O

BEagle

30th Jul 2012, 10:00

So what is the overall corporate feeling regarding the MAS? Without wishing to direct anyone's views, would it be fair to say:

The CPL accreditation achieved for immediate post-wings level pilots is welcomed.
LAPL and PPL accreditation is inadequate.
Significantly enhanced accreditation for experienced military pilots must be achieved, along the lines of the previous scheme which had been acceptable to the JAA for over 10 years.

:hmm:

wokkamate

30th Jul 2012, 11:19

Sounds fair, and covers what would appear to be the major issues that I can see. Does this mean, though, that a CPL(H) is still reasonably easy to achieve for a QSP, Beags?

BEagle

30th Jul 2012, 14:44

CPL(H) accreditation for the recently graduated QMP(H) would appear to be similar to CPL(A) accreditation for the recently graduated QMP(A).

However, significantly enhanced accreditation for 'experienced QSP(H)' pilots has not been achieved in the current MAS scheme and needs to be reinstated.

ShortFatOne

30th Jul 2012, 21:48

LFFC and TI.

I do have an e-mail from FCL confirming that in order to upgrade to a full ATPL, I need to provide evidence of 500 hrs multi-pilot following the award of the CPL (I already have 7 times that number, but as my IR and LST were not on the mil type for which I used to claim the basic 2000 hrs requirement - Nimrod - I have to effectively start again with the hours). Not an ideal position but I appreciate that I am better off than some. If only I had listened to the hairy old Spec Aircrew bods when I was younger and got my LST/IR done on the Mighty 'rod whilst it was still in service.

Hey Ho. Best of luck to all those treading the license path!

SimonK

1st Aug 2012, 12:04

Just to add to what some of the other posters have described and I appreciate this is not new for some, I have also asked the question of the CAA regarding adding an IR to my JAR CPL H gained under the previous mil bridging process. Good and bad news.

Good news - the CPL is still valid and an IR can be added, the skills test is still valid aswell.

Bad news - as expected the full 14 ATPL exams are required to add an IR, although I believe you can just do the 7 for the IR if you so wish.

Kind of good news - The ATPL theory trg DVD from Bristol is £500 (£2140 if you want the full residential courses aswell) and you do not have to complete the 2x2 weeks residential course, ie you can complete the online trg, revise with the question bank and book yourself on the exams. Of course, you could also just book yourself onto the exams and risk the question bank if you wish. Form SRG 2133 for Mil credit.

This is not the good news I wanted, but at least I know what the situ is after months of frustration, so at least I can start work (again!). I know from speaking to other colleagues with CPLs that there is still a lot of uncertainty and confused messages out there regarding the status of our licences, hopefully this adds to your understanding.

As a side note, I went through the 22 Gp liaision SO2, who was extremely helpful, knowledgeable and immediately got an answer to me from the CAA in approximately 5 months less than it took them (still waiting!). He struck me as a top chap, who did a secondary duty he was not resourced for anywhere close in terms of time and manpower. Perhaps time to stop throwing the spears and give him a break on here?

No, I'm nothing to do with him/them btw!

Dan Winterland

1st Aug 2012, 12:21

They're making it up as they go along!

SimonK

1st Aug 2012, 12:37

You may be onto something Dan! Just spoke to another colleague with a mil-bridged JAR Cpl H who is doing his IR in a couple of weeks, he has been told by his trg provider and also verbally by the CAA FCL that he still has the Atpl theory credit required to complete his IR.

I have asked him to get it in writing from them and will keep you updated as to his progress. Of course this is completely contrary to what I was told this morning!

SAR Bloke

1st Aug 2012, 13:40

This is the response that I have received from the CAA regarding the validity of my ATPL theory credits:

Thank you for your email received regarding Military credits and the new military scheme.

Details of the new Military Scheme can be found in CAP 804, Part O, ‘Credits for Military Pilots.’ Any queries regarding eligibility criteria and/or the military accreditation scheme should be directed in writing to: FT FJ SO2, Directorate of Flying Training, Building 1300, MoD Abbey Wood, BRISTOL, BS34 8JH or by e-mail to 22TrgGp-FT FJ1 [email protected].

The UK CAA will not respond to any telephone or email enquiries from individual military applicants relating to the Military Accreditation Scheme.

Your message has not been forwarded.

This is a farce. The CAA issue licences and they won't even tell me what I need to do to get an IR:ugh::mad:

pegasus-9

1st Aug 2012, 14:33

I think you will find that the CAA was generous under JAA, as it could within reason do what it wanted, however we are entering the legal niceties of EU law and the hands of our regulator are tied, I think we may find that 22 Gp and the CAA have done their best for us within the letter of the legislation they have to work within.

BEagle

1st Aug 2012, 15:36

Under JAA, military accreditation as agreed by the MCWG was acceptable for at least 10 years and posed no safety risk whatsoever.

Regrettably the 'befehl ist befehl' attitude of EASA shows totally inadequate flexibility. The loss of the previous system is undoubtedly an unintended consequence of the €urocratic nonsense now pervading our lives.

SAR Bloke, 22 Gp is not the regulator, the CAA is. If 22 Gp cannot sort out your problem within a reasonable period of time (10 working days is the CAA requirement, although they don't like people knowing that), then write instead to your MP asking him/her to put a formal question to the Secretary of State for Transport. You may wish to copy the letter to.....

The CAA are acting like Uriah Heep, whereas perhaps a more Churchillian stance should have been taken several years ago....

A and C

1st Aug 2012, 18:00

The way the CAA have decided to deal with the transition to EASA licensing in both the pilot and ground engineer fields is rather disappointing with the most restrictive interpretation of the new EASA rules almost always being applied.

I have been quite lucky with both my pilots licence being converted without much of a problem, the Ground engineering licence was a bit different.

I decided to convert from the UK licence to EASA as soon as I could as I guessed that the CAA had not had time to fully interprate the rules, the result of this was that I managed to persuade the guy who issued the new licence to take the most liberal interpretation of the EASA rules that he could.

Five or so years on when ever we have a CAA audit and I have to produce my engineers licence there is usually a deep intake of breath from the inspector and comments along the lines that they won't be issuing any more licences like this !

That is not to say that EASA rules forbid issuing the license, but the CAA have made the rules so tight that it is almost imposable.

The Greeks who had no engineering licence system before EASA and so took the view that they would issue any one who had held a spanner near an aircraft an EASA licence no doubt on the grounds that this was good for business.

I fear that the CAA FCL has well and truly lost the plot and hangs on to the little power that they have in order to protect jobs while ignoring the elephant in the room......................after all we know they are now only the UK office of EASA, it is about time they started acting like a sub post office for the boys in Cologne.

VinRouge

1st Aug 2012, 19:25

What is to stop anyone applying via another European licensing body and using their differing regs to get your tickets? Or is this verboten?

BEagle

1st Aug 2012, 19:55

What is to stop anyone applying via another European licensing body and using their differing regs to get your tickets? Or is this verboten?

Strengstens verboten := !

The EASA Aircrew Regulation states:

Article 10

Credit for pilot licences obtained during military service

1. In order for holders of military flight crew licences to obtain Part-FCL licences, they shall apply to the Member State where they served.

Lima Juliet

1st Aug 2012, 20:09

Now you could attempt to play the Bruxelles Brigade at their own detail-intensive game...

Define "they shall apply to the Member State where they served"?

I have served in Europe whilst flying military aircraft in the following countries - France, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece and Cyprus.

Can I take my pick? :E

BEagle

2nd Aug 2012, 08:06

Leon, nice try!

Although the €urobabble from EASA ('proportionality', 'comitology' and 'subsidiarity' being examples of their fractured €urospeak) often requires interpretation, I can't see you getting away with that one!

70 years ago, the RAF 'served' in Köln in a rather more positive manner than has been achieved recently.....:uhoh:

SimonK

2nd Aug 2012, 09:07

For those of us stuck with the semi-useful CPLs who have 'lost' their Atpl theory credits, an update:

I spoke to our helpful CAA liaison at 22Gp today and it sounds like (and contrary to yesterday's position) the CAA may honour the ATPL theory credits after all, this is being pushed hard from 22Gp and they believe we will have a final answer by Monday. Currently crossing lots of fingers!!

BEagle

2nd Aug 2012, 10:31

Well, that's good news, SimonK! It would certainly seem to meet the provisions of Article 9 of the Basic Regulation:

Article 9

Credit for training commenced prior to the application of this Regulation

1. In respect of issuing Part-FCL licences in accordance with Annex I, training commenced prior to the application of this Regulation in accordance with the Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and procedures, under the regulatory oversight of a Member State recommended for mutual recognition within the Joint Aviation Authorities’ system in relation to the relevant JAR, shall be given full credit provided that the training and testing were completed by 8 April 2016 at the latest.

Perhaps the CAA is becoming increasingly aware of the dissatisfaction with which the MAS has been received by many?

SAR Bloke

2nd Aug 2012, 10:44

I can't seem to cut and paste but here is the CAA's own AIC about the validity of theoretical exams:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2026/EG_Circ_2011_W_073_en_2011-08-11.pdf

Whilst it doesn't specifically talk about bridging credits, it does say that if all the exams conducted for the issue of a licence have been completed by the end of March then you will retain theory credit subject to the normal calendar validity restrictions. The CAA could easily argue the case that we haven't done all of the exams but, to me, it reads that the spirit of the rule is not to penalise those who have achieved theory credit prior to the changeover.

