Changes to ATPL Military Exemptions?

[74247]

I have heard all the rumors, anyone have the detail on the upcoming changes to ATPL Military Exemptions and when they are coming into effect?
Cheers

[Alex Whittingham]

There's no detail and, more worryingly, there is conflicting information coming from the CAA and from the EASA flight crew licensing committee. The CAA take the view that EASA rules allow for military exemptions and they expect no immediate change when EASA take over in April 09. One of the two UK reps on the EASA FCL committee is adamant that military exemptions will disappear in April 09. I'm expecting some clarification in April following an EASA FCL meeting in Cologne.

[Backwards PLT]

Alex

Could you post any further info on this mil forum, please, as and when you get it. A lot of mil guys post or lurk here, but not so many read the other forums.

Thanks

ps Bristol rock - I suggest anyone who hasn't should start with them now, just in case.

[Safety_Helmut]

You could even look here:
http://http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=315783&highlight=civil (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=315783&highlight=civil)

S_H

[mitsubishi]

Hi guys

Worrying times it seems for those of us on the brink of being able to begin the military bridging process.

I know it's early days, and no-one is quite sure how us military pilots will be affected, but can anyone shed any light on how far you have to be through your military bridging package in order to complete it under the new EASA rules?

If the wrong information is spread, there could be mass panic and a surge of military bridging applications to Bristol GS and the like!

Would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks

[BEagle]

1. EASA has not yet taken over competency for licensing.

2. The CAA view is: "The requirements for credit for military service are in the draft covering regulation on pilot licensing, not Part FCL which is Annex 1 to that document. It requires the national authority to decide what credit will be given, and furnish a report to EASA. We do not anticipate any change to our current arrangements."

3. Unfortunately all the confusion stems from statements made by a UK 'industry' rep on the FCL001 group which are at variance to the views held by the CAA reps on the same group.....:rolleyes: So if they are confused, what hope is there for the rest of us?

[mitsubishi]

Beags

Thanks very much for your input. I guess I (we) need to wait out to see how things pan out over the next 12 months. Bit worrying though - if people think the bridging will disappear, there will be a big rush to get it done, and possibly cause a false sense of everyone jumping the sinking ship....

[Chicken Leg]

If the wrong information is spread, there could be mass panic and a surge of military bridging applications to Bristol GS and the like!


I'm sure Alex will cope! :ok:

Bit worrying though - if people think the bridging will disappear, there will be a big rush to get it done, and possibly cause a false sense of everyone jumping the sinking ship....

But there is no retention problem........and recruiting is up too! :yuk:

[Alex Whittingham]

I'm pleased to say there have been some positive developments. Following the meeting in Cologne the EASA rep who originally said military bridging would be likely to stop now agrees that it should be able to continue substantially unchanged when EASA take over - providing the UK CAA make a case for the exemption with EASA before April 09. The CAA policy department are also talking to the three services to try and get agreement to lower some of the hours limits. I'll let you know if I hear anything more.

[Backwards PLT]

Thanks for the update - Exeter in the New Year still planned, though!

[BEagle]

Alex, yes, I think he realised that his understanding was at variance with that of his CAA colleagues...... And not just over this.

One aspect which the CAA should change immediately is the definition of 'QSP'. I manged to get it changed at PPL level; however, the current definition at CPL/ATPL level is unreasonable as it requires the pilot to have achieved Combat Ready (or equivalent) status. Which is a very high level of achievement.

I consider that, for CPL/ATPL QSP accreditation, the definition should be that the pilot has been awarded 'Wings' and has successfully completed Advanced Flying Training.

The 2000TT/1500PIC (of which 500 may be PICU/S) for LASORS D3.3 'Experienced QSP' accreditation does seem rather high for non-ME pilots. Perhaps it should be reviewed to make it simply 1000 PIC on military aircraft?

[abbotyobs]

I agree the 2000 hours qualifying total for FJ pilots, is too high, I know a few 16/38 yr old pilots who may not make it and are on the cusp of not getting mil exemptions. This may be even more difficult to achieve in the future with further emphasis placed on synthetic training and perhaps less airborne time. What about the FJ chaps that will do a tour on UAV, it is happening in the US with first tour FJ pilots getting UAV straight after pilot training, F16 pilots flying UAV for their second tour etc.
Some euro nations use 1500 hrs for qualifying for the mil exemptions, this is more reasonable and is in line with the hours required for ATPL.
Therefore 1500 hrs should be used in the future I think.

