JAA exam exemptions for military pilots- is it fair??

[basil fawlty]

I was really surprised to find out recently that ex UK military pilots are now to be exempted from ALL of the JAA ground examinations when gaining civilian licenses!! I am a flight engineer, and despite my civilian qualifications and practical experience of working on a civil airliner flightdeck, I understand that I would receive no exemptions at all from the JAA ATPL exams. Call me cynical if you like, but this new exemption seems to have been arranged now that the exams are more difficult and a lot more expensive to do!!
I don't really know what the military training consists of, but I do know that there are some major differences between that and civilian flying.
Is this an example of the UK aviation "establishment" securing benefits for its favoured groups?
I may well have opened a "can of worms" here, and have no wish to see this become a slanging match (as everyone is ultimately prejudiced by their background and experiences), but my question is simple. WHY have they got this exemption, and yet there are no exemptions for other groups of qualified and relevently experienced individuals??

[Mindthegap]

NOOOOOOOO :mad:

[Ramrise]

I can't believe it. Surely this is a mistake.

[TR4A]

Over here in the states we have a Military Competency test. It deals with regulations that are not part of military flying. After taking this written test the FAA issues a Commercial Pilot License with Multi-engine and Instrument Ratings. During military training we undergo detailed ground school and all aspects of flying.

[LimaNovember]

You cannot be serious. Or can you.

[Cisco Kid]

Hopefully this is not true,there is no comparison between military examinations & the civilian ATPL,not that it makes much difference,military screening does ensure a reasonable I.Q level,especially important in the USA ,but few if any exemptions please from the WRITTEN tests.

[BEagle]

There are indeed new accreditations for certain military pilots exempting them from the need to sit certain JAR written exams. But to qualify, such pilots must first have achieved at least 2000 hours in military fixed-wing aircraft, of which at least 1500 must be as P1C (500 of which may be P1C U/S). The maximum accreditation is available for such pilots who have also completed an appropriate ME OCU, including theoretical training; they will need to fly an IR, obtain a JAR Class 1 medical and pass JAR Air Law. Other non-ME pilots will have to sit 5 ground exams and complete a theoretical knowledge bridging course and exam as well as the IR and Class 1 medical and certain other requirements.

So if you're good enough to pass military selection, then pass military training, then achieve 2000 hours of which 1500 must be P1C time then yes, I suppose you could call that an 'easy' route to an ATPL. All these accreditations have been agreed by the CAA and the idea is to retain pilots long enough to qualify for these rights having served the nation first; most will be in their mid-30s before they qualify. It is considered that ample practical experience will have been assimilated in this time and only the specific differences in Air Law and Operational Procedures need to be formally examined.

You can find a resume at http://www.tgda.gov.uk/pdfs/FWACCR.pdf but the website hasn't been updated since April so it may be somewhat out of date.

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Horatio]

Load of bollocks if its true...God help us!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Surely a sensible thoroughly British pragmatic approach to a complex issue. I challenge anyone to outfly a Brit Mil mutli pilot with 1500 P1 hours For Heavens Sake.

I commend BEagle for his instrumental involvement with this development.

WWW

[BEagle]

Thanks mate! But although I might have written the original paper and got it past the $hit filters to a previous C-in-C Strike, total aviation person and all-round good egg who now runs the Jaguar F1 team strategic development (I understand) - but who still flies things like Hurricanes with a happy grin when he gets the chance - as well as the Scottish ex-AMP, the chaps who did the real spadework and negotiation with the CAA deserve the real credit!

[fireflybob]

There has been a thread running on this issue a little while ago on a different forum, I think, but as the search facility is currently down I cannot find it.

I suppose it depends which side of the fence you are sitting on as to how you feel about this one. I have to put my hand up and say that I am from the civilian world!

However, I feel quite uncomfortable about these changes. This is not to cast aspersions on our military colleagues who, in most cases, are highly skilled.

Is it true that most of the people in the CAA Licensing Department who have had much to do with the JAR/OPS changes are ex military Flight Navigators?!

Also, at a time when there seems to be a shortage of experienced pilots for the airline world this is a political move to address this situation.

Finally, there are really no short cuts to ensuring that the people who fly the big shiny jets are fully trained and qualified for the job. If the system means that people are getting licences without the full background of knowledge which is required then this will show in the overall standard and will be yet another ingredient in the subsequent "error chain".

