Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Military IRT validity under EASA

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Military IRT validity under EASA

Old 26th Oct 2011, 17:18
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Military IRT validity under EASA

This may already have been discussed but can anyone shed any light on how changeover to EASA will affect the LASORS F4 ruling that a military green IRT gained in the previous 5 years deems the holder 'current and valid' for the purposes of conducting a Type Rating course? If not, anyone know a good contact within the CAA to broach the subject with?

Sitting fat, dumb and happy on my current mil IRT, I'm now wondering whether I need to hastily organise a civvy IRT (I'm potentially starting a type rating course in April 12!!!).
Cattivo is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2011, 19:38
  #2 (permalink)  
Tightgit
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The artist formerly known as john du'pruyting
Age: 65
Posts: 803
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
The expected effects of licensing on pilots in the UK

Paragraph 7.2 may be of some help
handysnaks is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2011, 19:42
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
You need to speak with 22Gp. They are developing all Military Accreditation criteria for the CAA to use in EASA 'conversion reports'.

Keep an eye on the CAA's website at Licensing and Training Standards | EASA | Safety Regulation
BEagle is online now  
Old 26th Oct 2011, 20:39
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It has been covered but I'll repeat to try and get this URGENT message across.

As it stands you will need to do another civil IR because at cease work 07 Apr 12 all military exemptions/dispensations cease as EASA becomes the provinence document. The CAA will issue type ratings onto licences until the deadline but to have the type rating added you must have completed the type rating course, base training and all paperwork/fees sorted and be at the Gatwick counter or have had the license stamped and in the post to you as the office closes.

A rough guide is that it would take 3 months to be at this stage from course start date. You would need to start the course Jan 12 latest and have a switched on airline training set up to make the deadline.

All the info comes from having spent the last 8 weeks liaising on behalf of our QSP candidates between my airline training dept, type rating provider, the CAA and the 2 guys at 22 Gp who have had this dumped on them. I'll include a review for info, trust me it's as brief as I can make it!

Main points;

1) To renew an IR expired by more than 7 years applicants for a multi-pilot aircraft (MPA) must pass a type rating skills test with or observed by a UK CAA Flt Ops Inspector and retake the IR(A) theoretical knowledge examinations. A QSP cannot use his Green Instrument Rating to maintain the validity and currency of his civilian IR beyond the 7 year point (LASORS Section E pg 7).

2) Where less than 7 years have elapsed since the rating expired but IR privileges have been exercised under a military IR qualification (fixed-wing or rotary) the renewal requirements will be based on the expiry of that military IR (LASORS Section E pg 7).

3) An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall hold a current and valid multi-engine IR. This requirement applies to the first MPA type rating. A UK QSP(A) who has held a Green Instrument Rating within the preceding 5 years is deemed to hold a current and valid IR (LASORS Section F4.1 pg 20). A Green Instrument Rating on any military aircraft meets this requirement eg. IR on Seneca 4 years ago currently Green Rated on the Tutor meets the requirement (CAA statement after consultation with CAA Policy Dept).

4) Unless the RAF make a case to EASA by the 08 Apr 12 all exemptions and considerations for military experience will cease midnight 07 Apr 12. As it stands the CAA will issue type ratings to QSP's based on the requirements in 2) and 3) above until that deadline. Consequently, any such candidate will need to have completed base training, all necessary paperwork and either post well in advance or use the counter service at Gatwick to have had the type rating issued by cease work 07 Apr 12. To meet the deadline candidates will need to have started the type rating course by early Jan 12 latest.

Last edited by jpboy; 26th Oct 2011 at 21:06.
jpboy is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2011, 00:14
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated.
Cattivo is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2011, 22:04
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jpboy,

Can you just expand a bit on the line that you need to start TR trg by Jan 12. Does this apply to QSP's who are using their green IRTs to keep their civvy IR current?

Presumably if you have a current, valid JAA CPL/IR (gained under QSP dispensation all be it) this wouldn't apply?
AutoBit is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2011, 09:36
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do hope the Military comes up with a lovely new scheme to continue the QSP accreditation with EASA.....of course they will! Why wouldn't they......?

I think I may have sha* out here.

wokkamate is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2011, 19:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know it is all still to be finalised but the notes I have seen only relate to Military credit under the current scheme for license "issue" ending in April 12. Hopefully the current IR scheme might remain in place until the EASA one comes in as it is for a rating, not a license.

