Military pilots to require ATPL?
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not issuing service pilots with a civil license is a powerful retention tool for a very expensive asset.
That doesn't help when you have to fork out £15-20K for a type rating and IR!
So, actually, it had zero to little effect, but probably came with a cost to the RAF. And you wonder why it was scrapped.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Beagle here I'm afraid, a complete failure to understand the scale of the task of accreditation and make adequate preparation for the system changes by 22 Gp led to the essentially worthless nature of UK military flying experience. It is not just the French as has been mentioned who attacked this regs change differently, to my certain knowledge, the Dutch, Germans and Swiss, and rumoured many more European airforces, simply jumped through the organisational hoops to make their Military Flying Training Academies into EASA ATOs. This is now something of a joke on us in the international arena-we sell CFS abroad for standardisation and training jobs to all manner of commonwealth and global customers, under the banner "our training is everlasting" and yet "our training" is entirely worthless in the eyes of the regulatory authorities.
Furthermore, the 'dumbing down' of RAF training and 'efficiency savings' in course lengths that Beagle mentioned, would undoubtedly lead to some embarrassment for the RAF if it did indeed seek EASA accreditation for our training.
It is a ridiculous situation and one my civilian and foreign military colleagues and friends find incredulous that our military can be so cavalier as to operate in the modern age without accredited training. For goodness sake, even chefs and vehicle mechanics get transferrable qualifications!
Against the argument of retention that has been put, human beings, and military pilots particularly are 'efficient' (lazy) people. I know that if someone said to me "If you complete your original PC, then we'll hand you a ATPL when you give us the F1250 back at the end" then that would make me stay the distance more than any other 'incentive'.
As a middle age air force pilot with a mixture of experience I find the current system completely confusing and in all honesty have no idea where to even start and where to secure any funding for the licences I will need to feed my family in 5 years time. Cuts to the pension are further motivation to secure post-RAF career possibilities...
Furthermore, the 'dumbing down' of RAF training and 'efficiency savings' in course lengths that Beagle mentioned, would undoubtedly lead to some embarrassment for the RAF if it did indeed seek EASA accreditation for our training.
It is a ridiculous situation and one my civilian and foreign military colleagues and friends find incredulous that our military can be so cavalier as to operate in the modern age without accredited training. For goodness sake, even chefs and vehicle mechanics get transferrable qualifications!
Against the argument of retention that has been put, human beings, and military pilots particularly are 'efficient' (lazy) people. I know that if someone said to me "If you complete your original PC, then we'll hand you a ATPL when you give us the F1250 back at the end" then that would make me stay the distance more than any other 'incentive'.
As a middle age air force pilot with a mixture of experience I find the current system completely confusing and in all honesty have no idea where to even start and where to secure any funding for the licences I will need to feed my family in 5 years time. Cuts to the pension are further motivation to secure post-RAF career possibilities...
FJ2ME, my point exactly.
And alfred_the_great, actually the previous accreditation system meant that, instead of spending their time faffing with ATPL exams, the more experienced aircrew which the scheme attracted had more 'spare' time for service matters. So it was of benefit both to the individual and to the Service.
And alfred_the_great, actually the previous accreditation system meant that, instead of spending their time faffing with ATPL exams, the more experienced aircrew which the scheme attracted had more 'spare' time for service matters. So it was of benefit both to the individual and to the Service.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
As I was leaving CWL, after 40 years service, I was under the impression that the Educators, being the self declared experts in Training within the RAF, had taken over total responsibility for ALL RAF Training. With the agreement of the AFB they dismissed all Aircrew Training that had gone before and established the "correct way to teach".
Has the whole subject of internationally recognised and approved qualifications for pilots been overlooked by the Educators? Maybe there is more to the subject than they appreciated? From outside it appears to be a massive Co**UP.
The old days of "British Officer Coming Through" have long since gone. Even in the late 70s flying fast jets it was easier to file and fly GAT to get around Europe than OAT. Different Types approached the Procedural Rating in various ways but with little or no Standardisation within STC or RAFG.
What has happened within Europe concerning regulations and qualifications has been approaching for a long time. How come every other European nation prepared and the RAF has been caught with their trousers down?