LFFC

2nd Aug 2012, 11:10

Perhaps the CAA have now realised that they can't retrospectively apply the new regulations to ATPL theory credits gained through the old military accreditation system. If they tried to do so, then they would find dozens of pilots already flying with airlines "illegally"!

Whilst they can certainly stop issuing new credits, they must be on dodgy legal ground if they stop recognising credits issued before Apr 12.

SunderlandMatt

2nd Aug 2012, 11:25

So would Article 9 apply to a skills test which was conducted before 08 Apr 12?

If "training and testing" for the skills test was completed on a civvie type but with a QFI/QHI and within 6 months of the present day, assuming you've passed all the ATPL exams then can we use Article 9 to apply for a CPL?

BEagle

2nd Aug 2012, 11:44

Whilst they can certainly stop issuing new credits, they must be on dodgy legal ground if they stop recognising credits issued before Apr 12.

Particularly if there is no safety case to support such cessation of credits.

wokawoka

2nd Aug 2012, 19:05

3.14 Credits available for QMP(H)s who hold or have held an Operational Category to operate military multi-pilot helicopters for an ATPL(H) and IR(H)

QMP(H)s who hold or have held an Operational Category with a Military Unrestricted Green Instrument Rating (Helicopter) to operate military multi-pilot helicopters shall meet all the requirements for the issue of a Part-FCL ATPL(H) and IR(H) for helicopters.

Refer to:
Section 4, Part F, Subpart 2 for the full ATPL(H) requirements.

Section 4, Part F, Subpart 2 for the full ATPL(H) requirements:

FCL.500 Minimum Age
Applicants for an ATPL(H) shall be at least 21 years of age.
FCL.505 Privileges and Conditions
As above.
FCL.510.H ATPL(H) – Prerequisites, experience and crediting
Applicants for an ATPL(H) shall:
(a)hold a CPL(H) and a multi-pilot helicopter type rating and have received instruction in MCC;
(b) have completed as a pilot of helicopters a minimum of 1000 hours of flight time including at least:
(1) 350 hours in multi-pilot helicopters;
(2) (i)
250 hours as PIC; or
(ii) 100 hours as PIC and 150 hours as PIC under supervision; or
(iii) 250 hours as PIC under supervision in multi-pilot helicopters. In this
case, the ATPL(H) privileges shall be limited to multi-pilot operations only, until 100 hours as PIC have been completed;
(3) 200 hours of cross-country flight time of which at least 100 hours shall be as PIC or as PIC under supervision;
(4) 30 hours of instrument time of which not more than 10 hours may be instrument ground time; and
(5) 100 hours of night flight as PIC or as co-pilot.
Of the 1000 hours, a maximum of 100 hours may have been completed in an FSTD, of which not more than 25 hours may be completed in an FNPT.
(c) Flight time in aeroplanes shall be credited up to 50% against the flight time requirements of paragraph (b).
(d) The experience required in (b) shall be completed before the skill test for the ATPL(H) is taken.
FCL.515 Training Course and Theoretical Knowledge Examinations
(a) Course. Applicants for an ATPL(H) shall have completed a training course at an ATO. The course shall be either an integrated training course or a modular course, in accordance with Appendix 3 to this Part. (Refer to 1.5 Additional Information.)
(b) Examination. Applicants for an ATPL(H) shall demonstrate a level of knowledge appropriate to the privileges granted in the following subjects:
— Air Law,
— Aircraft General Knowledge - Airframe/Systems/Power plant,
— Aircraft General Knowledge – Instrumentation,
— Mass and Balance,
— Performance,
— Flight Planning and Monitoring,
— Human Performance,

May 2012
Section 4 Part F, Subpart 2 Page 2
CAP 804 Part I Flight Crew Licensing: Mandatory Requirements, Policy and Guidance

— Meteorology,
— General Navigation,
— Radio Navigation,
— Operational Procedures,
— Principles of Flight,
— VFR Communications,
— IFR Communications.
FCL.520.H ATPL(H) Skill Test
Applicants for an ATPL(H) shall pass a skill test in accordance with Appendix 9 to Part-FCL to demonstrate the ability to perform as PIC of a multi-pilot helicopter the relevant procedures and manoeuvres with the competency appropriate to the privileges granted.
The skill test shall be taken in the helicopter or an adequately qualified FFS representing the same type.

I must be stupid as it is not Xmas but isn't the first paragraph telling me that as I ve been CR, Green rated I get credited with ground exams and Skill Test and IR?
Or is it telling me that I have to meet all of the above despite my 3000 Hrs experience by spunking a lot of cash on courses and tests?:ugh:

BEagle

2nd Aug 2012, 20:11

The latter, I regret to have to tell you.....:mad:

SimonK

3rd Aug 2012, 14:39

Forgive me for not posting the exact details of the email, but 22Gp and the CAA have reached an agreement and the CAA will be recognising Atpl theory credits for Cpls issued under mil bridging prior to the JAR cutoff. A note has been circulated from 22Gp with the full detail so keep your eyes out.

Simply awesome news and credit where credits due: thank you very much 22Gp and the CAA.

The Cryptkeeper

3rd Aug 2012, 15:19

Thanks for the updates and your work SimonK. I've PM'd you with a request for a link if you have one?

SimonK

3rd Aug 2012, 16:12

No thanks required mate, no doubt this is not a popular thing to say but some really awesome (and quick) work by 22Gp and the CAA.

BEagle

3rd Aug 2012, 16:50

An excellent result following commonsense from all involved!

wokawoka

3rd Aug 2012, 18:34

All right. So how do I go from my CPL(H), obtained with the bridging package with ATPL(h) credits, to ATPL(A)?
I cannot find this Appendix 1 to Part-FCL in cap 804 which talks about bridging for one to the other.
Thanks for your help guys.

BEagle

3rd Aug 2012, 19:04

wokawoka, see CAP 804 Part L (.pdf p 295/794 et seq.).

VinRouge

3rd Aug 2012, 20:51

Any chance we can work on accreditation for those of us having displayed years of capability well above the skills test? Any idea be little the French, German and other European air forces are having to do to get thier licences? I think a comparison would be very helpful.

Whirling Wizardry

4th Aug 2012, 09:42

Wokawoka,

The bridging package and exams you took were for ATPL(A) theory as there wasn't a formalized helicopter course before the changeover ( have a look through LASORS for the notes)! Hence having to learn about B737 and Airbus cockpits and Aircon systems. Probably the simplest thing to do would be to get an ATPL(H) and then do the bridging instruction, unless of course you have all of the FW P1 hrs, have had a tour flying FW, e.g. QFI in which case you could save a few punts getting your CPL(A) done. Airways Flight Trg at Exeter are quite spammed-up on getting your license done.

Aynayda Pizaqvick

4th Aug 2012, 11:10

My thoughts exactly Vin... why do I need to have a CAA TRE fly with me and tell me if I have the skills to fly the type that I have 1000+ hours experience on operating in 4 different continents? Cant we assume that if you have survived multiple operational tours as a CR captain and training captain that you can probably pass a skills test? Unless the civvys cover some other unique flying skills that I don't know about?

theboywide

4th Aug 2012, 19:17

I believe the french and German multi engine
Pilots do a full ATPL course as part of their training....
Perhaps we should do the same?

Dan Gerous

4th Aug 2012, 19:26

I'm not a pilot so forgive me if I have this wrong, but I understand that when you qualify as a pilot in the UK Military, you don't get a licence just permission to use HM's aircraft? Why don't the UK military just do your training to CAA standard, then add on all the stuff you need for the military side? What do you do on exchange postings? Do you have to do the civvy licences to fly aircraft for, and in, other countries?

floating_rock

4th Aug 2012, 20:02

For those of us without thousands of hours, can someone give me a steer?

I've never really tried to delve into the woe of the CAA paperwork, and trying to find it is giving me all kinds of headaches!

For a newly qualified QMP, do I understand that this now makes initial issue of a CPL somewhat less stressful than under the previous system?

Dan Winterland

5th Aug 2012, 03:07

''I believe the french and German multi engine
Pilots do a full ATPL course as part of their training....''

Luftwaffe ME pilots are trained by Lufthansa.

Dan Winterland

5th Aug 2012, 03:11

''For those of us without thousands of hours, can someone give me a steer?''

Published yesterday:

SRG 2133: Confirmation of Military Experience for Military Accreditation Scheme (MAS) Credits in Accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 | Publications | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5122)

BEagle

5th Aug 2012, 11:12

Dan, SRG 2133 is simply the application from which replaces PLD/FCL-JAR15 and its successors.

floating_rock, you need to read CAP 804 Section 4 part O.

Perhaps those with 'thousands of hours' might have expected that their experience would have been properly recognised as required under part-FCL; regrettably, however, this clearly hasn't happened.

Yet?

ralphmalph

5th Aug 2012, 20:33

The new MAS seem to be able to be applied in perpetuity, the old "one year from the last flight in a mil aircraft" seems to have gone (or I have missed it)

Does anyone know if TR and experience gained on a COMR aircraft in a foreign state can be used towards license issue in the UK?

Clearly no license is required for a COMR aircraft, but have the CAA ever recognised flying gained in another country?

The intention would to be to complete all the theory exams and a skills test for CPL in the UK, but based on flying elsewhere.

I would hugely grateful for anyone's experience or sage advice.

Thank you

Ralph

VinRouge

5th Aug 2012, 21:24

Does anyone know how firmly this scheme is set in stone and whether an amendment could be submitted to extend the scheme to experienced multi engine pilots?

