Missapropriation of RAF Equipment

[Pops Away Ginger]

Does anyone else here feel that the recent use of RAF aircraft by pilots (with civvy IR authorisers on board) to gain thier instrument rating ticket for civialian aircraft AFTER they have PVR'd is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of RAF equipment and resources.

In this day and age where resources are at thier most scarce a recent station cmdr (at a northern air base) took an aircraft up for the sole reason of gaining his civy ticket before he swanned off to a nice cushy (civvy) job down south.

Wrong wrong wrong

[3 bladed beast]

John Prescott was a far bigger waste of time and money.

[vecvechookattack]

Noo...John Major was a bigger waste of space...Not literally of course becuase 2 Jags is a big chap...bigger that John Major...But Mjor was a bigger waste of space

[A2QFI]

No, I don't. What about people being given paid time off work to represent the RAF at FISHING?!

[Two's in]

No. It is an entirely legitimate example of the Service taking it's committment to Resettlement Training (or whatever its called these days) seriously and professionally. Having qualified as aircrew, you have served the approriate and stated length of service required before PVR or natural retirement, so your debt is clear, it is the service that is now obligated to make every effort to train and qualify you for a second career, based on you primary employment while serving. This applies to everyone, whatever trade or branch they serve, it just seems more glamorous if it happens in a cockpit rather than warehouse, but the principle is the same.

[vecvechookattack]

What about fillingn the aircraft full of golf clubs and lads/lasses on a beano for a weekends golf...is that still allowed?

[Raymond Ginardon]

No (to the original question!).

[Jackonicko]

Does anyone else here feel that the recent whining and moaning by some malcontent blunt tw@t is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of our valuable time and attention?

Blah blah blah blah blah.

[airborne_artist]

Sounds like a clear cut case of good old fashioned green-eyed envy to me.

Pops away ginger can't get an ATPL, IR etc, so why should anyone else.

A cruel person would say "should've worked harder at school". I am that cruel person :ok:

[cockanelli]

Presumably Ginge, you're a just jealous of these types going to get paid twice as much as you do because ou chose the wrong profession! Perfectly legitimate use. As previously stated, you have paid you debt and it is then the RAF's responsibility to re-train you as they kick you out at 38 if you can stand it that long (ageist).

[vecvechookattack]

It would be normal of me to jump in here and agree with whats'isname but I can't. This is one of the few perks that we have left. Trouble is, now its in the open that aircrew are using military aircraft to take their civilian exams in then it will be on page 4 of the MOS tomorrow...and then Joe Public, rather than supporting his Armed Forces, thinks that we are all a load of cocks and out to pull a fast one.

[An Teallach]

Pops Wahey of Moray

I hereby withdraw my previous advocacy for the rights of ginger Scotsmen (gay or otherwise!) :}

[Brain Potter]

Ginger - your post smacks of jealously and the desire to create a scandal.
For a start, this practice cannot be "theft" if the sortie is correctly authorized. Secondly, what is demonstrated to a CAA examiner is a series of manoeuvres that service pilots have to perform regularly during routine training sorties, the only difference being that a CAA examiner has been invited onboard to watch. Sometimes the examiner will have to sit through hours of other training that is irrelevant to them, before watching the instrument flying portion of the sortie. If a sortie is generated for pilot currency then it comes from a pot of hours intended for exactly this type of training anyway.
You may ask why this type of training is not done in simulator and the answer is that, unlike the airlines, the MoD have not paid for simulators with the fidelity needed to dispense with the requirement for routine pilot training in the aircraft. When we get new aircraft and Level D simulators then it will all be done synthetically.
As to pilots that have PVR'd - if the service wishes to employ them on flying duties up to their exit date then they must continue to meet all the training requirements. It would be churlish (and probably illegal) to single-out those that have PVR'd by prohibiting only them from taking an examiner along on such sorties. Personlly, I would have got the licence before PVRing, but I'm cautious like that.
Now that I have explained how the flying is generated, all that is left of your case is an objection to allowing external examiners to watch servicemen at work. This surely cannot be the crux of your argument; do you also object to NVQ assessors etc?