Or am I just hoping for too much?
Foxee is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2011, 21:35
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Autobit,

Sure thing, to expand:- The Jan start date for first MPA TR course applies specifically to QSPs using their green rating to keep the IR current on an ATPL/CPL. When the CAA stamp your license with the first MPA type rating they will look at your TR course from start to finish to ensure all is pucker and legal as per the rules applicable on the day of issue. It will include a check on whether you met the course prerequisites, one of which is a valid and current multi-engined IR. So lets assume that you are using your green rating to keep your IR current and your application hits the desk of the CAA officer at 1700 on 07 Apr. If they stamp it then all is well but if it is left til the next day they will not stamp because the rules applicable at the time of license issue will be EASA and thus no mil accreditation applies (as it stands today) ie green rating keeping IR current is no longer pucker. Please people nb the deadline is to have had the type rating issued. Working back a TR course plus base training plus admin/fees paid takes approx 3 months hence start date of Jan.

Until the case is made to EASA to establish what credit the Mil will have under the new system to ensure you have no dramas the solution is to bite the bullet, pay the money to hire a twin and have a valid and current multi-engined civvie IR at commencement of first MPA TR course.

Foxee,

From the CAA ALL military accreditations pertaining to licensing will end at cease work on 07 Apr 12 as it stands at the moment. I've been working hard for 5 QSP candidates all of whom are fully licensed up, are starting their first TR on joining the airline early next year and are caught in this dilemma.

Forgive the bold highlighting, been banging on about this for a while now and it makes me feel a tad more hopeful that the message is geting across. Good luck to all.

Last edited by jpboy; 28th Oct 2011 at 21:46.
jpboy is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2011, 12:01
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Farfrompuken,

If you are on your TR course now then you should easily beat the deadline.

The Sqn Ldr/Flt Lt in post at 22Gp are working on this but were posted in late in the game so not their fault as individuals, same old story. I believe there may be a disconnect between the RAF and CAA over this in terms of who's job it is to make the case. The argument being should it be the RAF because it is in their members interest or the CAA because thay are responsible for setting national policy.

As hard as the team at Abbey Wood work I just can't see it being signed off to be policy by the deadline. I hope I am wrong as I was that QSP who left in 06 and benefited greatly from the exemptions in place. Many thanks to all the old boys (Beagle?) who had worked so hard to get them in place and all the best to the current team trying to do the same.
jpboy is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2011, 13:02
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Farfrompuken,

Check your PMs please.
jpboy is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2011, 13:07
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
jpboy, I might have started things rolling when I first spotted the opportunity with the introduction of JAR-FCL. As a part-time civil FI/FE, when JAR-FCL first came I had to study the new requirements and noted the relevant regulation covering military accreditation en passant. After several letters and initiatives (despite some snotty Wg Cdr at Learning Command bleating about 'proper staffing processes'... ; he soon shut up when I told him that a 4-star had written to me personally to thank me for my initiative! ), it was, I understand The Scottish Officer who kicked Binnsworth into actually doing something positive, so the 'MCWG' was formed and it was they who did all the spade work to define the requirements which eventually appeared - which were actually better than those I'd originally proposed.

After I'd pulled the B&Y, I did try through various contacts to remind the RAF that the leaden hand of €urocracy was approaching and that they needed to look at the current accreditations with some urgency, but there wasn't much more I could do. The CAA no longer has sufficient staffing to look after military accreditation proposals and has taken the reasonable view that, if the RAF wants accreditation then it has to do the work! Under the EASA Basic Regulation, it is a national responsibility to write the conversion criteria, not specifically a requirement for the competent authority to draft it.

I did ask the CAA whether the Army and RN were assisting the 2 guys at 22Gp and was told "Ah - good point! Not as far as I'm aware" .

I do hope that 22Gp don't take a niggardly approach and undersell the training, experience and skill of military pilots when writing the 'conversion report'. A top tip might be to go to another country (e.g. Belgium, Netherlands or Germany) and find out what they do? But there's probably no money in the T&S kitty to allow such a fact-finding mission these days....

Of course delays and vacillation will merely encourage those trying to decide what to do to jump early, following the 'Better the devil you know' principle.

There are more than enough embuggerances in today's RAF, I'm told - so the last thing anyone would want is a non-seamless military accreditation transition next April. However, I fear that time might be running out........ I hope I'm proved wrong!
BEagle is online now  
Old 30th Oct 2011, 12:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London Village
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anyone know if this will affect people who have an ATPL, with a lapsed IR, who then join an airline which will provide them with a rating? If not does anyone have any idea how much an IR renewal on a mil type costs? Thanks
Redcarpet is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2011, 20:36
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Old Cheese Emporium
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For those lucky enough to have gained a CPL/IR(A) with Frozen ATPL Theory Credits through the QSP scheme; Another proposition:

- For a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SPA IR(A) between 1-5 years old, would the ME SPA IR(A) need to be revalidated (or still be current) to get an equivalent new EASA licence issued post 07 Apr 12?

- Post 07 Apr 12 would a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SP IR(A) between 1-5 years old, be able to just do a ME MPA IR(A) on a suitable military ac to upgrade to a full ATPL (or EASA equivalent)?