Has the whole subject of internationally recognised and approved qualifications for pilots been overlooked by the Educators? Maybe there is more to the subject than they appreciated? From outside it appears to be a massive Co**UP.
The old days of "British Officer Coming Through" have long since gone. Even in the late 70s flying fast jets it was easier to file and fly GAT to get around Europe than OAT. Different Types approached the Procedural Rating in various ways but with little or no Standardisation within STC or RAFG.
What has happened within Europe concerning regulations and qualifications has been approaching for a long time. How come every other European nation prepared and the RAF has been caught with their trousers down?
Last edited by Dominator2; 28th Jul 2015 at 16:39.
As an example of how daft the pre-JAR accreditation was, I cite the case of one pilot who was working towards his ATPL. This was a Tornado mate on exchange with the Luftwaffe, who needed a UK-issued FRTOL ('RT licence'). So he went to his boss and asked if he could use some MCT time. The boss agreed, so he jumped into his Tornado and flew to Brize, mostly on airways. He came to the Brize Flying Club and did his RT written exam with me - he passed with around 100%, of course! His WSO had a coffee and a natter in the club room, then they flew back with the pilot happy to have his piece of CAA-satisfying paper.
The fee? "Bitte ein(ige) Bit!"
The fee? "Bitte ein(ige) Bit!"
Writing as a ME Service Pilot in the middle of his ATPL studies, may I offer a couple of opinions;
Firstly, the RAF is no longer a career and regardless of whether or not you think you think you're in it for the long haul, you still need to consider an ATPL as an insurance policy. Possibly, you may want to stay but the RAF may dump you post-SDSR.
Secondly, if you're a young gun who wants Typhoon but ends up Shadow (no particular reason why I picked those ac); what's the incentive to stay? The moment you complete your first ROS you have the required hours and Bye-Bye!
Thirdly, for how much longer can the Brass consider it ALARP to have pilots operating large, multi-engine ac in global Airspace with only an Air Force IRT as their qualification?
Myself? I'm doing it because I can't trust the powers that be to make a coherent, long term decision and I'm not prepared to risk my family's well-being.
The solution? I think by offering ATPL ground school, possibly subcontracted to a suitable ATO (perhaps BGS) and promising a frozen CPL/IR or TR depending on future RAF type, you would find that it would offer a level of job / professional security to pilots. It could be tied in with a 6/10yr ROS as required.
We already have King's providing defence studies so it's not outside the realms of credibility.
Firstly, the RAF is no longer a career and regardless of whether or not you think you think you're in it for the long haul, you still need to consider an ATPL as an insurance policy. Possibly, you may want to stay but the RAF may dump you post-SDSR.
Secondly, if you're a young gun who wants Typhoon but ends up Shadow (no particular reason why I picked those ac); what's the incentive to stay? The moment you complete your first ROS you have the required hours and Bye-Bye!
Thirdly, for how much longer can the Brass consider it ALARP to have pilots operating large, multi-engine ac in global Airspace with only an Air Force IRT as their qualification?
Myself? I'm doing it because I can't trust the powers that be to make a coherent, long term decision and I'm not prepared to risk my family's well-being.
The solution? I think by offering ATPL ground school, possibly subcontracted to a suitable ATO (perhaps BGS) and promising a frozen CPL/IR or TR depending on future RAF type, you would find that it would offer a level of job / professional security to pilots. It could be tied in with a 6/10yr ROS as required.
We already have King's providing defence studies so it's not outside the realms of credibility.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
SVK,
Don't restrict your comments to large, multi-engine ac, it is just as relevant to fast jets. There are many fast jets, often in formations, flying GAT throughout Europe. Again, their qualification is a Procedural Green Rating. Their ac are operating on a myriad of "Military Exemptions" since the MOD has not upgraded the ac to comply with current, let alone future, regulations.
Thirdly, for how much longer can the Brass consider it ALARP to have pilots operating large, multi-engine ac in global Airspace with only an Air Force IRT as their qualification?
Champagne anyone...?
I remember discussing this a few years ago and it seemed that one could kill a variety of birds with one stone. Do all the ATPL exams at EFT. Get FTO recognition for METS (at least) such that their output product (or better still that of the actual OCU) qualifies for the award of an EASA ATPL.