[BEagle]

Well, all that happens is that some IRE mate from the CAA watches from the jump seat whilst you do a bit of routine MCT. Which you have to do anyway for military currency basic training requirements - the difference being that you organise things so that the MCT meets the CAA IR requirements. In my case it was SID, MALBY-BCN and off at NITON, radar vectored ILS at Lyneham, SEFATO then once round the Brize NDB hold and a 3-e NDB at BZN, 3-e go-around and 3-e vis circuit to land. Everything except the airways leg was without autopilot.

And then a cheque for several hundred quid to the nice CAA chap.

Incidentally, these trips also serve to keep the CAA well informed about how the military operates big aircraft - so are of mutual benefit.

[Pontius Navigator]

Does anyone else here feel that the recent use of RAF aircraft by pilots (with civvy IR authorisers on board)

What's recent?

I did a couple of IRT practice, land Bedford, pick up IRE, do test, lunch, fly second test, RTB to Bedford and home.

Met Sqn Boss, said just done some more resettlement training. No No he bristled they are not PVRing.

He got back to his office to find the papers on his desk. And that was 17 years go.

[Mr C Hinecap]

I would agree with the indignant obvious aircrew chaps up there about the resettlement aspect - if I thought for one moment that the troops got an equal chance to bite that cherry. Your crappy point is poorly made and emphasises the disparity rather than validate the actions.

[timex]

I would agree with the indignant obvious aircrew chaps up there about the resettlement aspect - if I thought for one moment that the troops got an equal chance to bite that cherry. Your crappy point is poorly made and emphasises the disparity rather than validate the actions.


So does that mean that no-one should be allowed to attain any civil quals using Military kit, drivers, tech's etc? Aircrew pay a lot of cash to get a civil license, doubling up a check ride doesn't seem a lot to ask.

[BEagle]

Meaning what, Mr Chinecap?

If you can find a similar parallel for the non-pilot world, then I suggest you push ahead with seeking civilian recognition of your military qualifications - good luck!

The pilot accreditation was sparked by a statement in JAR-FCL, followed by a Statement in the House concerning recognition of military skills.

Something similar was also supposed to be achieved for ATC and FC branch - but it requires effort to staff any proposal.

Which particular 'bite' of the 'cherry' are you advocating for the 'troops'?

[Pontius Navigator]

NEBOSH is one such civilian qualification and several other H&S courses have a final exam that is acceptable to a civilian qualification. You pays your money, you get the qualification, and then you get your money back.:)

PN, IOSH!

[Chilli Monster]

"Pops away" is obviously a blunty who can't afford the resettlement course that will teach him to spell ;)

If there's a perk to a job, then you use it. There's enough crap flying peoples way in service life these days that why shouldn't some benefit come out of it too. As has been pointed out it costs the military nothing as the sortie would already have taken place, and the individual is still paying the examiner for the test.

I wasn't fortunate enough to be in that position and had to bite the bullet and pay (£10K+) to get a meaningful civil qualification. You play the cards you're dealt.

Get a life.

[MightyHunter AGE]

As has been said here already this is not a new thing, this has happened for several years where I have served.

Some points on here are valid but I would point out that NVQ assessors are actually there as part and parcel of the young guys gaining their promotion as this is now a pre-requisite, are you advocating that they do not do this NVQ part so they cant get promoted/trained to become technicians?
Also there are a lot of courses such as QA, H&S that are mandatory requirements in posts to comply with civilian regulations whilst still actually serving in the RAF.

Standing by for the inevitable flack here but these guys aren't using the system for their own benefit i.e. feathering their nests for future employment out with the RAF.

Now if you are not happy with that statement then you obviously only want a perspective that comes from the flying side of the fence.

As always there are the 'you should have stuck in at school' brigade. Why is it you automatically assume that no-one but yourselves are either a. educationally qualified b. capable of being a pilot and c. actually want to fly an aircraft.
Plenty of folk I work with have no desire to fly aircraft but instead have a desire to provide and fix airworthy aircraft and enjoy the challenge of solving malfunctions on new and often complex systems on aircraft.