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Albert Another is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2011, 21:57
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,522
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So lets assume that you are using your green rating to keep your IR current and your application hits the desk of the CAA officer at 1700 on 07 Apr. If they stamp it then all is well but if it is left til the next day they will not stamp because the rules applicable at the time of license issue will be EASA and thus no mil accreditation applies
Whilst the new EU Aircrew Regulation becomes law at 0001 on 8 Apr 12, implementation of the Annexes (i.e. the implementing rules) has been deferred until 1 Jul 12. Until then, the CAA will continue to operate in accordance with JAR-FCL and so all existing exemptions should continue. Of course, the CAA have never been great on logic!
BillieBob is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2011, 22:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
BillieBob, no, that's not the case. From the CAA document:


The existing accreditation will NOT be extended until Jul 2012, unfortunately. That was one of the first questions I put to the CAA when it became clear that they wouldn't be able to issue part-FCL licences in April 2012.
BEagle is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2011, 09:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Farfrompuken

The prerequisite to have a valid and current multi-engined rating applies to the first multi-pilot (MPA) type rating only. If you have the Herc on your license then whichever airliner you are going onto is not the first MPA type on your license and you can relax.

Give the CAA a call when you can to give you a warm and fuzzy, that's how I read the rule.

Billiebob,

Beags has nailed it, the deadline is 07 Apr 12. There has been some confusion because due to admin issues the CAA will be issuing JAA licenses until Jul but under EASA rules . I asked the question only last month of whether that meant the QSPs credits would be extended and got the same negative answer that Beags has sourced.

Albert Another

- For a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SPA IR(A) between 1-5 years old, would the ME SPA IR(A) need to be revalidated (or still be current) to get an equivalent new EASA licence issued post 07 Apr 12?

- Post 07 Apr 12 would a QSP that already has a CPL with a ME SP IR(A) between 1-5 years old, be able to just do a ME MPA IR(A) on a suitable military ac to upgrade to a full ATPL (or EASA equivalent)?

Is your license CAA or JAA? If it is CAA then pay to transfer your license now to JAA then it will become EASA by default on renewal (5 yrs time assuming you meet renewal criteria) and the first problem goes away.

There will be no Mil credits for the upgrade scenario but assuming you meet all the normal prerequisites and the mil type is on the civil register I see no reason why completing a civil rating on that type should not result in the upgrade.

In all these cases the CAA are generally helpful when you phone with individual questions. They too have suffered from manning cutbacks over recent years.
jpboy is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2011, 21:25
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Farfrompuken

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case (boy do I wish it was!). I've asked several examiners about this and been told a variety of different answers, the most learned one (and best placed) believes that the case you refer to relies upon the F4 QSP section in LASORs... which disappears on 7th April 2012, so all bets are off. The new regs may well duplicate the current QSP rules in some form but the feeling from inside is they won't. It's a big gamble to sit on your hands and hope your mil IR will see you right if there's a job at stake. I hope there's some direction soon.
Cattivo is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2011, 21:44
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jpboy,

Check your PMs.
Cattivo is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2011, 23:20
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cattivo,

There are many people wrestling with the issues raised by impeding EASA most are probably far more learned than I! I hope I haven't given the impression of being the Jedi Master, all of the opinions offered are without prejudice and based on recent dealings with the CAA trying to sort out individual QSP snarls with the system.

I've also tried to unravel issues for non-mil one of whom was previously type rated on an MPA but who did not hold a valid and current multi-engined IR on returning to work and about to start another MPA TR. Whilst it is true that Lasors Section F 4.1 contains QSP references in the case of the civvie, and I believe Farfrompuken and perhaps yourself, you need to not read beyond the bold below in my opinion.

F4.1 Pre-requisite conditions for training

An applicant for the first type rating course for a MPA shall provide evidence that the following requirements have been met:-

b. hold a current and valid multi-engined Instrument Rating (Aeroplanes). This requirement applies to the first MPA type rating. For subsequent type ratings the Instrument Rating may be renewed if necessary during the type rating course and skills test.
Para b then goes on to talk about the QSP Green Rating but it is irrelevant (and therefore so is impending EASA) if this is not your first MPA due to the reasoning in the second sentence. In essence, you are not making the case as a QSP with all the current buggerance but as a previously qualified MPA type rated pilot.

As you have highlighted though ask 20 pilots/CAA personnel the same question and you will get 20 different answers. It is also a good point that having a current and valid civvie multi-engined IR will guarantee you being squeaky clean at the start of a Type Rating Course. However, an 8000hr type rated 747 pilot who has been out of the industry for 3 years isn't asked to do a Duchess IR prior to starting a 757 TR. In my opinion you are in that exact same scenario...........but remember Yoda not am I.
jpboy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.