[BEagle]

Out of interest, when did you last have a mandatory oral check of knowledge? Every RAF ME pilot has to have them - usually every 12 months but for those with higher assessments every 18 months and for some of us (very few) every 24 - no matter how many hours or years you have! We test 'relevant' knowledge, not 'what colour the LRG light is' or 'what is the correct series of lights for a tethered balloon to display on the ground at night'!!!

Ruby. 2 flashing reds and 1 flashing green in a 25m equilateral triangle with the green downwind, by the way!!

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[ducksoup]

Eminently sensible if you ask me but, just because you get an ATPL largely on the back of your experience, please remember that we do things differently. Not better, differently and our operational procedures have been refined for years to bring us to the state of expertise we are at. For the first few months or whatever is a suitable time,please remember to wait until you are asked and you will get on a lot better.
For the record, my experience is totally civilian and I have trained for 25 years on various types from heavy turboprops to multi jets and I welcome the experience and training you bring to the industry.

[Doctor Cruces]

Don't see the problem unless "Us and them" is creeping in. As so rightly said before, military ME pilots are well trained and very capable. The idea that military/civil big jet flying is vastly different could be seen as ludicrous. Unless of course you mean the military man/woman is likely to have more skills (AAR, formation flying etc) than just flying straight and level and landing on nice long bits of tarmac/concrete.

Apart from different SOPs, can anyone tell me what is the difference between,say, a 1500 hour RAF VC10 or 1011 pilot converting to a shiny 777 or 767 or a 1500 hour 737 or 146 pilot converting to the same aircraft? Both will have held multi type-ratings and Instrument ratings and both are experienced and presumably proficient pilots. Both have flown the same airways routes to the same high standard. If they can both pass the paperwork (whether by exemption or otherwise) the end result will be a safe and efficient airframe driver.

The only reason I can think of folk wanting to slag the ex military guy off is the "Nobody ever gave me owt for nowt" school being rankled at what they perceive as an unfair boost to the post military career of some young scallywag who has enjoyed himself throwing expensive hardware around at the taxpayers expense. (And got trained FREE to boot!!) The fact of the matter probably is that the military pilot has had to pass just as many exams as the civil pilot in his/her career and at last the CAA has dragged its self into the (at least) 20th century and actually admitted that some of all this military training may actually be relevant to being able to fly an aeroplane!

Hope it is allowed to bear fruit.

Doc C.

[FE Hoppy]

As an Ex-mil FE (11 years multi pure jet most on 3* BA conversion)
now civvy for 3 years, non sched, EU operations, ad hoch and charter. I've sat behind a few guys in my short time.
Anyone who thinks this is a bad Idea is full of it.......
The most competent, PC, aimiable, friendly, polite, patient and able pilots I fly with are ex-mil.(Brit and US).


I also fly with Idiots and then I realy work for my LOW pay.

[Oxford1G]

I suppose that an airline pilot can now join the military with the same ease, and the our ATPL's would be accepted in the same way?

[BEagle]

Sure - if you can pass selection and meet the requirements then there should be no reason why not. Enjoy your time in cabbage kit, NBC suit, gas mask etc during military training. I'm sure that your fellow students will be enthralled with your stories about flying as you share a soaking wet para-tepee with them in Wales in the winter.....hiding from someone who wishes to give you some practical R2I training, perhaps? And just think how envious your ex-airline colleagues will be when you're flying some ancient C130 which should have been replaced years ago - and being paid a fraction of your previous salary.

Mind you, I have met a Fighter Controller who actually gave up an airline F/O job to join the military because he found the airline 'so utterly boring'.

[Dan Winterland]

It depends on your background on how easy the transition is. To get all the exemptions you have to be very experienced on heavy aircraft. For example, I have been in the RAF for 16 years, have over 5000 hours, 2500 of those on 4 engine heavy jets and I don't qualify for all the exemptions.

Before I went down the CAA ATPL route, I was qualified to command a 4 engine passenger jet flying from a somewhere like LHR, across the pond in MNPS/RVSM airspace into somewhere like JFK. Now I have the ATPL, what's the difference - the registration of the aircraft I'm allowed to fly has changed!

But I'm glad I did all the exams, and I'm sure the knowledge of how to do manual air plots across the Atlantic or how Decca works will come in useful one day - maybe not!

My point is why did I have to do them in the first place!

[Lou Scannon]

The exemptions for military pilots have been granted for some 25 years to those with Transport backgrounds and sufficient experience. Previously we had the absurd situation where you could carry the Head of State in one VC10 with roundels on it, but couldn't carry Joe Bloggs in another with a civil registration.