The above is not a dig in any way and please don't take it as such but there are always two sides to any story and as usual the flying part are the ones who are shouting the loudest........

[Sleeve Wing]

Hello Pontius.
Quote : #15. >What's recent?
I did a couple of IRT practice, land Bedford, pick up IRE, do test, lunch, fly second test, RTB to Bedford and home.
Met Sqn Boss, said just done some more resettlement training. No No he bristled they are not PVRing.
He got back to his office to find the papers on his desk. And that was 17 years ago.< unquote.

Actually a bit longer even than that, P me old ! - 1963 in fact.
FAA mates on 32 Sqn.Comms unit at Northolt used to borrow the Devon, take it up to Stansted etc etc etc. ---SOP. As you say, normal resettlement practice even then.
Rgds, Sleeve.
PS. Just thought of another example, ...... 1972, BZ, '103', (complete with CAA), Park Corner, BHD, St.M. RTB.

[MrBernoulli]

Pops Away Ginger,

Nobber .............:rolleyes:

[flyboy007]

By recent, you may mean me. And no, I don't think it was a waste. MCT hours have to be taken; what difference does it make if I get my ATPL rating out of it??

[PingDit]

It's legal, not particularly uncommon and above all, the very least we can do for one of our own!

[psyan]

This sort of thing is as said 'not uncommon' and is not even a new concept. Back in 85 I completed the best part of my licensing with the assistance of military resources with the full knowledge of the system. It's simply training.

[shack]

Well, I did it in 1963 so what's new?

[Mr C Hinecap]

When I said 'bite of the cherry' I was referring to equal availability to such 'perks' across all areas. I have no idea how much such a 'perk' as mentioned would cost if paid for outside as part of the licensing process. If the value of that was made available to the troops, I'd see it as more equal. I'm sure it is a couple of quid and possibly more than anyone else gets as part of their resettlement after 22 yrs service.

[Green Flash]

Well, that seems to have covered the topic. Any questions Ginge?

[Brain Potter]

The resettlement people would not let me claim the IRT fee from my resettlement grant. The reason they gave - it is an exam not a course.

[Pontius Navigator]

BP, odd, I was paid my IOSH.

[Sven Sixtoo]

I'm planing on doing my IRT in a Sea King. Can I claim an hour's flying time in a TriStar and pay for the hour in the SK?:ok:

[VinRouge]

The Airforce owes those hours to the crews as part of their MCT allowance, referred to directly in JSP550. So tough. Yes they are entitled, and I would say its the least that they could do bearing in mind the other option is we cost the air force even more by using ELC for Civy IRT schedules. Oh, and the other point that crews are getting yoyo'ed between the two theatres with scant regard to harmony guidelines.

You daft Blunty.

[ZH875]

...AFTER they have PVR'd..

But After PVR and BEFORE termination, they are still in the RAF, and as such, still have their duties to perform, and if those duties include training and currency flights, then they are duty bound to perform them.

What would you prefer PA Ginger, people who have PVR'd just stopping work for the 12 months waiting time, drawing full normal pay, and sitting on their jacksies all day.

Get real.

(I can't believe I am defending aircrew)

[Pops Away Ginger]

To answer several questions and moans here goes:

I am a blunty so what?
Who do you think is in the chain of events that get you airborne, every trade has a part to play however small, you wouldn't get very far without food, fuel and imagine, god forbid, you didn't get paid so don't get on to me about being a 'blunty'

I am not 'green eyed' but am asking a valid point

So far I have seen no reasonable argument for this practice apart from 'we are owed it', isn't everyone owed the same financial equivalent then?

Are these civilians insured and authorized to fly in military aircraft and who actually auths it?

Do you really think that if it wasn't aircrew then this would actually be allowed?

As I have a PPL can I use an RAF aircraft to get my civ quals? No didn't think so....(yes I know i'm not an RAF pilot but I suppose technically I am more qualified actually having a PPL)

Me me me is all I have heard so far and some on here need to grow up.

