Converting UK military instructor rating to EASA - new terms
Guest
Posts: n/a
Converting UK military instructor rating to EASA - new terms
The bible of licence conversions CAP804 has been updated such that if you are a QHI or QFI and broad brush at least a B1, if you satisfy the tedious requirements to prove you can instruct (yet another flight test) you go straight to unrestricted instructional status. Which is better but not perfect. Previous you had the tedium of the probationary period to bypass. I may have over generalised somewhat - I suspect when someone picks at the scab, it will only for those who have sent the required number of victims off on their first solos. Still better terms is always welcome.
Also an update for fjocu graduates and test pilots.
Also an update for fjocu graduates and test pilots.
The bible of licence conversions CAP804 has been updated such that if you are a QHI or QFI and broad brush at least a B1, if you satisfy the tedious requirements to prove you can instruct (yet another flight test) you go straight to unrestricted instructional status.
Pity QGIs weren't included. Some of us are A2 or A2* with four-figure hours and a lot of real solo sending on what in class-rating terms is a TMG but receive no exemption or credit at all.
Pity QGIs weren't included. Some of us are A2 or A2* with four-figure hours and a lot of real solo sending on what in class-rating terms is a TMG but receive no exemption or credit at all.
GipsyMagpie, true - but still an utterly and woefully inadequate level of accreditation compared with that which the RAF had in more enlightened times of only a few years ago.
Those utter prats at 22Gp who screwed up military accreditation so comprehensively should hang their heads in everlasting shame.....
ACW599, to what level of accreditation do you think Air Cadet gliding instructors should actually be entitled?
Those utter prats at 22Gp who screwed up military accreditation so comprehensively should hang their heads in everlasting shame.....
ACW599, to what level of accreditation do you think Air Cadet gliding instructors should actually be entitled?
Probably a stupid question, but what accreditation under EASA is afforded qualified instructors from the air arms of other EU states, and if it is any good is it possible to negotiate a read-across - only a thought which do not recall seeing elsewhere on thee thread, but I might of course have missed it
ACW599, to what level of accreditation do you think Air Cadet gliding instructors should actually be entitled?
I'm not sure that "entitled" is quite the word I'd use. But in principle there should clearly be some credit for VGS experience. In fact I'd argue that a Vigilant VGS instructor is doing a job that's closer to that of a civilian FI than most RAF QFIs except those involved in EFT on the Tutor. That said, it is of course accepted that some QGIs would need to undertake a degree of training to add those elements of the EASA SEP or TMG syllabus which are not in the VGS syllabus (e.g. slow flight, instrument appreciation) to their skill set and prepare them for an AoC in the usual way.
For the removal of an FI restriction the requirement is for 100hr instruction and 25 "supervised" solos. There is no additional test or assessment. If Vigilant QGIs have civil licences with SEP and/or TMG ratings and pass an FI AoC it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that they should be awarded FI(R) or FI on the basis of whether or not they meet these criteria as a result of VGS flying, just as with QFIs and QHIs. I would imagine that the vast majority of Vigilant VGS A2s and many B1s more than meet the criteria for FI.
I'm not sure that "entitled" is quite the word I'd use. But in principle there should clearly be some credit for VGS experience. In fact I'd argue that a Vigilant VGS instructor is doing a job that's closer to that of a civilian FI than most RAF QFIs except those involved in EFT on the Tutor. That said, it is of course accepted that some QGIs would need to undertake a degree of training to add those elements of the EASA SEP or TMG syllabus which are not in the VGS syllabus (e.g. slow flight, instrument appreciation) to their skill set and prepare them for an AoC in the usual way.
For the removal of an FI restriction the requirement is for 100hr instruction and 25 "supervised" solos. There is no additional test or assessment. If Vigilant QGIs have civil licences with SEP and/or TMG ratings and pass an FI AoC it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that they should be awarded FI(R) or FI on the basis of whether or not they meet these criteria as a result of VGS flying, just as with QFIs and QHIs. I would imagine that the vast majority of Vigilant VGS A2s and many B1s more than meet the criteria for FI.