Arrange with the CAA that the licence issue is provisional (or caveated "Military Aircraft Only") until such time that the recipient has completed an agreed period of Service with the RAF. PVR or similar early departure before completion of said Service would render the provisional ATPL invalid, requiring a repeat of all the exams etc (as is the case now).
Pilot serves his/her time knowing that the licence is in his/her back pocket.
Arrange with the CAA that the licence issue is provisional (or caveated "Military Aircraft Only") until such time that the recipient has completed an agreed period of Service with the RAF. PVR or similar early departure before completion of said Service would render the provisional ATPL invalid, requiring a repeat of all the exams etc (as is the case now).
Pilot serves his/her time knowing that the licence is in his/her back pocket.
As far as ME pilots are concerned:
1. Qualify for Part-FCL CPL/IR with King Air TR at METS.
2. Add further TR at OCU.
3. Define an equivalent 'licence value' £N in cost terms and require payback of proportion of the value depending on time served after OCU. So if PVR-ing before then, that'll be k% of £N to pay to HM (or deducted from whatever a gratuity is called these days). After defined RoS, there'll be nothing to pay back.
1. Qualify for Part-FCL CPL/IR with King Air TR at METS.
2. Add further TR at OCU.
3. Define an equivalent 'licence value' £N in cost terms and require payback of proportion of the value depending on time served after OCU. So if PVR-ing before then, that'll be k% of £N to pay to HM (or deducted from whatever a gratuity is called these days). After defined RoS, there'll be nothing to pay back.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ All good, but I wonder how they'll play it for the likes of those (such as myself) who are long established on Front Line ME Sqns and coming up to exit points in 2-3 years?
I think we all agree that accreditation should have happened but didn't, however I see no reason why I should have to sign on to an extra RoS past my exit date just because the RAF has (possibly) been mandated to give me an ATPL to do my job.
I think we all agree that accreditation should have happened but didn't, however I see no reason why I should have to sign on to an extra RoS past my exit date just because the RAF has (possibly) been mandated to give me an ATPL to do my job.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
BEagle,
You have flown fast jets, all be it a long time ago. In you opinion, what would be taught at METS that could not also be taught at BFTS to give ALL RAF fixed wing pilots the same qualifications?
You have flown fast jets, all be it a long time ago. In you opinion, what would be taught at METS that could not also be taught at BFTS to give ALL RAF fixed wing pilots the same qualifications?
Dominator2, when I was taught to fly fast jets it was a different era and the only time we flew 'airways' was with a tanker.
ATPL guff is mostly relevant to ME pilots, but there's no intrinsic reason why most of it shouldn't also be delivered to FJ pilots.
Preferred solution? 'Real' BFT for all RAF pilots (not just 'BJFT') to include ATPL theory. Or perhaps a common core ATPL groundschool after EFT, then conventional training in the relevant stream (minus items already covered in ATPL groundschool).
ATPL guff is mostly relevant to ME pilots, but there's no intrinsic reason why most of it shouldn't also be delivered to FJ pilots.
Preferred solution? 'Real' BFT for all RAF pilots (not just 'BJFT') to include ATPL theory. Or perhaps a common core ATPL groundschool after EFT, then conventional training in the relevant stream (minus items already covered in ATPL groundschool).
I can vouch for the desirability of ATPL knowledge for FJ pilots. As European airspace has become busier, OAT has become more of a hassle over the years, to the point where the best and quickest way of planning an unsupported transit is to file GAT (especially where predictability of routing is important for fuel considerations). I've taught myself a bit about the flow management system and delved into the Route Availability Document several times; fortunately in each case I had the luxury of time. For things like a snap "get these aircraft to XXXX - and by the way there's no tanker" such knowledge really should be at our fingertips. Relying on the AARC to supply a route, as I've known many FJ pilots to do even when not using a tanker, strikes me as laziness. They don't always provide the most direct routes, since extreme fuel efficiency is not always the name of the game on a trail, especially over Europe... and of course one day they'll say "sorry, too busy".
Another area where we'd have done well to have 'the knowledge' would have been takeoff performance. The Kandahar accident of 2009 and the introduction of an electronic ODM meant that derivation of Tornado takeoff decision speeds and associated emergency considerations stopped being a matter guarded jealously by STANEVAL QFIs and entered the domain of the regular squadron pilot. IMHO, however, the lack of a common baseline 'language' such as that provided by Perf A offered lots of opportunity for sloppiness. The term 'balanced field' got woefully abused, for example. Some might say that such things are trivia; I consider them a part of professionalism.