PAG

[An Teallach]

Pops Wahey Ginger

some on here need to grow up.

Hello Kettle, this is pot ... Message, over!

I'm a former blunty. Why do you begrudge the aircrew proper resettlement training in their own trade? While this forum welcomes all people associated with military aviation, I'd suggest that if you want sympathy for your wee greet, you either post elsewhere than the Professional Pilot's Rumour Network, or look for it in the dictionary somewhere between sh1t and syphillis.

BTW, Ginger: Did your Mammy never tell you? Red and Green should never be seen.

[Ken Scott]

PAG

I'm sorry? Are you implying that having a PPL makes you more qualified than a pilot in the RAF? To quote J McEnroe Esq: 'You cannot be serious!'

I had a PPL before I joined the RAF, & I currently have an ATPL - I believe that outranks your 'qualification'. I doubt I'm alone in the RAF either. Incidently, I did my IRT in a service aircraft, as part of my MCT allowance. I looked at doing it through a civvy flying training school, but that would have involved a couple of weeks away from work and approx £6000 under the Linkup scheme which would have been paid for by the MOD - doing it on my MCT alocation therefore represented good value for the MOD, and I even paid the test fee myself.

I really think you should stop worrying about this, it's a perfectly reasonable thing for people to do with their training time - they're going to burn holes in the sky anyway so who cares if a CAA examiner comes along for the ride?

[VinRouge]

So by that move then we should stop GE's doing their ground civvie engineering exams in theatre and get them back down the line, where they can make themselves useful right? I called you blunt not because you are not aircrew, but because your loaded question is one of the dumbest I have heard in a long while, especially whilst many are going far above and beyond to get the job done in the sandpit. Surely we are all entitled to a little flex to further ourselves, especially when it costs the Air Force bugger all!

[The Rocket]

Could this possibly be Toddbabe finding a new subject to moan and bleat about the commisioned cadre? :rolleyes:

[Pontius Navigator]

Who do you think is in the chain of events that get you airborne, every trade has a part to play however small, you wouldn't get very far without food, fuel and imagine, god forbid, you didn't get paid so don't get on to me about being a 'blunty'

So far I have seen no reasonable argument for this practice apart from 'we are owed it', isn't everyone owed the same financial equivalent then?

So you don't do any civilian recognised accounting qualifications or a supply and logisitics degree or an MDA etc etc?

Are these civilians insured and authorized to fly in military aircraft and who actually auths it?

yes and yes and the auth. In the case I am aware of it was the sqn cdr.

Do you really think that if it wasn't aircrew then this would actually be allowed?

Of course not. You need to be qualified to use any kit, even JPA, so just because you are a wiz at PPL does not entitle you to get your hands on Betty's toybox.

[Roland Pulfrew]

PAG
To answer a few of your questions.... and I don't have an ATPL or a PPL but I do have well over 5000 hours. Does that count?

Yes "these civvies" are insured. Any civilian flying on a military aircraft has to be authorised, usually by the Stn Cdr, Group or Command, and is therefore on "duty" and therefore insured.

There is no cost to the tax payer. These sorties need to be flown for currency, currency that still continues after you PVR and before you exit the Service. All that happens is that a crew/pilot currency requirement is flown on a planned sortie that just happens to have a CAA IRE as a passenger. He observes what the pilots do and decides whether they have met the requirement for a civilian IRT.

As a reasonable argument I would simply counter with "why shouldn't it be done?". I know (please excuse the term) blunties who have got civilian qualifications as part of their career development within the RAF. Accountancy exams? ECDL perhaps? MAs? MBAs? Lots of these are paid for by the Military, and lots of people leave just after getting them. Resettlement is available to all and quite rightly so - but it can only be based around your current military qualifications. Remember the fuss not long ago about an SACW (IIRC) deciding she wanted to use her resettlement doing a pole dancing course? The "red top" papers made a huge fuss and the MOD said it was her choice to use her resettlement getting training in her new chosen career. End of story.