If it can, would anyone be interested in clubbing together at Brize and Staffing the necessary work to make it happen for our and later generations? All I am hearing on Sqn from first tourists is how can purchase the BGS course for self study and where is best for their skills test and IRT training. Not a particularly good sign for the future really is it?

LFFC

6th Aug 2012, 16:11

Clearly no license is required for a COMR aircraft,...

Technically not, but Commercially Owned Military Registered aircraft are usually commercially insured for peacetime operations; and civilian insurers usually require at least civilian licence standard - or their military equivalent.

So if military training is no longer civilian accredited, there may be trouble ahead! :(

SimonK

6th Aug 2012, 17:45

Minor update today from 22Gp: CAA stated that Atpl theory for mil-bridged Cpls is valid for the addition of an IR for 36 months from the date of the exams.

Runaway Gun

6th Aug 2012, 21:02

Is there an Appendix A due out that explains all this in non-lawyer speak? I am very confused.

BEagle

6th Aug 2012, 22:04

SimonK, presumably the 36 months applies to the date of passing the last exam taken?

Runaway Gun, regrettably nothing produced by EASA is in a form which makes comprehension straightforward. Their documents are abysmally structured and almost impossible for any normal person to understand.

The CAA has attempted to simplify the turgid €uroprose of EASA, but still insists on using that dreadful Sir Humphrey-speak of theirs....

Those of us more familiar with Defence Writing and GASOs find such scribble totally frustrating and almost designed to deceive......

SimonK

7th Aug 2012, 06:30

Yes BEagle, you're right, text below for clarification:

For the holder of a JAR-FCL CPL(A) or (H) with ATPL theory credit issue prior to 8 Apr 12 under the terms of the former Qualified Service Pilots (QSP) Scheme the ATPL theory credits are recognised by the CAA and will remain valid for 36 months (from the date of successful completion of the Theory Exams under the former QSP Scheme) the for the addition of an instrument rating (IR).

CatAmongstThePigeons

7th Aug 2012, 21:54

Hi all,

I'm a QMP(H) but back in 2008 when I was thinking of leaving the military I had insufficient hours for the bridging package. As a result, I completed all 13 exams and was issued a JAA CPL(H) with ATPL(H) Theory Credit aka a frozen ATPL(H). At that time, as a QSP in current flying practice, I had 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter in which to get an IR(H) and bank the ATPL(H) theory.

Does this now mean that overnight with the publication of CAP 804, I have gone from having 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter, to being over a year 'out of date'?

Will it make a difference that I didn't "bridge" but instead did all the exams?

Surely there must be some form of transition period to give those with ATPL(H) Theory Credit based on exams taken over 36 months ago the chance to add an IR(H) and bank that theory credit?

I don't really fancy having to take half the exams again (not to mention the cost of doing so) just because the rules have arbitrarily been changed...

Any thoughts? :confused:

Aynayda Pizaqvick

7th Aug 2012, 22:07

I appreciate why they have a validity period. You can hardly have someone pass all the exams and then not set foot anywhere near a cockpit for years and have all that information disappear. But surely in our case where we are flying on a regular basis as professional pilots the validity period should run from when we last fly?
Makes sense to me anyway... 22 Gp, make it so!

Hyds Out

8th Aug 2012, 09:06

What you will find is once EU-OPS is implemented, then no changes can be made until the next sitting by the powers that be at EASA/ EU law makers HQ. So, if something does not appear in the first draft, there might be quite a wait until any requested changes appear, as long as the CAA submit a request for that change.
There are already glaring differences between rotary and fixed wing requirements for TRIs and TREs. But no change until requests are submitted.

The other issue we have in the UK is that our primary language is English, so we have to take EASA as it is written, which plainly isn't English. More a bas***dised translation of German/French. What other EU countries are doing is managing to translate EASA into their own language with 'their' translation, and making the meaning of their translation what they want it to be. Another sample of European togetherness....

Maybe we should translate it into correct English, we may get what we want!

CatAmongstThePigeons

8th Aug 2012, 18:36

BEagle

8th Aug 2012, 23:01

CATP - are you saying that you passed all the ATPL(H) exams, but didn't then obtain a CPL(H) or IR(H) within 36 months of having completed the exams?

The old LASORS 2010 requirement for the CPL(H) and IR(H) was:

D6.6 INSTRUMENT RATING REQUIREMENTS

It is not mandatory for a QSP(H) to complete an Instrument Rating before being issued with a CPL(H).

An applicant for an IR(H) is required to complete the requirements in accordance with Section E2.

QSPs should note that JAR-FCL 2 requires both a CPL(H) and IR(H) to be obtained within the 36 month Acceptance Period of the ATPL(H) examinations to maintain ATPL(H) theory credit for the subsequent issue of an ATPL(H).

However, it has been agreed that a QSP(H) will not be subject to this requirement. Whilst the 36 months Acceptance Period will still apply to the issue of a CPL(H), an IR(H) can be obtained at any time up to 3 years from the date of the last flight in a military helicopter, and still retain ATPL(H) theory credit.

The exam acceptance periods under part-FCL can be found in FCL.025 para (c) in CAP 804 Section 4 Part A Page 3 (.pdf page 119 / 794).

BEagle

9th Aug 2012, 12:37

I have been informed that the chaps at 22Gp have been rather upset by the tone of some posts on this thread, considering them to be of 'an abusive nature and totally unacceptable'.

Which is understandable. However, equally understandable is the anger and frustration of many caused by the loss of the previous levels of accreditation, particularly for experienced pilots with years of loyal service, now seeking a career change. Hardly surprising that one or two may have made rather intemperate remarks on the board as a result, I would venture to suggest.

In my own case, although I have been out of the RAF for many years, I feel particularly peeved at the loss of 'experience QSP' accreditation, having written the original paper which sparked off the MCWG work of others, leading to the excellent pre-Apr 2012 system we once enjoyed.

But I also recall, as will Alex W, the 17 Nov 2008 FCL WG meeting with EASA at CAA Gatwick when, in a response to the direct question I posed, EASA's Michaela Verissimo assured me that the system in place at that time could continue under national arrangements - to which the CAA's Ben Alcott nodded his approval. It then came as something of a bombshell to learn that EASA's former assurance had not been upheld.

So, Rich, if you're reading this I'm sorry if I've ruffled your feathers at all - or those of anyone at the CAA. But the plain fact is that Part O in its present form is markedly inferior to the previous scheme; a scheme which stood the test of time and was never a safety issue. In my opinion it is vital to the Service Interest that all the previous JAR-FCL credits, particularly those for Skill Tests and Theoretical Knowledge Examinations, are fully restored. Otherwise you will risk losing a lot of front-line experience, particularly if the alleged airline expansion ever becomes reality.

VinRouge

9th Aug 2012, 13:23

Beagle, fully agree. Indeed, I don't think there has been any malice shown on here at all, just frustration that some of us who hold equivalence with most of the civilian aviation industry, are not getting any credit for it. Thats an issue and one that needs rectification IMHO. If we need to come up with a stronger evidence base for experienced QSPs there will be PLENTY of people willing to assist with the extensive staff work required (and has already been put in). There are a cynical few who feel this is being used as a gash attempt at retention, I can't believe that is possible. Please however give us the opportunity to demonstrate our equivalence,as many other European military aircrew are able to do.

BEagle

9th Aug 2012, 14:11

Out of interest, do you still do 'Ground Cats' in today's RAF?

They used to be annual for C Cats, 18 monthly for B Cats and 24 monthly for A Cats (or the 'Combat Ready' equivalents).

This periodic requirement to demonstrate adequate relevant knowledge was something of a pain (particularly for those of us who had to keep finding new questions to ask), but I'm sure were of more benefit than 14 exams sat once and promptly forgotten.

Apart from during Type Conversion, are civil airline pilots ever re-tested on theoretical knowledge? I know FIs have orals as part of their revalidation requirements, but does the average airliner driver have anything equivalent to satisfy?

VinRouge

9th Aug 2012, 15:30

Fleet dependent, but yes Beags, typically annually together with your aircraft Check.

Hyds Out

9th Aug 2012, 18:32

Theoretical knowledge should be tested as part of your annual LPC, and definitely as part of your 6 monthly OPC in accordance with JAR Ops.
Of course, it is company dependant as to how strictly these regulations are stuck to, and in how much detail a pilot is assessed.
Not too dissimilar to a basic ground trap.

ralphmalph

9th Aug 2012, 18:33

AAC six monthly checks have a groundshool element in the serial. Standards check rides with a CFS agent occur every two years....that's got to go some way towards the argument of continual assessment and demonstration of knowledge.

However, it must be noted that amongst the generally inexperienced aircrew (in comparison to ten years ago) the standard is not by any means high. Given the multitude of commitments and other duties, and with on average less than three years front line....it isnt going to be anything more than satisfactory without considerable resource and command support.

BEagle

10th Aug 2012, 19:08

Nevertheless, the average standard will be undoubtedly be considerably higher than that of some CPL trainng school graduate, I would venture....

In the last 3 days I've received messages from 3 totally different RAF flying units, saying how totally dissatisfied they are with the frankly woeful accreditation of Part O..... "Why the hell do we bother?", is typical of peoples' comments.

ralphmalph

10th Aug 2012, 20:29

BEagle,

You are right, it's no longer pays to stay in the MOD flying. Get 70 hours and leave. Why bother becoming an IRE, QHI,QHTI, QWI.....you don't get anything for it....best just leave at the earliest point feasible.