[A and C]

A large number of "if's & but's" from EASA so If you are in any doubt about the credit that you are going to get for your military flying I would make a move towards the civil licences sooner rather than later.

Cheap advice and flying time can be had at any of the RAF flying clubs as well as a few useful contacts from the world of civil aviation.

The sting can be taken out of the cost of civil flying by the low rates charged by RAF clubs and using the aircraft for leasure.......... the other half is a lot less question the expense if you take her for lunch in Le Touquet or a weekend in Jersey.

[Heywood Djablowme]

I consider that, for CPL/ATPL QSP accreditation, the definition should be that the pilot has been awarded 'Wings' and has successfully completed Advanced Flying Training.

BEagle, is it not the case that one's wings are only "ironed on forever" upon reaching CR status? It would seem that the CAA definition of QSP comes from the service's own rules regarding the retention of the flying badge.

[Sloppy Link]

QSP also requires you have had a Standards entry and an IRT in the last 12 months, ie: leave the Services in current military flying practice. If you cannot meet this criteria, you are not awarded QSP status. Another gem I picked up on, your licence can be issued on a military type but if you wish to renew, it has to be a small list of acceptable aircraft that are on the civil register. In short, needs to be on a training aircraft. Hurrumph.

[Eight Eights Blue]

I read with interest about the amount of hours required for licencing and was wondering whether that is being applied to types as well. 350 hrs on ME seems a bit harsh compared with a civvy type rating which is only about 8 hours max and in most cases lower. surely if your current on type and have a CFS Agent tick in the box then that should suffice to get that type on your CPL. Any suggestion are welcome.

[BEagle]

Don't forget that the TT experience requirement obviates the theoretical knowledge examination requirements to a large degree.

The accreditation is also intended to be a recruiting and retention incentive.

[GipsyMagpie]

Funny to think FJ mates could finish a career without reaching the required hours. No chance of that on SH! Should end up about half way to 16 year point with more than enough hours! And of course sim hours count too (to the limit of 500 hrs of course).

[artyhug]

Abbotyobs, are you genuinely serious? 16/38 point with less than 2000 hrs TT?? Having got there in less than 12 on one of the FJ fleets with the poorest levels of serviceability then I'd respectfully suggest that perhaps certain members of our fraternity should get there heads out of the PMC's backside...

After all, if after all that snouting at the cost of doing their primary role they haven't got on the career ladder they so earnestly desire then why should the rest of us who, happily I may add, snaffle the hours they refuse to fly due to secondary duty commitments be penalised by having to work with the cnuts in civvy street for the next 20 years too.....

:=

[Farm-for-sale]

Artyhug,

Interesting approach of yours that... I did 7 yrs front-line FJ and never passed up a jot of flying but here I am, through fail means and foul, approaching 16/38 with JUST the 2000 needed. Some guys get pushed to staff jobs and UAVs and then heaven forfend what else, WITHOUT a sniff of said PMC. Maybe you didn't end up doing some AWC job for 4 years watching the clock tick down, but don't kick the poor b@gger in the crotch just because you jammed another flying tour out of it. Just my tuppence.

Cheers

Farm (and Panda cubs) for sale

[Backwards PLT]

As the thread is drifting anyway - surely at least some UAV time should count. It certainly does for the Americans. As it is somewhere half way between a sim and real flying, surely you should be at least able to count it like sim time (500 hrs etc). But I believe that there is currently no CAA policy on this. Anyone know anything else?

[BEagle]

Backwards PLT, a fair point, well made.

I would certainly recommend to the CAA that military UAV time should be fully credited.....















....towards a civil UAV licence. But for flying real aircraft? YGBSM!!

I've read some bolleaux in my time, but to suggest seriously that your aeromodel time should count for anything is perhaps the most absurd notion I've ever heard.

[Greenleader]

It's a pretty sad state of affairs if someone can spend 16 years as a pilot in the RAF and not get 2000 hours. Worst case, 6 years to front line (with some long holds), 400 odd hours (More if you sandbag a lot - it all counts ;)). 1 ground tour, leaves 7 years to get 1600 hours. Need to do about 230 hours a year then. As I say, sad if that's unachievable. If your plan is to leave at 16/38, spend more time in the cockpit, ignore promotion and hence sidestep the ground tour, and then you have 10 years to get the 1600, which is now only an easy 160 a year! ;) Chances are you'll exceed the 2000 minimum by a country mile!!! Of course, you may be lucky enough to be promoted and be able to stay flying. :)

[richatom]

Just chipping in here for what its worth from across "la Manche", but I did my ATPLf with a couple of French ex-mil pilots. One was ex-multi and had virtually no solo experience beyond a bit of circuit bashing, having done all his flying P2 on transport aircraft. He was excused all the JAR mandatory 100hours P1/300nm solo cross-country pre-CPL qualification requirements. The other had completed FJ streaming up to about 400 hours in total, with some Alphajet experience, and was also excused all the pre CPL requirements. The UK CAA transitional requirements as described in the LASORS are certainly a great deal more rigorous than in France. That may be why JAR are trying to tighten up the requirements to a standard.