Obviously you cannot use an RAF aircraft to get more qualifications - for a number of reasons!! Firstly you are not RAF aircrew. Secondly you are not qualified on any military type. Therefore you cannot use a military aircraft to improve your flying qualifications. And sadly for you having a PPL does not make you more qualified - having 5000+ military hours means that I have quite a few exemptions towards an ATPL and an awful lot more (flying) experience. Likewise you should have more experience than I in your chosen profession.

This is a non-story and you do yourself and your colleagues a huge disservice by trying to make something of it. Hopefully you will see no "Me, me, me" in my reply and no need to "grow up" either. Unfortunately I think that you might need to!!

[The Burning Bush]

an SACW (IIRC) deciding she wanted to use her resettlement doing a pole dancing course

Umm, don't suppose there's any pics are there;)

[TheInquisitor]

Ginger Whinger,

Perhaps we should turn this around - why don't you try and explain why YOU think it should NOT happen?

As has been said before, Civ IRTs are flown on training sorties that already exist. They simply have a (correctly authorised) Civ IRE on board observing the sortie. By correctly authorised, I mean that a formal request for a civilian passenger has been submitted in advance and permission has been granted, in writing, by the appropriate authority. They are not put on specially just for the purpose of gaining a Civ IRT to 'open' your newly-gained ATPL, the sortie would have gone ahead anyway regardless of whether a Civ IRE was on board or not. The cost to MoD is ZERO. The individual pays the examiner his fee (several hundred pounds) out of their own pocket.

Now, please explain to us again how this is:
a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of RAF equipment and resources.

Over to you....

[The Burning Bush]

Pole dancing SACW

Picture too!!
Quote:
She also said she was still serving the Forces, albeit in a different role. 'There are plenty of servicemen in the club. In the past two months I've done dances for a former Sea Lord of the Admiralty, an ex-Group Captain and a Station Commander. They pay much better.'

OK, check all the JPA receipts!!

LOL, I meant a picture of the pole of course......

Not seen you at Bisley recently Mike.

[Kengineer-130]

sad to see that in our small community such bitterness still exists :(, I'm sure if you ask nicely the crew would have no problems taking you flying and probably teach you a lot, I am a ground trade, and I too hold a PPL but recognise 75hrs in a warrior and 150 hardly give me the same level as skill or expertise as RAF pilots with 1000's of hours flying, of all types that civvy pilots could only DREAM of.... When was the last time you saw civvy pilots flying at 200KTS (IAS :}) at 250ft for miles and miles, then throwing a load of meatbombs/ crates/ MSP's out the back, then going for a spot of inflight refueling??????- If you talk to them nicely you will struggle to find a bunch of people more enthusiastic and willing to help you learn, as it is beneficial to everyone....

Get a life, use the vast amount of help and resources around you to better yourself, and stop trying to erode the last few perks we have left as service personell... :ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

I did my last RAF IRT with the RAF IRE (BEagle actually!) sitting in the right hand seat and the CAA IRE sitting in the jump seat. Don't see any misappropriation there.

They both passed me as well!

[exvicar]

Snap. I did my military IRT with a military IRE and civvie IRE on the jump seat. I had to do my IRT so that I could legally fly for another year, the civvie IRE had a good day out, I gained a very appropriate qualifaction and it cost the only cost to the RAF were the hours that I would have had to have flown anyway. I then stayed for another 3 years. Misappropriation? Not at all; there is more misappropriation in the pens that you probably take home.

[The Burning Bush]

Ahh, didn't know you had to enable PMs. Tis done. Must have just missed you as I made the photo this year.

[parabellum]

Not as though it is new is it?

I remember talking to ex RN/FAA pilots who, having announced their intention to leave the service, were posted to a Devon(?) squadron for communication flight duties and once they had got the hang of it they contacted Stansted and arranged an IR test.
They only paid the exam fee.

That was happening back in 1970/71, to my certain knowledge.

[Wader2]

Mind you, do any of you remember the good old days?

Put in your PVR and you were immediately grounded and posted to an Ops job or Flt Sim? Flying hours were scarce, they said, so they did not want to waste them on people who were leaving.