Anyone who has ever been through the RAF "mill" will tell you that it is far from easy and unlike the civil "mill" scrubs nearly as many as actually pass. There is no chance with the Services of getting "Daddy" to cough up another load of cash so that you can have a second crack at it either.Believe me, the standards are high.

Before saying that the granting of exemptions to ex military pilots is anything other than sensible I suggest that the civvies come up with some hard instances where the practice has been shown to be unsafe over all these years. Failing that they should be less than keen to put the military people through two apprentiships in the same trade.

[RVR800]

I bet the ex-mil guys who have already sat the ATPL exams feel a tad peeved by this..

..refund of money (and time) ?

[arm the floats]

Does this also mean that someone with a US ATPL and IR 2000hrs and 500 pic etc etc etc is also exempt from the exams?
Its definately comparable

[Chimbu chuckles]

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?

Chuck.

[RVR800]

Cough! eergh No.

Political self-interest dressed up as safety :rolleyes:

RAAF/RAF exchange pilot ?

Does all this apply to other JAA countries
such as France?

[ 11 July 2001: Message edited by: RVR800 ]

[Mowgli]

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.

[Zeitgebers]

It doesn't matter where you you come from.
It's whether you are any good and your attitude that counts.
I ilke Mowgli's slant.

[Few Cloudy]

Well - cor blimey!

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.

[overdoverover]

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 ]

[fireflybob]

Quite a bit more on this topic at:-

Aircrew Notices (http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=41&t=001838)

[LRdriver]

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..


(just let me fly dammit..)

[basil fawlty]

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!

[BEagle]

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.

[Human Factor]

Can't comment on the JAA exams, but the CAA ones were pretty much a hoop jumping exercise.

It's probably reasonable to say that the ex-military blokes (and blokesses) have jumped through plenty already.

BTW, I'm not ex-mil .......

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

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?

[Sheep Guts]

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! :)

[basil fawlty]

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!

[Upyer RRR]

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.
:rolleyes:

[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: Upyer RRR ]

[BEagle]

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.

Not at all like the 'craft'!

[Upyer RRR]

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!

[ColorJet]

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.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

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!

[attackattackattack]

"Maybe being made redundant (not something the military usually experience) "

I think you'll probably find that vast numbers of miltary personel have been made redundant in the last ten years. 'Options for change' meant that for many there was absolutely no option but to b*gger off to the civilian world. Don't let your preconceptions of the military system get int he way of the facts.

[Ficky]

Back to the original post from basil fawlty..

I don't really know what the military training consists of..

and

WHY have they got this exemption, and yet there are no exemptions for other groups of qualified and relevently experienced individuals??

If it is unknown what the military training consists of, then it is unkonwn if the "exemptions" are valid or not. The only people that can answer your question will not be found here. Aviation authorities and the MOD are the only two authorities that have the resources to review the appropriate factors to decide if the syllabus matches or not. Apparently it does.

The reality is that RAF pilots are not exempted from any knowledge requirements, they have already demonstrated an equivalent or better academic attainment and that is recognised by not having to sit the examination. They are exempt the exam, not the knowledge.

Personally, I believe that UK military pilots have earnt every single credit...... some unfortunately will no longer be able to benefit from them because they were killed or injured asserting our countries will.

No doubt not everybody will understand the last paragraph.

[boris]

Ficky,

I understand your last paragraph and it stinks!

Press gangs were disbanded years ago and the taking of the shilling as you well know is entirely optional.

I shall now take cover.

[BEagle]

Yes, boris, run away and hide whilst others have to do the dirty work on your behalf.

I don't think that you understand what a Press gang was - it was corrupt conscription of low life to man the Royal Navy's ships at a time when they had either no idea what was going on because they were too drunk and didn't notice when they'd 'accepted' a 1/- advance of pay by having it slipped into their tankards whilst virually senseless.

Somewhat different to choosing to join the nation's Armed Forces in defence of the realm - and then getting killed or injured in one of Smiling Tony's come-as-you-are-and-bring-a-bottle wars.

How many people really joined the Armed Forces out of a deep-rooted desire to save a corrupt African nation's diamonds??

[boris]

BEagle,
Ficky is sooo far off the point.
Whether or not people are prepared to take up arms has nothing whatsoever to do with their suitability to have certain exemptions granted for issue of a licence.
I totally agree with the easments which are current and which you have apparently helped bring about. Well done and not befofe time,IMHO, but the righteous cries of the likes of Ficky are those which DO cause offence and division where none should exist.
How do you, BEagle, know what my colours are as I certainly have not shown them to you or to anyone else?
Just to make my point crystal clear, perhaps I should have said that the taking of the Queen`s Commision is optional. OK now?