TheInquisitor

11th Aug 2012, 09:02

The cynic in me would say that was all part of the plan... Redundancy is expensive for SO3 / SO2 Aircrew... :}

BEagle

11th Aug 2012, 09:38

Seniority is everything in the airline world. The fact that you might have been a Wg Cdr and you joined after a Fg Off chopped under Cameron's cuts will gain you nothing....

Some might previously have been happy to put off a second career until they qualified for 'Experienced QSP' accreditation, happy to devote their efforts to the Service rather than studying for 14 exams, many of which have little relevance to day-to-day aircraft operation. If that meant sacrificing a few years of potential airline seniority, it was probably worth it for many.

But with that gone, the word I'm getting is that people consider there is absolutely no point in staying. If it's a choice between studying for ATPL exams, rather than doing the EWO course or WEC or ISSC (or whatever the present equivalents are), then the ATPL exams will now come first.

Unless, that is, greater efforts are devoted to restoring the immensely valuable 'experienced QSP' terms of JAR-FCL, which existed without any safety issue long before the insanity of EASA made its thoroughly unwelcome presence felt.

VinRouge

11th Aug 2012, 09:54

Thing is, is it EASA Beags? What do ze Germans and French Military do to get licences? Any comments from anyone in the know at the moment. Was any evidence of syllabi presented from the post aft qualification mark? Was there any mention of LCR, CR copilot qualifications and latterly LCR and CR captaincy, including standards required for green rating and recognition of CR(A) on a frontline type?

Was there any mention of some types being qualified for cat 2 and other highly equivalent skills such as low visibility procedures, NAT, MNPS, RVSM, dangerous goods, customs requirements, and advanced handling into large international airports? I can add lots more to this list, but you get the point. Lots of route craft essential to licenced operation, but is only covered at the theory level by an equivalent pilot with a frozen ATPL, whereas we practice it for real?

Has the CAA received a single complaint from an airline employer regarding the skill levels of a military pilot, having received their ATPL, subsequently not meeting the required standard or possessing insufficient knowledge to do the job?

Co-Captain

11th Aug 2012, 11:16

I'm surprised we haven't seen headlines along the lines of:

"Under-qualified Military Pilots Flying In Civilian Airspace"

It's not too far a stretch from what the current military non-accreditation scheme is implying... :E

Hey ho. At least it's nice to know my old students, fresh out the OCU are held in the same regard as a third-tourist...

Dan Winterland

11th Aug 2012, 16:13

It would also have to read ''Under qualified foreign pilots flying in UK airspace". Ther CAA refuse to acknowledge foreign IRs for revalidation of UK licences, yet Cathay Pacific and Emirates pilots fly thier B777s over the centre of London every day very safely.

Hueymeister

11th Aug 2012, 16:32

A pal of mine in the Luftwaffe says they're in exactly the same boat. He's just scrambled to get his licences as they have no exemptions under EASA...

raytofclimb

11th Aug 2012, 21:25

The French now complete all of the civilian exams as part of their initial pilot ground school.

Anyway, back to me; having obtained my CPL/IR under the Mil bridging scheme in January, I'm getting the uneasy feeling (without, admittedly, attempting to digest the CAP) that when I come to 'un-freeze my ATPL' in a few years, some robot at Aviation House is gonna say that I am 10 exams short.

Is this likely to be the case or am I being paranoid? There's a butt-load of us in the same sinking boat (HMS Pension Trap)

Ray

ME110

12th Aug 2012, 06:06

raytofclimb,

No need to worry. I'm in the same position as you and asked that very question to Flt Lt PH (CAA Liason officer). He spoke to the CAA and I received an E-mail response stating that there would be no issue when it comes to 'unfreezing' your ATPL despite having not completed all 14 Exams. (I only did the Mil bridging 4 exams for the issue of CPL/IR with MCC)

If you send me your 'INTRANET' address then I will send you a copy of the E-mail Trail.

Cheers,

ME110

Asking

13th Aug 2012, 17:14

Thanks to the FOIA, here is the credit report sent by the UK to EASA. It explains some of 22Gp and the CAA's rationale behind the new regulations. Worth a read, even if there's little that we can do about it.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/123523/response/303573/attach/4/20120813%20UK%20Military%20Services%20Credit%20Report%20U.pd f

BEagle

13th Aug 2012, 18:10

Thanks very much for that - it makes interesting reading.

Agreed levels of equivalence between the TK acquired by military pilots throughout military flying training and subsequent operational experience, and those required at JAR-FCL ATPL (A) level, were established, but subsequent changes to military flying training and military pilot TK syllabi have not been fully considered or incorporated within the QSP scheme.

What a damning indictment. In fact, the gaps caused by dumbing-down of EFT/BFT/AFT have increasingly had to be covered at OCU level, as I found some 12 years ago. It is clear to me that little consideration has been given to the equivalent levels of relevant knowledge achieved by the time a pilot would have reached the former 'Experienced QSP' state....

However, the statement ....a valid ‘cut-off point’ for relevant and equivalent TK training for QMPs is deemed to be the award of the flying badge.

surely means that those of you with 2000 hrs of experience, 1500 as PIC of which 500 may be as PICU/S, should be able to insist that an extension to the scheme must now be achieved.

Just This Once...

13th Aug 2012, 18:29

The document is a bit of a dogs dinner. I can accept that the award of a flying badge (QSP) does not equate to anything close to an ATPL. What I cannot accept is that the scheme pretty much stops there.

What about OCU, 6 months+ of sqn work-up, post-graduate flying courses and years of practical experience whilst subject to numerous checks?

The arbitrary line-in-the-sand drawn at wings stage makes a mockery of the credit that was supposed to granted for military experience. This is just a scheme that recognises some of the flying training courses - it is an epic fail.

High_Expect

13th Aug 2012, 19:46

Gents,

As the good Sqn Ldr said in his email put these points in writing to him at 22Gp and they will consider them. Without their work so far there would be no scheme and you would be doing 70hrs flying + groundschool courses before exams.

Whilst I agree the current scheme does appear to fall way short of what we were hoping for I would like to believe it is still a work in progress and that those of us with 2000hrs QFI, IRE, QWI etc will get some just deserved recognition in due course! :mad:

Sloppy Link

13th Aug 2012, 19:55

So,
If I read this right, regardless of how you got your licence, be it JAR the exam route, JAR the bridging route or even CAA or JAR pre-bridging, we now have the situation that you can have a Military Pilot with a Military IRT who holds a Civilian Licence who can't even begin to train for a Civilian IR because he did the exams over three years ago. This not what the Military Accreditation Scheme is purported to foster. I know 22 Gp are on this, I have been a member of BALPA for many years, I shall see what their view is and let you know how I get on. Can't do any harm.

SL

BEagle

13th Aug 2012, 20:31

Whereas the previous system (see LASORS2010 section D3.1) stated:

In particular, the MCWG sought to determine an agreed
level of equivalence between the theoretical knowledge
acquired by pilots throughout military flying training and
subsequent operational experience, and those required at
JAR-FCL ATPL (A) level.

the inadequate system proposed by 22Gp states:

....a valid ‘cut-off point’ for relevant and equivalent TK training for QMPs is deemed to be the award of the flying badge.

In other words, nothing at OCU level or beyond has been assessed.

Similarly, where is the assessment for experience and skill achieved during years of 'subsequent operational experience'? Can someone give me a pointer.....??

Trim Stab

13th Aug 2012, 20:49

The French now complete all of the civilian exams as part of their initial pilot ground school.

Only Armée de l'Air cadet pilots are obliged to do their EASA exams after EFT as part of their initial ground school before their equivalent of BFT.

ALAT and Marine Nationale pilots are in the same situation as UK QSPs as their EFT/BFT is entirely a military syllabus, though the Marine Nationale pilots who get streamed ME do their ATPL exams during their tertiary training phase.

French MOD is able to get away with this partly because the French State still subsidises a national airline pilot school (ENAC) in Toulouse, so it is less contentious for the French MOD to train future airline pilots at public expense. The other part of their argument (more relevant to RAF) is that as Air Force and Navy transport pilots have to fly mostly to civilian rules in mostly civilian airspace it is sensible to incorporate the EASA syllabus into their training.

Marine Nationale FJ and RW pilots, and all ALAT pilots are in the same situation as UK QMPs.

artyhug

13th Aug 2012, 20:49

The point that concerns me and I'm sure others who are or will be soon in a position to utilise this new system is this:

Graduates of BFJT or legacy courses SHALL undertake the skills test and IR in a single engine aeroplane.

Would someone in the know have an idea on the further implications of this when the quest for employment begins?

LFFC

13th Aug 2012, 20:54

Beagle,

In other words, nothing at OCU level or beyond has been assessed.

Why would it when 22Gp responsibility for training stops before the OCU level? Looks like I was right in my previous post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/490219-caa-military-accreditation-5.html#post7320859) and only their part of the training system has been considered.

Easy Street

13th Aug 2012, 21:55

LFFC

Why would it when 22Gp responsibility for training stops before the OCU level? Looks like I was right in my previous post (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/490219-caa-military-accreditation-5.html#post7320859) and only their part of the training system has been considered. AFT has not been considered for fast jet aircrew, despite the fact that both halves of it are owned by 22 Gp. It looks like a straightforward cut-off of credit at wings award, which for FJ occurs at the end of BFT. Therefore it is not simply a 22 Gp ownership issue, rather an apparent policy decision that only training up to and including wings award would be considered.