[Backwards PLT]

BEagle. Interesting viewpoint. I assume you are making up the "civil UAV licence" stuff.

Interested why you think flying a UAV is less real than flying most sims out there? Maybe I should qualify that - I am not talking about the mini UAVs that, I agree, are no more than model aircraft but about Predator/Reaper class UAVs. A 66ft wingspan is a reasonably sized aircraft by most standard (ok its not a VC10). The USAF/FAA is way ahead of the RAF/CAA in this area.

your aeromodel time - don't jump to too many assumptions, now. I have plenty of real hours, thanks and no UAV hours!

[Dan Winterland]

And USAF pilots can count their simulator hours towards their totals as well. I would say thay was more releavnt.

Getting hours in the military to get that all important total high enough to get a good job has aways been an aim with military pilots planning to leave for a civilian career. It's ironic that when you leave and get that first job, you soon discover your main aim in life is to do as few as possible! I spent 17 years in the RAF and amassed 4200 hours. Six years after leaving, I have more than doubled that figure.

One major difference between logging civilian time and military time is taxi time. Recording blocks time really does bump up the totals. Of course, some credit can be given by the formula described in LASORS, but this still leaves you short and the credit can't actually be recorded as time in the seat. Fifteen minutes is all you can assume for a multi engine aircraft per sector wheras the real figure can be far greater. My record is 2 hours 10 minutes time spent on the ground one trip. This of course goes in my logbook. One way round this is to keep a separate civilian logbook with blocks times recorded. I didn't do this myself, but I know other who have.



And on another point regarding credits. Credits are useful for easing the path to civilain life, but non JAA aviation authorities often don't recognise them. For example, the Hong Kong CAD want to see your exam pass marks to issue an accreditation for a HK licence. If they see 'credit', they will want you to take the equivalent HK exam. Having credits will limit your horizons if you aspire to work overseas. And although the work is a pain, the study is quite useful for interviews. One interview I sat involved ATPL tech type questions. I wouldn't have the job I have now if I hadn't done the ATPL subjects.

[BEagle]

Dan, I've been advising people for years to keep a separate civil log book - with hours logged chock-chock in accordance with civil requirements. But few seem to bother....

Regarding the HK authorities, the last I heard from the UK CAA was that the issue regarding exam credits had now been resolved and was no longer a problem.

As for UAV hours, if navigators and air engineers are not permitted any credit for real flying time, why on earth should drone operators think that they somehow qualify?

[Backwards PLT]

Because, BEagle, they are not flying the aircraft. Large UAV pilots do, just as "realistically" as any sim and they probably do far more "flying" than the average airline pilot.

Were you hit by a UAV as a child? You seem to have a bit of a dislike there. And to reiterate - I am not arguing for my own case, I am thinking of others unfortunate enough to be sent to the UAV world.

[BEagle]

Were you hit by a UAV as a child? You seem to have a bit of a dislike there

Not at all! I was flying a UAV at the age of 15. A Veron Robot powered by a PAW 19BR diesel with 4-channel Grundig Variophon/Varioton radio.... Later upgraded with an OS Max II 15 R/C glowplug and 6-ch radio.

But never was I arrogant enough to consider that it had any relevance towards flying real aeroplanes.

[Backwards PLT]

OK, let me try another way.

Why should someone sitting on the ground in a box, flying a computer simulation of a pretend aircraft be allowed to log those hours, but someone sitting on the ground in a box flying a real aircraft not be able to? And I reiterate - I am not suggesting that they count the same as proper flying hours but should partially count in much (exactly?) the same way as sim hours do atm.

Normally you post reasonably sensible stuff, BEagle (for an ex-truckie and QFI;)) but to suggest flying a full sized UAV has no relevance towards flying real aeroplanes just because the pilot is sat on the ground is incredible, and I might even say supremely arrogant. You'll be suggesting that non-pilots should fly them next!

