I know of a QF 747 Captain who bought all his logbooks etc into CAA in London while on a layover. He found to his dismay that all they were worth was a UK PPL unless he did ALL the exams. This was about 10 years ago...has anything changed?
I have jumped through all the hoops, payed for all the courses, done GFT and the IR, and done all the exams. The amount paid for by the RAF when I left was about as usful as a rubber walking stick, but what they did give me, was 4000 hrs experience and some good training. I have now been in the RHS of a 75 for about 7 months, still learning, but enjoying it. Under the new rules, I still wouldn't qualify for any exemptions because I didn't fly big multi-engine types. I am not at all miffed that the ME guys will now be exempt because they already do the job I'm now doing - it makes good sense.
As far as the arguments against the exemption are concerned, having done all the exams, and jumped through the hoops, I can't honestly say I'd be any better equipped to do my job now, with the exception of the IR which is the hardest trip I've done in a while.
Most of what I'm learning is through experiencing it and picking the brains of the capts I fly with.
There's far to much mil bashing that goes on. It doesn't bother me, I just think it's a waste of energy. I don't tell anyone what I used to do because it doesn't really matter. People have to prise it out of me because some capts really hate ex mil and we'll have a far better trip if they just treat me as they find me.
So why don't you other anti ex-mil people try and put your prejudices aside, cos we're all on the same team now.
Things have changed over the last 30 years then......
Having flown 4 engine jets as an RAF Capt world wide ( as have many other readers) and got a "civvy" ATPL in a foreign language, flown then as F/O for 15yrs, then over to the left seat, years of flying then in Europe and Far East, finally, after a lot of running around and "difference exams" got a validation to fly UK ships and lastly got the JAR license - shortly before "French retiring age"....
Could have just waited for 30 years and got it all free (only joking). Good luck to 'em.
At the risk of going off at a tangent, I find it hard not to be happy for the mil guys. I do, however, question the validity of both the old CAA and new JAR examinations. Most (Not All)of what we had to retain in our tiny brains for however long it took to sit the exams, is a pile of pants. Granted, a lot of it is quite interesting, but not worth a can of crap when sitting in the pointy end and trying to decipher a decidedly grey phrase in the ops manual or MEL. I know this sounds like the rantings of someone who might have failed one or two exams, it is not, I passed all first time round, but I still wonder why I needed to know how a VOR works or what a ranging arm is for? Surely if I tried to perform in-flight surgery on a Mach Meter I would lose my job! I say good for you guys in the mil if you can avoid some of the b***ocks built into the licensing system. The exams are totally over the top and irrelevant anyway.
[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: overdoverover ]
I agree with Arm T Floats, If experience is experience and ´RAF heavy jet/TP pilots get credit for this, why the hell do they not give us FAA ATP'd pilots with similar experience the same bloody exemption?? Surely this is a politically motivated move as is the FAA vs JAA debacle. And yes I have both FAA and ICAO ATPs and was given no slack when it came to doing ground exams. Like the other guy said, some of the stuff we were asked was pants and to this day only wins me bar bets..
Interesting comments. I have no wish to run down the skills of the ex RAF/RN pilots, of course they have been through rigourous selection/training etc.etc. My main bone of contention is that if they are to receive exemptions as a result of their previous form, then why are other ICAO ATPL holders with similar hours etc. not treated the same?? This policy stinks of protectionism and even group nepotism. The exemptions are not the problem here, (we all know that a large percentage of the knowledge for the CAA and now JAA exams is completely irrelevent in day to day piloting) its the fact that these exemptions are being given to a favoured group of individuals and not everyone that deserves them. As I stated in the opening post of this thread, WHY, as a flight engineer with 1150 hrs flight time and 7 years big jet maintenance experience before that, do I have to take any technical subject exams for an ATPL? WHY do I not get an exemption? Perhaps some of the military guys could answer that one!
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Because JAR/FCL 4 was about a year behind JAR/FCL 1 and no-one was able to come up with any military accreditation criteria within the same time frame as that secured for pilots - because there wasn't any document to refer to.