I suspect it's a red herring that theoretical knowledge training post-wings is all type-specific: e.g. when do ME stream guys learn about oceanic procedures? I'll bet it's not on 45 Sqn.

BEagle

14th Aug 2012, 05:56

AFT has not been considered for fast jet aircrew, despite the fact that both halves of it are owned by 22 Gp.

I don't know whether it's the same today, but certainly during 4FTS groundschool in Gnat / Hunter days, we covered world climatology. The relevance of 'horse latitudes' and 'willy-willies' to the operation of the Gnat always had me wondering....

Oceanic procedures and matters such as global HF communications are certainly taught and examined at ME OCUs / Trg Flts.

So, while it might be reasonable for some basic accreditation at 'wings' level, it is certainly not reasonable for no further accreditation to be granted to vastly more experienced pilots.

Sloppy Link

15th Aug 2012, 07:51

Ray and ME110,
You are nearly right in so much as your credit lasts for three years from the date of your last exam.....best you un-freeze your ticket before then.

SL

SammySu

15th Aug 2012, 09:45

I have just had an instructor rating added to my licence, which I was told is the first use of the new scheme for any licensing process since publication of AL1 to CAP 804.
Straightforward but don't forget you now also need to include a Form SRG 2133 with your application.
Just a shame that as a highly experienced ex mil instructor, Command IRE and CFS examiner I am now considered unable to instruct applied IF, night flying or aerobatics, nor operate without supervision. Unlike the old scheme which gave every privilege to any ex A2/1.

BEagle

15th Aug 2012, 10:16

SammySu, sorry to read that. It pretty well sums up the utter inadequacy of the MAS in its current state.

However, you will be able to include an Aerobatic Rating after 17 Sep 2012 in accordance with CAP804 Section 4 Part P Page 32 which includes the credit already agreed for RAF pilots by those of us in the Aerobatic Rating Working Group who fought your case. You should also be able to conduct aerobatic instruction and/or night instuction in accordance with CAP804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 1 by demonstrating ability to a suitable FIC instructor (I suggest OnTrack Aviation as they are all experienced in sorting out military QFI problems).

I suggest you check with 22Gp to establish whether your previous supervisory experience will satisfy the 'removal of limitations' requirements described in CAP804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 3.

AOPA have already suggested a way ahead for 'applied IF' instructional privileges at IMC rating / IR(R) level, but the CAA are not prepared to broker the case with EASA until the results of the FCL.800 NPA are known.

It really is utterly crazy that your undoubted qualifications are not better recognised and I hope that this daftness can be resolved. Is Cmdt CFS aware of the situation?

Tacomato

15th Aug 2012, 11:22

So, to summarise.

If one were to have 3500 hrs, >1000 hrs heavy jet this is of no benefit over blogs who has just finished Linton?

No need for residential Cse?

So 14 exams can be achieved by borrowing a mate's books, absorbing the question bank and pitching up to the exams? Also, £500 for Bristol gs electronic Training software - is it worth it?

Then...

IR on military jet plus medical and the licence is yours - or not?

BillieBob

15th Aug 2012, 16:25

Not much point bothering about the 'no aerobatics' restriction before 17 Sep - there's nothing in law to stop you teaching aeros before then, no matter what it says in your FI rating.

ME110

15th Aug 2012, 18:01

Sloppy Link,

You are getting 2 seperate issues mixed up.

You are correct in saying that you have 36 months from completing your last exam to be issued with your CPL and IR.

However-

What I am talking about is that once you have your CPL/IR with MCC - i.e 'Frozen ATPL' (obtained under the old Military Exemption Scheme with only 4 exams completed instead of 14) then when it comes to unfreezing it in the future to full ATPL there is no issue/time limit. i.e the CAA are not going to turn round and say where are the missing 10 exams.
.
I have an E-mail Trail from the CAA stating this.

Trim Stab

15th Aug 2012, 18:39

Echo BillieBob - there is no "aerobatic rating" in UK so there is no need to be qualified as an "aerobatic instructor" to teach aeros. An instructor and student can do whatever they want in a suitable aircraft as long as the student is willing to pay.

The "aerobatic instructor" restriction is only really relevant to countries (such as France) which have an "aerobatic rating". To obtain an "aerobatic rating", a student has to be taught by a suitably qualified instructor.

But it is still all a bit daft really. Even in France a PPL can be taught aeros by an "unqualified" instructor, and then go and fly aeros solo or even with pax - who is ever going to know? There are plenty of ex-FAF pilots topping up their wallets at aero-clubs over France instructing aeros, many without even a basic FI(A) instructor rating.

BEagle

15th Aug 2012, 18:49

An instructor and student can do whatever they want in a suitable aircraft as long as the student is willing to pay.

If the FI's licence specifically states 'No aerobatics' and the FI then instructs aeros and is paid for doing so, he would be in breach of the law. BillieBlob will argue about this until the cows come home, but it's the way it is.

It is perhaps for such a reason that EASA has chosen to tighten up on ad hoc aerobatic instruction conducted by those who have never been formally required to demonstrate their competence in the discipline. So those who are properly qualified are shortly to be inconvenienced thanks to industry cowboys....

Anyway, this thread is about military accreditation, not about how some people think that they have discovered loopholes.....

Trim Stab

15th Aug 2012, 18:58

Well a highly qualified ex Harrier pillot did ask the question...

It is a fairly gaping loophole, but then the entire EASA regulation is so filled with them that is not worth arguing about. But no harm in letting SammySu know that there is nothing to stop him taking students who are worried about "recovery from unusual attitudes" for multiple repeat lessons:-)

BEagle

15th Aug 2012, 19:10

And it's for just that reason that EASA has now defined 'aerobatic maneouvres' and the requirements for those who may instruct in such disciplines. Clever-bugger industry cowboy barrack-room lawyers and ego-trippers will no longer be able to conduct training for 'aerobatics' (by EASA's definition) except as stated in the Aircrew Regulation.

You are inciting SammySu to operate outside the (highly regrettable) limitations of his instructor rating, TrimStab, so I suggest you stop doing so and spend time instead studying the Aircrew Regulation..... Carefully.

Trim Stab

15th Aug 2012, 19:27

Beagle - I am not "inciting" him to do anything. I suspect that he is well capable of making his own judgement.

I am just pointing out (again) the shortcomings of the EASA instructor rating qualification regulations whereby valuable experience is deemed irrelevant and the only pre-requisite to de-restrict an FI(A) qualification is that a budding advanced-level instructor has paid an FTO for yet another "qualification", often taught by "instructors" with less experience than the "student".

Some other administrations around the world (eg Canada, NZ) have a structure whereby once a pilot has proved that he is a competent instructor(by passing an approved FI(A) course and exam) he is then able to teach more advanced skills by demonstrating experience in that skill.

If EASA were to adopt the same pragmatism, it would be much easier for ex-military pilots to pass on their skills to the broader aviation communiity.

BEagle

15th Aug 2012, 20:02

All of which is frankly irrelevant to this thread.

Good-bye!

LFFC

15th Aug 2012, 21:48

Well, it's not completely irrelevant. I know you've been discussing EASA and Aerobatics (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/462128-easa-aerobatics-rating.html) on another forum, but there really is a military accreditation issue here.

Although I've only scanned the new version of CAP804, it appears that from next month, only those holding an Aerobatics Rating will be permited to perform aerobatics in the civilian world. Moreover, only those FIs with the "no aerobatics" restriction lifted and who hold an Aerobatics Rating will be permitted to teach aerobatics.

I'm not sure if there is going to be a period of grace on that rule, because at the moment, nobody holds an Aerobatics Rating - it doesn't exist. From what I understand, current holders of an AOPA Aerobatics Certificate, and FIs who have had the "no aerobatics" restriction lifted, will be automatically issued an Aerobatics Rating when it comes into force. Everyone else will have to pay to be checked out and rated.

It's going to be interesting to see how that works out because I suspect that there are lots of ex-military fast-jet pilots out there who have never bothered with the AOPA certificate and aren't instructors. Without accreditation of their military experience, it looks like they are going to have to put their hand in their pocket to get a new rating if they want to turn themselves upside down.