[Chugalug2]

For real misappropriation you have to go all the way back to 1973 when I left the mob. The procedure was well rehearsed, straight down to the labour and sign on as a would be Airline Pilot under the Training Opportunities Scheme (TOPS). Muggins clocks in at the Swindon branch to be told that the scheme, which should have coughed up for the cost of his Civil Instrument Rating Course at Kidlington has been suspended as it has (amazingly) run out of money and I will have to pay for it all myself! Turn up at Kidlington to be told course now costs 15% more due to commencement of VAT, but not to worry as they are applying for exemption as an "Educational Establishment". Never saw the 15% again either. The Lord taketh with one hand and then the other!

[BEagle]

Ginger Whinger, if you hold a PPL, then refer yourself to LASORS D3.3 et seq. This will explain the work achieved by the CAA/MoD joint working group regarding accreditation.





Either that - or $od off. Your call!

[Kevin Nurse]

PAG,
You asked if other trades are denied the facility of demonstrating their skills, to a civvie, using RAF equipment. The answer is no, they are not denied such resources, provided that the civilian examiner poses no security risk, or does not cost the RAF any money. As others have already indicated, the CAA examiner does not pose a threat, he has been cleared on the station and auth'd to fly as pax on a properly scheduled training flight.

There are many cases of civilian examiners awarding grades (or monitoring) Service personnel, of all trades, in their daily jobs. For example, if a chef, about to leave the RAF, wanted to invite a civvie catering instructor/examiner into the JR's restaurant kitchen to prove his skill and get a certifcate then, in principle, he can provided he doesn't get in the way, etc. The fact that it doesn't happen is not the issue.

Hope this helps.

Regards
Kev

[biddedout]

Nothing wrong with a few perks, so long as they are available to all and the rules are applied fairly.

I remember being a little p’d off after flying down the back making the teas on a few of these Mighty Hunter CAA IRT’s, only to be told later that I could not use my resettlement allowance to do my own ATPL tech exams due to the fact that I wasn’t an RAF pilot.

Fortunately, we had an excellent education Officer :)at the time and she too could not understand the logic behind this discriminatory clause, but found a way of working the system. The argument she used at the time was that I already had a CPL and therefore on paper, I was technically more qualified for the “Civilian Career” than the pilots who had been going through the system at the same time who hadn’t yet started their exams. It worked.

It was wrong to have a discriminatory clause in the rules which effectively said that unless your were a service pilot, you could not use your resettlement allowances to train to be a pilot. I doubt that the same rules would have prevented a pilot from using their allowance to take an engineering or administration orientated resettlement course. Maybe things have changed. This was back in the 80’s.

[4mastacker]

Seeing this is my first post I might as well jump in the deep end.

As a humble (ex) stacker I can't see what the problem is. Since leaving the service I have put my publicly funded skills to good use by utilising them to earn the money to help pay my daughter's university fees.

As long as the proper authorisation is obtained and due propriety is maintained, does it really matter what one particular person does to enhance their employment prospects in civilian life?

The system is there to be worked (legitimately) so what is wrong if someone applies the rules in an imaginative and flexible manner.

[A and C]

Things have now changed and ELC as it is now called can be used for most types of career training.

As a civilian I see the use of service aircraft for an IRT as part of the remuneration package for service personal and part of the recompence for service undar conditions that most civilians can't understand.

Resettlement is a duty of the forces and it is moraly right that all service personel get the help and suport to make a living in civilian life after the military career comes to an end. the people who are saying that this flying for an IRT is the misuse of military resorces are totaly wrong it is in fact part of the "contract" for military service and the entitelment just as a pension is after years of service with a civilian company.

[k3k3]

@ biddedout

Was she a Sqn Ldr at St. Mawgan? 81-82 ish? She helped me a lot as well.

[LOMCEVAK]

Military pilots sometimes have to operate into major civilian airports. They do not have to have passed the Air Law exam of the country in which they are flying, and there are some differences between military and civilian flying regulations. Therefore, occasionally carrying a CAA IRE on sorties is a useful standardisation check of the suitability of military regulations and SOPs for safe operation in civilian controlled airspace. This was the basis on which my Group Captain a few years ago accepted liability on behalf of the Crown for a CAA IRE flying on the jump seat during my military IRT.