I understand that there WILL be FE accreditation for military service sometime in the next 12 months.....towards a FE licence.
I have to say that I do sympathise with Basil's plight. As an ex mil chap who had to do all the exams like everyone else, I can see the futility of putting selected personnel, whether they be military or not, through those same hoops.
BEagle has been instrumental in putting the military view over not only to the CAA but our Lords and Masters. This has been a looooong time in coming, and I suspect, a lot of paperwork and meetings to boot. Not being familiar with the process of achieving exemptions, I can offer no advice in how to go about ensuring they apply in differing circumstances.
Please try not to have a dig at people who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in this position. They are people like me, who served their country and felt like a change of scenery ...... no crime in that, is there?
Good on you guys who can do it. However I dont believe Mil Types have done it harder than us I think we are even , in that regard. Someone said back earlier in this forum, that the military have a higher failure rate indicating that training is superior. Well us civies have it too . Its called the school of hard knocks, the attrition rate is similiar.But We didnt have free medical and dental! I have been through military training. I was a RAAF Techo( Electronics Ground). My course started with 23 guys and finished 2 years later with 14 , 7 of which were the original.
I am now command on a King Air, which puts me still in the middle of the school of Knocks!
If you are a good stick and have a good attitude you will go along way. I have a US and Aussie licence and British Passport, If I decide to go to the old country then I will happily do the licence exams. If an airline sponsors me!
BEagle, I'm talking about accreditation of a civilian flight engineer licence and experience towards a new JAA ATPL. It seems that the military have pushed and pushed for some sort of recognition and have got it. I guess the fact that a lot of "squadron old boys" in the relevent department of the CAA helped!! I'm not having a dig at mil guys, in my experience there are some highly skilled guys and some less so, there are some great blokes and some arrogant f***ers, just like in all walks of life! There is quite simply an inequality in the licensing system, and the CAA/JAA should be ashamed of themselves!
I can understand the point of view of the gentlemen who are ex-military; I have dragged myself up to the ATPL standard whilst also working at another job, have met many ex-military types, and more than a few have the attitude 'Why do we have to do this - we've been flying fast jets and helicopters?' I'm afraid the answer has always been 'because you do.'
On the other hand I have been a flying instructor for over 20 years, including a number on the MoD Flying Scholarship scheme, which entails being checked by the RAF CFS twice a year.
Yet when I inquired about serving on the local Air Experience Flight (same/similar aircraft types as I am used to, in the same airspace, at the same airfield) I was told 'ex-military only.' Seems the military want it all their own way. Must be similar to being in the masonic brotherhood.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
In the past, one of the ways of keeping aircrew on 'ground tours' (something you airline folk probably don't have to suffer!) in at least some sort of flying currency was to allow them to fly at a nearby AEF. But sometimes even they couldn't get a look in due to the plethora of VR 'Fg Offs' (who were probably retired Air Marshals) taking up all the available slots.
Maybe being made redundant (not something the military usually experience) by an airline puts us into a 'ground tour'. And then of course we aren't guaranteed a job to start flying again at the end of it!
In my experience, the skill levels and professionalism of ex military in the civil world is without question. However, the 'attidude' is probably the biggest stumbling block to full integration. Though I do realise that this is subconciously drumed into these chaps all through their service career. Its just a bit galling when it comes from a young upstart who has not had to pay for anything yet, he just expects it. Whilst many in civie street are still paying off massive loans ten years on.
Sorry to burst your bubble ColorJet, but you don't get something for nothing. You'll generally find that guys who have served up till age 38 get a grant to finance their studies (it's a retention measure.....although you could hardly call a 38 year old a "young upstart"). Anyone leaving before that will still have those loans to pay off (albeit maybe not to the same extent, but still pretty large) as everyone else....just ask my Bank Manager!! As Basil said before, there are pillocks in all walks of life, but I don't think arrogance or bad attitude are confined to military types either.
We're in danger here of wandering off topic and getting into the same old mil .v. civil mud slanging. Basil has made a valid point regarding exemptions, not whether we paid as much as everyone else!