:*

SimonK

15th Aug 2012, 22:03

Update from 22Gp today:

MILITARY ACCREDITATION SCHEME UPDATE – ISSUE 1 AUGUST 2012
*
Publication of the Military Accreditation Scheme (MAS)
*
1.The MAS was published by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on the 27 Jul 12. *The scheme can be found in CAP 804 Part 1 Section 4 Part O which is available on the CAA website. *Electronic copies of CAP 804 are available from 22(Trg) Gp on request.
*
2.Seeking opportunities to improve the MAS, within the constraints of EASA regulation, remains a high priority for 22(Trg) Gp and negotiations are ongoing with the CAA in a number of areas. *Policy adjustments have already been made as a result of these negotiations. *The following paragraphs summarise the latest position (as at 15 Aug 12) and contain information of importance for those military pilots considering their Flight Crew Licence (FCL) requirements.
*
Preservation of ATPL Theory Credits
*
4.This has been the subject of considerable scrutiny by 22(Trg) Gp and the CAA. *The policy in this area has been subject to development and I am now pleased to report that:
*
a.Qualified Service Pilots –Aeroplanes (QSP(A)) who, under the terms of the former QSP Scheme, obtained a JAR-FCL CPL(A) within 36 months of gaining the required pass in the ATPL(A) theoretical knowledge examinations will have those theory credits preserved, for the purpose of adding an Instrument Rating (IR) to their licence, for a period of 3 years from the date of his/her last flight piloting a military aeroplane OR 3 years from 8 Apr 12 whichever occurs first.
*
b.Qualified Service Pilots – Helicopters (QSP(H)) who, under the terms of the former QSP Scheme, obtained a JAR-FCL CPL(H) within 36 months of gaining the required pass in the ATPL(H) theoretical knowledge examinations will have those theory credits preserved, for the purpose of adding an Instrument Rating (IR) to their licence, for a period of 3 years from the date of his/her last flight piloting a military helicopter OR 3 years from 8 Apr 12 whichever occurs first.
*
5.This policy announcement represents a significant concession to military pilots caught in the transition to EASA regulation. *Early indications are that it will benefit a significant number of individuals.
*
6.For military pilots completing ATPL theoretical knowledge exams after 8 Apr 12 the validity criteria as set out in FCL.025(C) apply. *In other words: ‘The successful completion of the theoretical knowledge examinations will be valid for the issue of a commercial pilot licence or instrument rating for a period of 36 months.’
*
7.It should also be noted that in all cases ATPL theory credit for the grant of an ATPL will be as stated in FCL.025(c)(2). *In other words: *‘The completion of the airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) theoretical knowledge examinations will remain valid for the issue of an ATPL for a period of 7 years from the last validity date of an IR entered in the licence or, in the case of helicopters, a helicopter’s type rating entered in that licence.’
*
Multi-Pilot Accreditation
*
6.The Voyager and Sea King Mk 6 have been recognised as a multi-pilot aeroplane and multi-pilot helicopter respectively. *CAP 804 will be amended accordingly. *Further consultation will be taking place with our colleagues from the Army Air Corps in Sep 12 with a view to presenting a case to the CAA to achieve multi-pilot status for the Apache AH64. *I shall issue further updates on this matter in due course.
*
Multi-Engine Accreditation
*
7.Although the AH64 is not an EASA helicopter type the CAA do recognise it as a multi-engine helicopter and therefore multi-engine hours accrued on it will count when determining the extent of training required for the purpose of achieving a type rating on a multi-engine helicopter at an ATO.
*
Direct Route to the ATPL
*
8.CAP 804 Section 4 Part F subparts 1 and 2 covers the applicability, privileges and requirements in respect of the EASA Airline Transport Pilot Licence for Aeroplanes and Helicopters. *It will be noted that applicants for an ATPL(A or H) shall hold a CPL(A or H). *HOWEVER the CAA has confirmed that if a QMP is following the requirements for the initial grant of an ATPL (in accordance with CAP 804 Part 1 Section 4 Part O para 3.5 for ATPL(A) or para 3.14 for ATPL(H)) there is no requirement for a CPL to be issued first.
*
CPL(H) Testing
*
9.The CAA has confirmed that the CPL(H) Skills Test may be undertaken in a multi engine helicopter. *Furthermore a CPL skill test is also considered as a type rating skill test in that ‘it counts as the demonstration of CPL level competence and competence to fly the type in which the test is taken.’
*
*
Summary
*
9.The implementation of EASA regulation in respect of FCL in the UK has precipitated significant changes to military accreditation. *Nevertheless 22(Trg) Gp and the CAA remain committed to securing additional credit where possible against a demanding regulatory backdrop; this will be an ongoing process and I would expect to make further announcements in due course.

VinRouge

16th Aug 2012, 02:50

Good to hear. And if 22 Gp wish any input from the front line, there are plenty willing to help. This can be a two way process, not least for the front line to re discover knowledge gaps in syllabus items and provide an ideal opportunity to provide equivalence with our Civilian airspace cousins.

BEagle

16th Aug 2012, 06:54

LFFC, the Aerobatic Rating does not become mandatory until Apr 2015; even then it will only be applicable to EASA aeroplanes and not to Annex II aircraft such as the Bulldog, Chipmunk, Tiger Moth.

Existing FIs who have had the 'no aerobatics' restriction removed may continue to teach aerobatics.

All RAF pilots who have completed EFT may, if they wish, have the Aerobatic Rating included in a part-FCL licence after Sep 2012 and are credited any further training/testing requirements. See CAP 804 Section 4 Part P Page 32. If you wait to convert an existing JAR-FCL licence until after 17 Sep 2012 and request the inclusion of an Aerobatic Rating (under accreditation terms) at the same time, you will only be charged the standard licence conversion fee.

FIs without aerobatic instructional privileges will need to meet part-FCL requirements in order to do so after 17 Sep 2012.

theboywide

16th Aug 2012, 17:44

OK, so I'm now trying to understand what I need to do both training and documentation wise to get an ATPL issued and I'm a little confused!!

Perhaps one of you kind people can help?

1) I have the MAS Credits Form SRG 2133 - Do I need to send this to CAA separately or do I send one of these with every form I send to the CAA (e.g. exam apps, skills test etc)?

2) I have started prep for the 14 exams. I have the numbers I need for the Class 1 medical. That I understand.

3) On completion of the 14 exams I will be doing an A400M type rating with Airbus in Seville, which (according to the Airbus blurb) follows the JAR-FCL rules. The A400M will be an on the EASA civilian register on completion of EASA Civilian Type rating as I understand it.
Can this TRC be used for the Skills Test and IR portion of initial ATPL issue?
How would I do this?

4) Looking at the forms for ATPL issue - what is an ECAC assessment? Which form do I fill out on completion of all exams, skills test and IRT?

5) Do I need to do a Radio Telephony Exam - I can't find any details of this in the military exemption?
Also, what do I need to do to get an English Proficiency Assessment? Do I need this?

6) Later in the year I will be doing a TRI with Airbus - how do I go about getting this endorsed on the licence?

We need someone to do a flow chart!!!

Thanks in advance for your help!

A very confused Wides

LFFC

16th Aug 2012, 18:27

BEagle,

Thanks for the link to that part of CAP804. I'd assumed that, since I've already got a part-FCL licence, there wasn't anything for me in Part P.

Sloppy Link

16th Aug 2012, 19:10

ME110,
Aha! Gotcha. TQ.

SL

BEagle

16th Aug 2012, 20:23

theboywide, you are in a very complicated position.

Not only are you going to need a Type Rating which doesn't yet exist, but you are also going to have to think about the State of Licence issue.

Perhaps it would be best (cheapest) to open an ATPL / IR on something else first, then add the Atlas TR? Although the exact requirements are far from clear, I'm sorry to say.

You will need an ICAO English Language Level 6 endorsement; I have already flagged up the lack of FRTOL accreditation for military pilots, so hopefully at least that is being sorted out.

If Airbus Military wish you to be a TRI on the Atlas, they should be able to sort that out and obtain approval from the UK CAA to conduct the TRI test. You can see the TRI requirements in CAP 804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 2 (.pdf pp 237-243 / 794).

Wouldn't it be so much easier if RAF ME pilots held equivalent civil licences in the first place!

Of course in more sensible pre-EASA days, you could simply have used the old 'experienced QSP' route, then added the Atlas TR....:mad:

Trim Stab

16th Aug 2012, 20:53

Good Morning BEagle:

Existing FIs who have had the 'no aerobatics' restriction removed may continue to teach aerobatics

Thanks, that's me sorted then.

But what about ex Mil with loads more aerobatic experience than me?

Goodbye

BEagle

16th Aug 2012, 21:07

But what about ex Mil with loads more aerobatic experience than me?

Once holding a part-FCL FI certificate and an Aerobatic Rating, they will be able to conduct aerobatic instruction after demonstrating ability to a suitable FIC instructor in accordance with CAP804 Section 4 Part J, Subpart 1 Page 1.

Between now and 17 Sep there is something of an interregnum, so any military pilot who has added an FI certificate under the niggardly MAS would be best advised to wait until then before applying.

BillieBob

17th Aug 2012, 16:39

Beagle, could you just answer one question, please?

I am an ex-A2 QFI. I hold a valid professional aeroplane licence and a current display authorisation but no FI rating. Can you point me at the specific piece of legislation that prevents me from offering my services as an aerobatic instructor to other licence holders, with or without remuneration?

lynx-effect

17th Aug 2012, 17:54

You're all good. I am in the same boat. Update from 22 group dated 01 Aug 12

b. Qualified Service Pilots – Helicopters(QSP(H)) who, under the terms of the former QSP Scheme, obtained a JAR-FCLCPL(H) within 36 months of gaining the required pass in the ATPL(H) theoreticalknowledge examinations will have those theory credits preserved, for thepurpose of adding an Instrument Rating (IR) to their licence, for a period of 3years from the date of his/her last flight piloting a military helicopter OR 3years from 8 Apr 12 whichever occurs first.

BEagle

17th Aug 2012, 18:38

I am an ex-A2 QFI. I hold a valid professional aeroplane licence and a current display authorisation but no FI rating.

As far as civil regulation goes, the ex-A2 and DA are irrelevant when it comes to flight instruction.

How can you possibly think that you can offer your services as an 'aerobatic instructor' when you hold no civil instructional privileges whatsoever?

Under part-FCL, as a minimum, you would need to hold a CRI certificate and a (legacy) Aerobatic Rating and to have demonstrated your ability to a suitably qualified FIC instructor.