Apologies to the thread, btw, for turning it into a 2-way discussion.

[BEagle]

someone sitting on the ground in a box flying a real aircraft


That is a physical impossibility.

A dynamic flight simulator is fully representative of the real aeroplane - except that you don't die if you crash. But we QFIs used to make life quite hard for our fellow pilots - as our colleagues did to us - and a sim session was an extremely useful exercise.

Whereas sitting on your ar$e in an ISO stuffing your face whilst watching TV pictures from some drone? Do me a favour.

OK - 5 minutes per UAV session for the take-off and landing (assuming you don't crash it), maybe. But that's all....

[Backwards PLT]

Ah, sorry, I get it now.

Whereas sitting on your ar$e in an ISO stuffing your face whilst watching TV pictures from some drone? Do me a favour.

You have no knowledge, experience or understanding of UAV ops.

Welcome to the 21st century, Beags. I just hope the CAA don't adopt the same head in sand approach. Or maybe they should - less competition when I try to get an airline job. Jack's alright!

So as we wont agree on this lets at least agree to disagree.

I would be curious to know how you (and anyone else can chip in!) would regulate UAV ops in the UK? Do you define size classes to differentiate between the 2m span scale model flyer and the 20m span MALE UAV? I think you have to, personally. And licensing - presumably some would be good (!) so would you create a new UAV license totally separate to manned aircraft? Would the exam requirements be broadly the same? Any read over? Would a 747 pilot be allowed to get a UAV license? Would he get any credit for his "sitting on his arse, stuffing his face whilst talking to the hostie" hours?;) and vice versa, of course. How do UAVs fly in any class of airspace (they will need to soon so best make some rules up quick)?

I believe the CAA have been presented these sort of problems and as far as I know the answer at the moment is "too difficult" so lets solve them here on PPRuNe - it will save a lot of committee hours.

[MrBernoulli]

Backwards,

I am curious, and apologies if I have missed it, but why are you defending the UAV stuff so hard? Dynamic simulators simulate the flying that will be conducted under the rules that govern an ATPL. UAV in civilian airspace? So what?

And for the chaps who are worried about any EASA problems with mil dispensations - either get your license NOW or crack on and do ALL those exams, like lots of folk did years ago. No excuses ........ ;)

[Backwards PLT]

I am curious, and apologies if I have missed it, but why are you defending the UAV stuff so hard?

A good question, Mr B, it isn't as though I will benefit from any allowances or exemptions. It isn't for my benefit, but I feel those that fly the UAVs could end up losing out. The USAF/FAA have looked at the issues and come up with some answers to the questions in my previous post. Not all of them, though. The problem is that I think the issue is pretty much being ignored in the UK because first it is too difficult and second there are a lot of old traditionalists around that say things like "bah, humbug model aircraft, they aren't real aeroplanes. Back in my day, when I was on 707s......etc"

It could also be that I like a bit of heated discussion on PPRuNe occasionally for a bit of light entertainment.

So how are we (UK) going to regulate it? Because it is happening now.

[WHODOUDO]

Many of them think that sending your log book to th mere civvies is SACRILIGE and DISLOYAL. Too many zealots out there!!! Beware.:ugh:

[Dan Winterland]

"You have no knowledge, experience or understanding of UAV ops."

And neither do the JAA. But good luck in persuading them to your point of view. But if they do, I suspect that there will be a caveat that the hours should not be included in any total of recorded flying hours, much like simulator hours and the taxying credit. However, I can't see any problem in putting them on a CV. Some prospective employers may be impressed and may take them into account. You can argue that they are valid - probably more valid than sitting in the cruise.

I used to fly 4 pilot Ultra Long Haul. As I was qualified as a cruise commander, that's about all I did for about a block of three months. I logged about 200 hours in command of a 747 when all I did was sit, eat, read the paper and change the heading bug while getting the weather for places like Irkutsk and Novosibirsk where the weather was too bad to divert to anyway. And having only landed once in that period (for currency) I felt guilty about logging those hours. You could easily argue that controlling UAVs was more valid to flying experience.

However, in Hong Kong, pilots employed as Second Officers on ULH flights log their hours as 'P2X'. There is a separate column in the HK logbook annotated for P2X hours. They are not recognised as flying hours by a lot of other authorities.



"It isn't for my benefit, but I feel those that fly the UAVs could end up losing out." Just like other pilots on a ground tour then!