Another area where we'd have done well to have 'the knowledge' would have been takeoff performance. The Kandahar accident of 2009 and the introduction of an electronic ODM meant that derivation of Tornado takeoff decision speeds and associated emergency considerations stopped being a matter guarded jealously by STANEVAL QFIs and entered the domain of the regular squadron pilot. IMHO, however, the lack of a common baseline 'language' such as that provided by Perf A offered lots of opportunity for sloppiness. The term 'balanced field' got woefully abused, for example. Some might say that such things are trivia; I consider them a part of professionalism.
Last edited by Easy Street; 31st Jul 2015 at 01:07.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
Easy,
Thanks for such an eloquent reply. You are a person after my own heart who has done the spade work to be able to quickly, safely and maybe even legally take jets across Europe using GAT. With the right knowledge and tools GAT is easy. CFMU was easy to use when shown how. Phone number at Euro Control can solve problems in a second!!
The cutback in experienced Ops Support staff has put more pressure on pilots to get it right. I totally agree with you stance on a proper BFT for all.
Thanks for such an eloquent reply. You are a person after my own heart who has done the spade work to be able to quickly, safely and maybe even legally take jets across Europe using GAT. With the right knowledge and tools GAT is easy. CFMU was easy to use when shown how. Phone number at Euro Control can solve problems in a second!!
The cutback in experienced Ops Support staff has put more pressure on pilots to get it right. I totally agree with you stance on a proper BFT for all.
Deliverance,
Every time I've seen people come a cropper with GAT in Europe it's been because they haven't appreciated the nuances of the flow management system. For example, it is not just a case of filing the first route that the ops clerk can force through the route compatibility checker, which is another favoured tactic of many! Wrong addressing of flight plans is a really common area of failure. That any military pilot can encounter problems on a GAT transit emphatically illustrates why such things should be taught to all military pilots and not left to keen individuals to propagate on their squadrons. The routing system is reliable enough for airlines such as Ryanair to operate on their wafer-thin profit margins; all that is needed to unlock a similar level of reliability for us is the right knowledge.
During an operational deployment in southern Europe, we'd been reliant on tankers to support aircraft roulements as the approved OAT routing to and from the MOB was in excess of max range and Command didn't want us carrying out intermediate refuelling stops. Availability of tankers for the "mini-trail" was so poor that the detachment operated very fine margins on the number of maintenance hours remaining on each of its airframes. It took a good few months for someone to point out that a shorter GAT route was available that needed no tanker support, following which revelation the detached fleet became much easier to manage and tankers could concentrate on operational sorties. Still, some needed persuading that "playing airline pilots" was the most effective way to operate. As Dominator says, GAT done by the book is very easy indeed; it's a shame that the book is not always understood in the FJ world.
Every time I've seen people come a cropper with GAT in Europe it's been because they haven't appreciated the nuances of the flow management system. For example, it is not just a case of filing the first route that the ops clerk can force through the route compatibility checker, which is another favoured tactic of many! Wrong addressing of flight plans is a really common area of failure. That any military pilot can encounter problems on a GAT transit emphatically illustrates why such things should be taught to all military pilots and not left to keen individuals to propagate on their squadrons. The routing system is reliable enough for airlines such as Ryanair to operate on their wafer-thin profit margins; all that is needed to unlock a similar level of reliability for us is the right knowledge.
During an operational deployment in southern Europe, we'd been reliant on tankers to support aircraft roulements as the approved OAT routing to and from the MOB was in excess of max range and Command didn't want us carrying out intermediate refuelling stops. Availability of tankers for the "mini-trail" was so poor that the detachment operated very fine margins on the number of maintenance hours remaining on each of its airframes. It took a good few months for someone to point out that a shorter GAT route was available that needed no tanker support, following which revelation the detached fleet became much easier to manage and tankers could concentrate on operational sorties. Still, some needed persuading that "playing airline pilots" was the most effective way to operate. As Dominator says, GAT done by the book is very easy indeed; it's a shame that the book is not always understood in the FJ world.