PAG, why remain silent and be thought of as a fool ...............

[exvicar]

As opposed to not remaining silent and possibly proving........

[TheInquisitor]

I thing the Ginger Whinger has been put well and truly back in his box!
Hear that? Yes, silence......
A little knowledge can often be a dangerous thing, old chap.

[G-KEST]

Many years ago I spent a delightful day at Coningsby with the, then, CO of BBMF. He was shortly to leave the service and needed to renew his civilian FI rating. I was then an CAA appointed FIE and agreed to do it in the Flights Chipmunk. All the ground element and pre-flight briefings were done in the BBMF facility and we had an enjoyable trip in the Chipmunk. I was happy to renew his rating and we repaired to the Mess for an excellent lunch.

As an individual who could not meet the service medical requirements for aircrew due to monaural hearing back in 1954 I have always retained my disappointment at being unable to follow my original chosen profession. Now with over 13,000 hours in my many logbooks that regret is still there but I have thoroughly enjoyed my flying in the civilian world.

Nevertheless it gave me a lot of pleasure to play for an hour or so with an item from "Betty's toybox". Happy memories.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:)

[TyphoonSaloon]

I agree with everyone here that the 'Perks' of the job within the armed forces shouldn't be eroded and whats makes a good profession even better. I totally support the any little help we can get should be encouraged. But I can't agree with the vicious attacks at someone elses opinion.

This attitude is what's killing the RAF and the root cause of the rising PVR rate. Too many arrogant wankkkers treating the Royal Air Force as their own little flying club and having little regard for any others which they see as 'beneath them'. They forget about the lower ranks within the Airforce as they build their little empire. I see it so often .... it demoralises and destroys.

We've seemed to have lost our way somewhere. Everyone speaks about the good old days and I agree. So much has changed. The Airforce has 'Dumbed Down' and has lost all its loyality to its members.

If you think this is aimed at you then your probably one of the 'high and mighty' dickks who think just because you are in a trade which flies for a living you're better than anyone else. You're no better than anyone else. You just think you are.

That said, I appologise to a lot of good friends who are commissioned and also fly who are not at all so far up their own backsides that they have bad breath.

If you don't believe me, then go to any beercall on an RAF Unit and ask any of the groud trades their honest opinion of the Airforce when they've had a few beers. You'll get the message.

One other thing, this is a forum to exchange views, not annihilate other members for having a different take. I'll probably get loads of abuse now about something or another as all you pretentious bullies gang up and pat each other on the back whilst calling me something.

'Smoke on' you pratts ...... It doesn't bother me

[VinRouge]

Would this be the thread starter with a different log-in?

Stroker...

I think you are forgetting that you are on Prune! And lets face it, the original sentiment was never going to get sympathy on a military aircrew forum was it? I think the internet phrase for this sort of thing is troll...

[toddbabe]

The problem is that at the moment flying Nimrods are like hens teeth, so how can you can justify hijacking a sortie or even a small part of it to demonstrate some stuff to an instructor when the rest of the crew are missing out on vital, sorely lacking training?
If their is no impact on the sortie at all then fair enough and as long as everyone else gets a fair crack ( Not ) then I have no problem.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Toddy

If you had read the thread all the way through then you would have realised that there is no cost to the RAF, or any other member of the crew. All pilots in flying appointments do an Instrument Rating once per year. On ME types this will cover the full range of approaches required to meet a military and civilian rating.

So Pilot A (who requires a renewal on his military instrument rating) sits in the relevant seat; Pilot B is the military Instrument Rating Examiner and sits in the other seat and observes Pilot A; Pilot C is the CAA IRE and sits on the jump seat and also observes Pilot A. If everything goes to plan, and it should, Pilot A gets a military instrument rating from Pilot B and (on payment of the relevant amount) gets a civilian instrument rating from Pilot C.

No cost to the RAF. No loss of training to anyone else. No story. No issue!!