And BEagle: "A Veron Robot powered by a PAW 19BR diesel with 4-channel Grundig Variophon/Varioton radio...." But I thought you hated diesels!!!!

[BEagle]

Ah, but Dan this type of diesel fuel was mainly ether and castor oil, with a little amyl nitrate. Oh - and some kerosene....

Yes, I always considered that, when it came to cars, diesel was not an officer's fuel. OK for tractors and farm machinery, but not for cars.

Until, that is, the advent of things like the latest Audi Tdi. The joys of living in the Stalinist state of Brave New Britain means that my 23 mpg is a bit expensive these days. But the Audi A5 3.0Tdi quattro achieves over 35 mpg and is a very nice car...

....and personally I would say that it is 'powered by jet fuel' rather than use the d-word!

Back to the hours thing, the US also records PIC in a different manner compared with the UK. As I understand it, a pilot flying with an instructor for currency logs time as PIC, whereas under JAR-FCL that would not be accepted.

Your snooze pilot hours do sound rather spurious - perhaps as irrelevant as the time I maintained night currency by hopping into the seat for 30 min and twiddling the heading bug twice on the way back from Goose....

[A and C]

At a first glance I was with BEagle on the UAV thing but the more I think about the type of flying that I am about to do (longhaul A330) the more I seem to have in common with a UAV driver!

In my opinion some accomodation for pilots who do a UAV tour should be made however I would not count on it any time soon.

But on the practical side I think that it would be good to look ahead and get those civilian licences ASAP as once you hold them they offer another option should life in the military change for the worse.

I would offer the same advice to the guys in the hangar when it comes to maintenance engineers licences.

[wobble2plank]

The Air 'school' bus feels pretty similar to a UAV at times!

Bloody computer has to validate everything I ask it to do before it does it anyway!

Give me something with real control rods, FBW is for computer geeks :{

:}

W2P

[A and C]

We will see six months down the line I may be screeming "bring back the Boeing!"

[Valerijs]

Under EASA, current UK miltary accreditation is virtually certain to end.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: I am a pilot in command for Latvian Air Force .I hold ATPL ICAO Licence but now converting it in JAR ATPL only I need to get 4 level English.I am going to England in Plymouth(MayFlower college) for tuition there for it from on 26 May 2008. But for myself money.Because of our Commander considers and he underlines each time it ,that all our country do not need pilots with licenses.I am former civil pilot !But I am tired to argue away his weak argument against "'that for us do not need licenses that to fly along internation flight""(I am a transpot pilot and deal with airlifting along civil airways}His argument is only one"' We have diplomatic permission "But could you show me any reference that of some of dates All military pilots will have to hold licenses to fly over Europe countries ?Our country entered NATO ,EU and JAA.:ugh::ugh::ugh::= If have no similar about it may be EASA intentions on this way?:D:D

[Valerijs]

Or is there only a burble?:confused::=:=

[Backwards PLT]

Valerijs

The English course will be money well spent!

Just to clarify what this thread is about. You do not need civil licences of any kind to fly military aircraft anywhere in the world, although some nations have a civil style licence structure. This thread is about getting an ATPL when you leave the military, to fly with the civil airlines.

Hope that helps.

[sonicstomp]

If it aint Boeing I aint going!

Just sorting ATPL out now - is EASA looking like a stopper then? (desperate attempt to bring it back on topic)....

[Valerijs]

Just to clarify what this thread is about. You do not need civil licences of any kind to fly military aircraft anywhere in the world, although some nations have a civil style licence structure. This thread is about getting an ATPL when you leave the military, to fly with the civil airlines.

-----------------------------------------------
My God!:ugh:it will be continued! But I have to keep my licence in valid I am already almost 45!AND our squadron commander do everything that I wouldn't able to prolong my Type rating!

many thanks ,Backwards PLT, for correction! It was my last dawn of hope!:ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

From the CAA:

"The requirements for credit for military service are in the draft covering regulation on pilot licensing, not Part FCL which is Annex 1 to that document. It requires the national authority to decide what credit will be given, and furnish a report to EASA. We do not anticipate any change to our current arrangements."

[Valerijs]

Gentlemen!How do I could defend myself?In that my desire to keep my licence?:{:E

[Valerijs]

IT IS MEAN,I have no chance ???:ugh::ugh:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
although some nations have a civil style licence structure???????
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we do not have any at all,besides civil CAA but to have contact with them without support from Commander very difficult, they sometimes may say that I declare military mystery!:=