BlindWingy

17th Aug 2012, 19:54

This is outrageous! How can QFIs instruct military pilots when they are deemed incompetent to instruct civilians? How dare you teach aerobatics when you don't have civilian approval - standards must be very low...

blagger

17th Aug 2012, 20:05

Blind wingy - who do you propose is PIC when the mil instructor with no civvy quals is teaching a civvy in a civvy registered aircraft?

BlindWingy

17th Aug 2012, 20:28

Exactly! These military QFIs must be very amateurish! I mean, teaching on a single engine propeller driven military plane must be vastly different to teaching on a civilian one! Enough crazy talk, how on earth can military pilots who fly 2 pilot aircraft be expected to survive flying in the civilian world! The airways would be filled with people who don't know what they're doing! They're not even worthy of the civilian qualifications! Stop the madness!

BillieBob

17th Aug 2012, 20:44

OK Beagle, I'll take that as a 'No', you cannot point me at any piece of legislation that prevents me teaching aerobatics, you merely think that it should be wrong. According to the ANO, I need to hold an FI rating only if I wish to give instruction to a person for the reason of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence or for the inclusion of any rating or qualification in a pilot's licence (Article 80). If I wish to give instruction for any other purpose, therefore, I don't need an FI Rating.

The A2 and DA are far from irrelevant as they show that I am not, by seeking to teach aerobatics, guilty of 'reckless endangerment', the only possible provision of the ANO that you could have quoted to support your argument. Part-FCL is also irrelevant, at least for another month.

The privileges of my licence are to fly "as pilot in command of an aeroplane for any reason whatsoever", unless some other provision of the ANO restricts that privilege. If you can show me any provision (not opinion) that says that I cannot give instruction that is not for the purposes described in Article 80, I will accept that you are right and I am wrong.

You have control.

blagger

17th Aug 2012, 20:56

BillieBob - What are you going to log for the flight and what will your 'student' log?

BEagle

17th Aug 2012, 20:57

There is a clear difference between competence and legality.....

No doubt the airline co-pilot, ex-A2 who is now a display pilot is entirely competent to have taught military students aerobatics, for example.

But it isn't legal for him to teach civilian pilots, of unknown aptitude, to fly aerobatics without having first gained the relevant civil qualifications.

It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.

The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.

The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.

Regrettably, the civil world is paved with road humps, all of which cost a lot of money to cross. Does it make you a better pilot or instructor? Does it hell....:mad:

BillieBob, your JAR-FCL licence is now deemed to be a part-FCL licence and is no longer regulates under the ANO. See CAP 804. FCL900 is reasonably all embracing with regard to Instructor privileges.

Anway, why not get yourself properly qualified in accordance with part-FCL, rather than operating under your barrack room lawyer 'where does it say I can't' nonsense?

BillieBob

17th Aug 2012, 21:05

But it isn't legal for him to teach civilian pilots, of unknown aptitude, to fly aerobatics without having first gained the relevant civil qualifications.Yes, we know that is your opinion, Beagle, but where is the legislation?

Here's another question - JAR-FCL 1.330 lists the privileges of a JAA Flight Instructor. Can you point out where the privilege to teach aerobatics is included?

BillieBob, your JAR-FCL licence is now deemed to be a part-FCL licence and is no longer regulates under the ANO. See CAP 804.This will be the CAP 804 that takes effect from 17 September 2012, will it?

Blagger - I will log PIC, the other pilot may enter in his logbook anything he wishes but will not be able to claim the time towards the issue of a licence or rating. Since there is (as yet) no aerobatic rating, this is not great issue.

Black Jake

17th Aug 2012, 21:13

This is a response to BW's posts 226 & 228. Things seem to have moved on since then.

Of course you could always turn the argument the other way around. How dare civilian flight instructors think it reasonable to instruct military pilots without being required to demonstrate their competence to the appropriate military authority............?

Unless I'm mistaken - that happens. HQ CFS examiners check all prospective civilian instructors before they're allowed to give instruction to military student pilots on civilian contracts at Shawbury, Barkston Heath, Middle Wallop etc and even to ATC cadets on flying scholarships at civilian flying schools.

Two-way street.

Also, as Beagle has stated on many occasions, military theoretical knowledge requirements and flight training has been "dumbed down" significantly in the last decade or so. Quote from a post by Beagle on 25 July 2012: "How right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later. For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive....."

Before suffering return friendly fire, I'm ex mil and profited from my mil qualifications to obtain an ATPL (A), SE and ME class ratings, IR and unrestricted FI rating in 1998. However, I was required to study for and pass all 14 ATPL (A) theory exams (including a practical demonstration of knowledge of Morse code), and a class rating skill test on a multi-engine aircraft, and a ME instrument rating, and an FI skill test (despite being an A2 QFI and IRE).

Granted mil pilots and especially mil QFIs are good (generally streets ahead of their civilian counterparts), but if the MOD is not prepared to accept civil qualifications on face value, why should the CAA be expected to do likewise for the grant of equivalent EASA pilot licences and ratings?

BJ

BEagle

17th Aug 2012, 21:14

BillieBob, I suggest you study the revised ANO which came out a few days ago - from which all JAR-FCL stuff has been removed.

The CAA was empowered to restrict activities sanctioned by JAR-FCL (e.g. to impose restrictive PPL VFR minima), whereas it has no such powers under EASA.

Read the Basic Regulation to establish the definitions for aerobatic flight - and the qualifications which apply to aerobatic instruction.

If you'd prefer, I can put you in touch with the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement Branch and you can discuss it with them.

Blagger - I will log PIC, the other pilot may enter in his logbook anything he wishes but will not be able to claim the time towards the issue of a licence or rating. Since there is (as yet) no aerobatic rating, this is not great issue.

So does the 'pilot' (actually a passenger in the circumstances described) pay for your activity? Sounds pretty close to illegal public transport to me.....

BillieBob

17th Aug 2012, 21:44

Beagle, This exchange does not concern the EASA implementing rules but your contention that, under JAR-FCL, it was illegal for a pilot without an FI rating (or with an FI rating that included a 'No aerobatics' restriction) to give instruction for purposes other than those described in Article 80 of the ANO. That contention is entirely wrong and you have been signally unable to cite any legal instrument to support it. It is also clear that you do not understand the distinction between public transport and aerial work, nor the provisions of Article 50. If a licensed pilot hires an aeroplane and chooses to pay me (as the holder of a professional licence) for my time and expertise, that is entirely within the law. If the other pilot feels he needs to log the flight then SNY should do the trick.

I have, on various occasions in the past, discussed this particular issue with both PLD Approvals (as it then was), the then CFE and Head of Policy. All agreed (off the record) that the 'No aerobatics' restriction was entirely unsupportable in law but, in the knowledge that EASA was on the way, were disinclined to do anything about it. Hence my original contention that removing the restriction ahead of 17 Sep was pointless.

Oh, and I attended the last ARE thrash in London - it was awesome, those ex-coppers can really put it away!

BlindWingy

17th Aug 2012, 21:53

Can anyone confirm that military pilots still teach aerobatics, fly in controlled airspace, at night or even in cloud? Do they fly big jets, like passenger airliners or even piston aircraft, like at a flying club?

How can this still be allowed if they are not up to the standard of all the other civilian users? According to the CAA, their training and skills are not worthy of being recognised and their knowledge is far from adequate - surely this cannot be safe! Somebody should do something about it!

LFFC

17th Aug 2012, 21:53

BillieBob,

You asked the question:

Here's another question - JAR-FCL 1.330 lists the privileges of a JAA Flight Instructor. Can you point out where the privilege to teach aerobatics is included?

and then answered it:

This will be the CAP 804 that takes effect from 17 September 2012, will it?

To be exact, it's in Part 1, Section 4, Part J, Subpart 1,

The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:

(f) a towing or aerobatic rating, provided that such privileges are held and the FI has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below;

By my understanding, you will in future need an Aerobatics Rating on your EASA licence if you wish to turn yourself upside down. It also seems quite clear to me that, under EASA, only FIs with privilages to conduct aerobatics training will be legally entitled to provide training for the award of an Aerobatics Rating. So, you can provide as much aerobatics training as you like, but your clients won't be able to use any of it towards the award of their Aerobatics Rating if you're not an FI with the "no aerobatics" restriction removed.

Black Jake

17th Aug 2012, 22:04

Blind Thingy
Again, I refer you to my post #233.
BJ

Easy Street

17th Aug 2012, 22:41

BJ,

Your analogy is wrong. CFS checking out prospective civilian FIs is no different to BA conducting simulator checks on prospective pilots. It's nothing to do with licensing - it's everything to do with ensuring the individuals being given the jobs are the best candidates in the field.

Giving military pilots credit towards civilian licenses is not the same thing as giving them credit towards jobs, which is what the thrust of your (narrow) argument is about.

Black Jake

17th Aug 2012, 23:45

Easy S:

The basic argument is this: "I have been trained by the military to do X, I have been assessed (by military assessment criteria) as competent to do X and I have been doing X for a certain period of time. Much of what I do is similar to what civilian pilots do. Therefore, I am entitled to claim credit for my (military) training for an equivalent civilian pilot licence, rating or certificate; whatever."

On most occasions this is probably true. The recently published conversion report quite rightly allows for military training and experience but requires that an applicant for an EASA licence, rating or certificate demonstrates that he/she is competent to exercise the privileges of that EASA licence, rating or certificate.

The MOD requires the same of civilian pilots on MOD contracts. I fail to see the difference.