And I thought it strange that the only post supporting 2 post PAG was by 1 post Typhoon Saloon :E:E

[Len Ganley]

Samuraipratt

Apart from the poor Loady having to do another MCT on a Saturday morning.

In case you hadn't noticed, not all large RAF aircraft carry a Loady.

As has been previously stated on this thread, these checks are incorporated into normal, programmed training flights and it makes no odds to those down the back whether a CAA checker is on board or not.

[samuraimatt]

I am not disputing that fact that an extra bod onboard would make any differenced to the Loady. At a certain secret airbase in Wilts these trips have been especially generated, sometimes at the weekend in order that the Captain, who pays the CAA examiner, can continue with his or her extended resettlement training and get their civvy IRT done prior to leaving.

[Samuel]

As a former blunty of sorts, [but who spent many happy hours flying in anything, anywhere, because bludging 'rides' was a passion], my own personal doctrine was that the ONLY reason anyone other than aircrew were in the air force , was to allow them to fly aircraft. No matter how essential other people are, ultimately their reason for being is so aircraft can fly.

I only wish I'd kept a log of my flying , but I can recall well over 40 different types. I would have to toss up to decide if the best were the backseats of a Skyhawk at low level, or the front seat of a Stearman, [which I had to pay for!], or that wonderful Hunter trip at Tengah with 20 Sqn.

I don't see a problem.

[dirty_bugger]

just to summarise.....all the aircrew think its OK - and everyone else thinks it's not.

[Strictly Jungly]

Not quite correct.

I am not aircrew and I certainly don't see any problems. As others have stated earlier, whatever "perks" we once had have been slowly eroded away.
Everything has changed in the last 30 years (and no I don't want to sound like Beagle - but I support his sentiments).

There are enough modern pressures which we face, indeed, it is quite depressing that some feel so strongly that they have to post an objection in here. (Along the lines of we hate the aircrew)

With re-settlement looming over the horizon, I would like to think our lords and masters recognise the fact that we have given a large slice of our lives in service and that it is reflected in preparation of donning the civvies. (Even if this isnt the case - who really cares? Grab whatever perks you can)

As for mis-appropiation.................do me a favour! This isnt exactly buying priceless wallpaper from public funds is it?


SJ

[dirty_bugger]

You speak of perks....surely being taught the skills to get a job on the outside is one of them and lets face it being taught to fly is probably the most expensive there is. Should there be a line in the sand?

[airborne_artist]

surely being taught the skills to get a job on the outside is one of them and lets face it being taught to fly is probably the most expensive there is

Which is why there is a return of service commitment - which used to be X years on award of wings, but may have changed. Very few get to leave before they have given Betty some use of the skills she's paid for, and the ones that do are the unfortunates who have been medically downgraded.

What do you suggest - keep them in harness until they drop or are so decrepit that even Ryanair won't hire them?

[OKOC]

www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=225&cat=6
Why is Steph with Nicolas Parsons?

[G-KEST]

Absolutely priceless. Good luck to the lass, she seems a pleasant young woman and her resettlement training might well prove a great investment for her future financial prospects.

I would watch her anytime however my wife might well have other ideas.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:cool::cool::cool::cool:

[4mastacker]

As I said in my post #59, what's the problem is someone applies the rules in an imaginative and flexible manner? This young lady has, literally, and good luck to her! I'm only jealous cos the waafys weren't like that when I were a lad. :{

[Roland Pulfrew]

Quote:
surely being taught the skills to get a job on the outside is one of them and lets face it being taught to fly is probably the most expensive there is

Which is why there is a return of service commitment - which used to be X years on award of wings, but may have changed. Very few get to leave before they have given Betty some use of the skills she's paid for, and the ones that do are the unfortunates who have been medically downgraded.

AA

Absolutely right. For pilot it is currently 6 years from completion of first OCU - the longest Return of Service in the military IIRC. Prior to completion of OCU it is 3 years. Every course in the RAF (military?) has a return of service, once you have done that you are deemed to have repaid the investment.

DB probably the most expensive there is and that is why it attracts the longest ROS.