[FE Hoppy]

Spot on Beagle.
I choose to join in defence of the Realm, and choose to leave when I realised that was not what my lords and masters had in mind.
A bit off topic but never mind.
Back to the point.
It may be worth someone who can give a more accurate description than I, giving a brief outline of RAF pilot training for one whom would meet all the requirements for exemptions.
This I think would put an end to this thread.

[BEagle]

The basic difference is that the theoretical knowledge taught to our Service pilots is that which is relevant to the stage of training being conducted at the time, rather than the entire JAR/FCL theoretical syllabus being force fed to them in an initial groundschool before being dumped forever as is largely the case in civil training. So our pilots don't study Performance A before they've even soloed in a SEP aeroplane, for example. Further more our pilots are continually examined in relevant theoretical knowledge throughout their careers; this is certainly not a JAR requirement for ATPL(A) revalidation!

The MoD/CAA sub working group looked at several current OCU courses before coming to their conclusions concerning examination exemption credits granted for both military theoretical training and the complementary experience in role. I gave some unofficial comments to PTC concerning the hours requirements for ME pilots, but I hasten to add that all the real negotiations were carried out by TGDA staff.

Perhaps it would be possible for non-JAR ATPL/IR holders to negotiate credits; however the whole thrust of my original paper was that under JAA it is a national responsibility to give credit for military service and hence the time was ripe for a comprehensive review of military accreditation. Soon afterwards, the government announced that all military personnel would be given the opportunity to gain civil qualifications appropriate to their military experience and this has now been achieved for experienced military pilots.

Those who make the point about the irritating behaviour of certain ex-military pilots in an airline environment have a fair point. Rest assured that there were some who we were quite glad to see the back of - and I'm sorry if they're causing you as much grief as they caused us! There's a rotten apple in every barrel - as born witness by the ex-FJ pilot who falsified a logbook in an attempt to get further up the seniority list than his ex-C130 colleagues with their rather greater total of flying hours.

[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[SOPS]

ITS ****

[basil fawlty]

Ficky,
You imply in your post that military pilots have more technical knowledge of aircraft than someone like myself with a flight engineers licence, A&C licence and seven years of hands on experience taking big jets apart and putting them back together again??
Their "level of demonstrated knowledge" in this regard cannot be equal to mine, so again I ask why do they get an exemption and I do not? I don't want a full exemption, just in the areas where I have "demonstrated knowledge" also!!! if you think mil pilots know more about a jet engine or any other technical aspect of operating a commercial aircraft then I'm afraid I'd have to take up cudgels with you over that point!!

[Al Titude]

BF

Maybe RAF Flt Engineers with a similar level of experience and technical knowledge as you should demand pilot exam exemptions aswell?! :confused:

[partyreptile]

the original point was: mil pilots are being given a pass on having to show the same level of knowledge that other pilots have.

the mil reply was: our training has shown us to be superior enough to make having to show this sort of knowledge unnecessary.

IF the track record of military pilots in the realm of safety in civilian flying jobs is to be the evidence of their superior training, then their training has prepared them to kill lots of passengers. In a previous thread I submitted the fact that in the past fatal accidents in airliners mil pilots were responsible in excess of 80% of the occasions when pilot error was found to be a cause. If their training was/is so superior, why are their statistics so piss poor?

[Al Titude]

So you're saying that in the past, when all mil pilots had to pass ALL the ATPL exams in line with all their civilian counterparts they had a worse safety record.

Firstly, what relevance does this have to a forum about whether or not sufficient knowledge is held by pilots about loadings/met/ and air law etc to get 'byes' in certain exams?

Secondly, are you trying to criticise 'hands on' flying skilll of (ex) mil types? If you are then I think you have a very small case indeed - the hands on ability of a fast jet driver is surely second to none. (Not that I am suggesting for one minute that such a pilot can fly an ILS in an airliner better than a civilian!)

Thirdly, on what basis is this statistic founded on? The amount of fatal accidents on British civil airliners in recent history from pilot error has been mercifully very small. As a result any statistic is going to paint a very inaccurate picture. Similarly I think your pointed claim needs justifying from a percentage of ex Mil to civilian pilots ratio taken from your source.