Last edited by ACW599; 29th Sep 2014 at 22:35. Reason: hopefully improving clarity.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Beds, UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago when the CAA would assess your experience against requirements I asked this question. I sent in my logbooks and experience (RAF Nav and A2 QGI) and was told I needed to demonstrate Commercial theoretical knowledge (CPL/ATPL exams) and complete sufficient training to cover all items of the syllabus to include IF and Nav, not less then 5hrs. I think an exemption similar to this would still be very appropriate if only it could be accepted.
Some years ago when the CAA would assess your experience against requirements I asked this question. I sent in my logbooks and experience (RAF Nav and A2 QGI) and was told I needed to demonstrate Commercial theoretical knowledge (CPL/ATPL exams) and complete sufficient training to cover all items of the syllabus to include IF and Nav, not less then 5hrs. I think an exemption similar to this would still be very appropriate if only it could be accepted.
BEagle and Whopity are the experts but I believe I'm right in saying that you can only instruct for a LAPL if you haven't passed the CPL TK. For QGIs I'd imagine that a tolerably good case could be made for the A2 ground exams to be treated as broadly equivalent for FI equivalence purposes.
BEagle and Whopity are the experts but I believe I'm right in saying that you can only instruct for a LAPL if you haven't passed the CPL TK. For QGIs I'd imagine that a tolerably good case could be made for the A2 ground exams to be treated as broadly equivalent for FI equivalence purposes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So has CFS at Syerston requested 22 Gp to ask for CAP 804 to be amended? I suspect if CFS did some of the leg work and presented a fait accomplished to 22 Gp then you might get an amendment. CAP804 is not set in stone.
Another approach might be through the BGA then on the bounce to EASA. I know this is not probably going to work for Vigilant drivers.
Another approach might be through the BGA then on the bounce to EASA. I know this is not probably going to work for Vigilant drivers.
So has CFS at Syerston requested 22 Gp to ask for CAP 804 to be amended?
I don't know. I guess it would be for 2 FTS to approve or disapprove, at least initially. One of my colleagues has spoken to 22 Gp and been advised that 2 FTS is the SME and aware of the issue.
I suspect if CFS did some of the leg work and presented a fait accomplished to 22 Gp then you might get an amendment. CAP804 is not set in stone.
Let's hope they see fit to do so. Quite a lot of us have been looking at ways and means to keep our hands in during the current pause in VGS flying. But an FI(R) is quite limiting and in some respects a CRI would be more useful although that's the result of an anomaly in Part-FCL.
I don't know. I guess it would be for 2 FTS to approve or disapprove, at least initially. One of my colleagues has spoken to 22 Gp and been advised that 2 FTS is the SME and aware of the issue.
I suspect if CFS did some of the leg work and presented a fait accomplished to 22 Gp then you might get an amendment. CAP804 is not set in stone.
Let's hope they see fit to do so. Quite a lot of us have been looking at ways and means to keep our hands in during the current pause in VGS flying. But an FI(R) is quite limiting and in some respects a CRI would be more useful although that's the result of an anomaly in Part-FCL.
ACW599
I've sent you a PM but, briefly, the CAA did allow me to upgrade from what was AFI to QFI early using about 30 hours of Air Cadet instructional time. That was early 90s so might have been pre JAA even. Good luck.
regards
BBk
I've sent you a PM but, briefly, the CAA did allow me to upgrade from what was AFI to QFI early using about 30 hours of Air Cadet instructional time. That was early 90s so might have been pre JAA even. Good luck.
regards
BBk
I've sent you a PM but, briefly, the CAA did allow me to upgrade from what was AFI to QFI early using about 30 hours of Air Cadet instructional time. That was early 90s so might have been pre JAA even. Good luck.
That's interesting -- many thanks.
In respect of the FI restriction removal I'm not convinced that the CAA actually needs any input from the military at all. If a VGS QGI has the appropriate civil licence and passes an FI AoC, it's then only a simple issue of whether VGS experience can be taken into account for the 100hr/25 solo requirement or not. And if not, why not?
That's interesting -- many thanks.
In respect of the FI restriction removal I'm not convinced that the CAA actually needs any input from the military at all. If a VGS QGI has the appropriate civil licence and passes an FI AoC, it's then only a simple issue of whether VGS experience can be taken into account for the 100hr/25 solo requirement or not. And if not, why not?