BJ

BlindWingy

18th Aug 2012, 00:48

Similair? But I thought military pilots fly aeroplanes in the same sky as the civilians? In the airways, with passengers. Surely that's pretty much the same? How can they be allowed to do so if they aren't qualified to the appropriate level?

Trim Stab

18th Aug 2012, 19:01

It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.

The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.

The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.

BEagle - so why are you are arguing so vociferously on this thread (and elsewhereon Pprune) in support of all this EASA euro-bollocks nonsense?

There is a very simple solution - get an FI rating to prove that you can instruct (let's say it is equivalent to PGCE - which it is in France). That should allow an instructor to teach any advanced subject that he has demonstrable competence in - whether as a CRI, IRI, aerobatics, night

It would allow instructors with genuine experience (whether civilian or military) to work in FTOs - without having to pay a small fortune for silly add-on "advanced" courses taught by novices in the subject.

It would also stop all this nonsense whereby FTOs are filled with hours-building instructors who only have a hundred hours or so more experience than their students.

5 Forward 6 Back

18th Aug 2012, 20:23

I've had another read through the document, and I'm still unsure precisely how it all affects me. It doesn't help because I don't have a legacy copy of LASORS to plough through.

FJ background so no ME/multi-pilot time at all (unless QFIing counts! :} ). Slightly sub-2000hrs TT, 1500PIC.

From what I can understand, I sit all 14 exams, I do an appropriate amount of training with a FTO to pass an ME skills test, then I do a ME IR and an MCC.

Isn't that what I would have had to do beforehand if I wasn't due any 2000+ exemptions? Has anything changed for someone in my shoes?

Also, has anyone got to the bottom of the "a BFJT graduate SHALL take all his tests in a single engine single pilot aircraft" bit?

Easy Street

18th Aug 2012, 21:27

Unofficial summary of the old and new pathways to fATPL for qualified FJ pilots:

EXAMS - Old Scheme

2000hrs total / 1500 PIC = Bridging course plus 4 exams
Less experienced = Approved course of training plus 14 exams

EXAMS - New Scheme

Any experience level = 14 exams, no formal training required (feeling brave / stupid / both?!)

CPL - Old Scheme

In current flying practice = CPL issued automatically
Not in current flying practice = Abridged CPL course and skills test required*
Experience level not relevant

CPL - New Scheme

Any level of currency = CPL skills test required, but no training required (see my previous comment!)
Experience level not relevant

BOTH SCHEMES

ME class rating course and skill test*
Single pilot ME IR
MCC

* Un-current pilots could combine the CPL and ME class rating skill tests

That's my understanding at any rate, and I stand ready to be corrected! My impression is that FJ mates don't have too much to complain about with the new scheme, particularly as few outside of the QFI world would have made the hours threshold by their 38/40 point anyway given the paucity of flying hours in the modern air force. It's the lack of PPL credit in the new scheme that really grips my sh1t.

So the new feature for most FJ mates is the CPL skills test. I have not investigated this in detail yet, but I presume there is a way of making the process a bit cheaper by combining the CPL skills test with the IRT? Is this possible? This might be where the line about taking the CPL in a single engine aircraft causes a faff - because the IR obviously has to be taken in a ME aircraft....

BEagle

19th Aug 2012, 09:01

BEagle - so why are you are arguing so vociferously on this thread (and elsewhere on PPRuNe) in support of all this EASA euro-bollocks nonsense?

Not me, chum - I happen to think that EASA is the worst thing to have hit aviation in the last 50 years and have been arguing against its excesses ever since the threat it posed became clear!

There is a very simple solution - get an FI rating to prove that you can instruct (let's say it is equivalent to PGCE - which it is in France). That should allow an instructor to teach any advanced subject that he has demonstrable competence in - whether as a CRI, IRI, aerobatics, night.

Which is all an aerobatic instructor has to do. Get the rating (can even be CRI if people wish), demonstrate comptence in the discipline to an FIC instructor and off you go. People with aerobatic background are credited all requirments and just need to apply for the addition of the rating. Although the Aerobatic Rating isn't mandatory for such folk until 2015, it isn't clear whether than applies to FI / CRI wishing to teach aerobatics before then. But since (in the UK) it's largely a no-cost exercise if included with a licence conversion, why wouldn't they?

What I am disputing is the concept of any form of civil instruction without the 'instructor' holding an appropriate qualification.

R-A-F-Off

19th Aug 2012, 15:07

Easy Street - From my reading, the new rules mean FJ mates "shall" fly their CPL Skiils Test and IR Skills Test in a Complex Single. They can then be issued a CPL/IR before having to get an MEPL Class Rating and then fly another IR Skills Test in a Multi. That's 3 lots of paying for the company of a CAA Examiner!

High_Expect

19th Aug 2012, 16:27

I still can't work out if this is a good or bad thing for FJ mates. Good - I can get a CPL/IR without having to do any multi time (cheaper) but then this licence would be useless for future employment in the airline world. Bad- to get a licence for flying airlines is more expensive for me as I have to do a Complex Single skills test and then a ME Skills Test and IR. Can I not just do the ME skills test and IR first time around? If this is possible why would anyone bother with the Complex Single bit? (unless you want to fly PC12 or the like) ??? Ps. If they wanted me to read the full EASA document they should have used 4 colours and a few pictures.

High_Expect

19th Aug 2012, 16:33

+ still a little bit pissed that as a 1700+ FJ mate/A2 QFI that is able to issue unrestricted ratings to ab-initio students with around 200hrs in their logbooks to fly solo in class A airspace- I'm treated like a school leaver in all but a few weeks of groundschool when it comes to applying for my licences.

If the CAA would kindly like to make their case as to why I'm so under qualified in aviation as to effectively do the whole lot. Perhaps I'm not qualified enough to be mixing it up with the airliners on a daily basis. Should we not all ground ourselves for the safety of joe public. Or perhaps I should NOTAM my two airways sorties tomorrow?

artyhug

19th Aug 2012, 17:31

If you're going anywhere near me 'Splinter' then please make sure you do... ;-)

R-A-F-Off

19th Aug 2012, 18:30

High Expect - The rules as they're currently written mean that you have to do both the CPL and IR Skills Test in a single first now.

blagger

19th Aug 2012, 18:57

VigilantPilot - the point I think is that civvies do the course, mil are exempt the course and only have to do brush up sufficient to take the test. What the new accreditation is saying is that they deem FJ to cover the SE CPL IR course requirements but not the ME CPL IR elements.

R-A-F-Off

19th Aug 2012, 19:00

I just don't understand why the rules have been written this way either. Surely "training as required" on a Multi would suffice given that you can't pass if you don't make the grade. This one line has made it all a lot more expensive for FJ types.

High_Expect

19th Aug 2012, 20:02

I just can't understand that decision! Surely the pass mark is just that. I fully appreciate that there will be some new skills I'll have to learn but honestly it's not rocket science - I've met a lot of multi mates ;-)

What are they achieving by making me do both?

Right game on. In cold to the SE skills test!

5 Forward 6 Back

19th Aug 2012, 20:45

So I have to get a CPL on a single engined aircraft, then add a multi engine rating to it....? Why? Would make sense if they were crediting the skills test etc but it doesn't appear to be the case.

Actually, isn't it now simpler and easier to get a CPL by just starting from scratch and pretending you don't have any military experience? At least then I could go straight in to the ME side of things.

Trim Stab

20th Aug 2012, 07:20

So I have to get a CPL on a single engined aircraft, then add a multi engine rating to it....? Why? Would make sense if they were crediting the skills test etc but it doesn't appear to be the case.

No, this is not true. You can do your CPL skill test on a twin-engine aircraft as long as the FTO has the required approval. You will find that most FTOs that have DA42s in their training fleet have this approval. You would have to do the MEP course (five hours - which would also serve as familiarisation on DA42), then do the CPL/MEP skills test in one flight, then IR/ME SP skill test. So in theory you could get your CPL, MEP and IR/ME SP with about eight hours in a DA42.

Incidentally, has anybody ever tried applying to an FTO in another EASA administration? An application would be handled on its individual merits, rather than being squeezed through a complex seive of multiple national regulations. You might end up having to do less retraining. Plenty of ex-mil pilots from francophone countries get their EASA licences from French FTOs. I can't see why ex UK QMPs should be treated any differently.

blagger

20th Aug 2012, 07:43

Trim Stab - Part O accreditation clearly states that you must apply to the Member State in which you served, it is not portable to other countries

BEagle

20th Aug 2012, 07:46

Incidentally, has anybody ever tried applying to an FTO in another EASA administration?

Unfortunately the €urocrats have ordained, in Article 10 of the Aircrew Regulation, that In order for holders of military flight crew licences to obtain Part-FCL licences, they shall apply to the Member State where they served.

So for a UK military pilot to apply to an ATO outside the UK might prove problematic.

Edit - you beat me to it, blagger!

I'm still furious about the way that EASA failed to uphold the assurances concerning military accreditation which they gave us at the 2008 part-FCL Working Group meeting at Gatwick....:mad:

I wonder whether the following sequence was ever mooted:

1. Issue a CAA exemption allowing 'appropriate military aircraft' to be deemed acceptable for the initial issue of a UK ATPL.
2. Continue to recognise the former 'experienced QSP' accreditation in full.
3. Issue a UK ATPL initially, then convert it to a part-FCL ATPL once the applicant has completed a Class or Type Rating on an EASA aircraft.

In addition, perhaps a Regulation 14(4) exemption should be proposed, allowing UK military pilots to open a part-FCL ATPL with an 'appropriate military type'?