Simply slamming Mil pilots as dangerous as your post implies, is the most ill informed and inaccurate opinion as I have heard in ages.

(Now I'll climb down off that fence!) :mad: :mad:

[BEagle]

partyreptile, I'll forgive your lack of understanding; somehow it doesn't surprise me.

Once again, for those who haven't understood:

The UK CAA researched the theoretical training and practical experience which certain military pilots could reasonably be expected to have assimilated and concluded that there was no reason for them to sit the entire range of JAR/FCL examinations if they wished to gain an ATPL(A).

Hence a range of accreditation has been agreed for adequately experienced pilots only , the rest will still need to take all the JAR/FCL exams if they wish to leave the RAF for the airlines before they have gained the qualifying experience criteria.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

[ 13 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[NotMyJob]

2 points, briefly:

1 - mil pilots without exception receive quite rigourous systems/procedural training. And, as the chances of systems failure increase slightly in a combat environment, the training relevancy is fairly high.

2 - current JAR exams have precious little to do with daily job of pushing the aircraft around the sky. They could certainly be rewritten so as to have more practical bearing, but the exam writers seem burdened by the weight of historical precedent to make much impact on this issue, so...

Ditch the jealousy & get real

[basil fawlty]

It appears that none of the mil guys posting responses will answer my point directly. i.e they cannot justify the system as it stands. YES i know that mil guys can fly an aircraft very well (ok, we're talking about hands on, manual flying, which makes up about 2% of airline flying these days), but arguing the fact that their training & experience covers them adequetly for all aviation scenarios is either pure b**ls**t or a display of extreme arrogance. I did not want this thread to descend into an exchange of mutual slagging off, but it seems that there is no alternative, as the mil guys seem convinced that they are just so much better than anyone else. In fact I regret even starting the subject, as all I get back is prejudiced opinion. All I'm discusing here is a fair credit for relevent experience that I have. Obviously as long as the ex RAF/RN bods get what they want everyone else can go f**k themselves! and then they wonder why some (but not all) of their number receive a cool reception on a CIVIL flightdeck!!

[BEagle]

Nowhere in this thread have my military colleagues claimed that their training and experience is 'better' than yours, basil.

Precisely which exams do you think you should receive accreditation for?

Perhaps one reason for your frustration is that the JAA seemed to assume that, by the time JAR/FCL came along, the vast majority of transport aircraft would no longer need Flight Engineers and that there would be sufficient remaining Flight Engineers to crew those which did under 'grandfather rights'. They didn't seem to realise that many Flight Engineers would wish to re-train as pilots and hence no enabling system was put in place.

Do you have a licence issued in a JAA member state? If so, are you going to transfer it to a JAR/FCL Flight Engineer's licence? If you do, will there be any intra-JAR/FCL accreditation rights available if you wish to re-train?

[ls7glider]

It's such a shame that, despite Basil's hopes to the contrary, this has still turned into a mil v civil slanging match about individuals rights to accreditation. BEagle has done his best to put you in the picture but certain individuals out there just don't seem content to accept the facts.

Yes, military pilots have just recently gained accreditation for ATPL exams. This has been based on an acceptance of theoretical knowledge that we actually have. This relevant knowledge is not superior to anything anyone else has, it happens to be something that was covered back in our pilot training days. The accreditation is based around a minimum amount of flying experience and takes into account what that experience was gained on. If you happened to have have spent your service life driving multis around, then you gain more accreditation than does a fast-jet mate who has no multi-engine time (Jag, Tornado, or F4 doesn't count), has never hauled passengers or freight and therefore has no knowledge of Perf A and load sheets.

So please don't complain about this accreditation. I've been a fast-jet jock for many years, have 3500 hours and have paid for my ATPL without any of the military 'good-deals'. My relevant theoretical knowledge is not lacking. I found going through the ATPL exams was really tedious as I had covered most of it a considerable number of years before when I learnt to fly, had filtered all the c##p out then and am finding that I'm having to do the same again. The really relevant stuff, Perf A, I found interesting because I knew I was learning something that was relevant for my intended future career. I personally missed the bandwagon with this accreditation but am absolutely delighted that our relevant (not superior) experience has finally been acknowledged. It has been a long time in coming and I would like to thank those who have made it happen.

Basil, you have a very valid case. The FE fraternity who wish to gain an ATPL need to put a strong case forward to gain the accreditation you desire. Maybe you're the man for the job. Get researching, speak to the right people and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen.

[Airbrake]

The theoretical knowledge required for issue of a commercial licence has always been used as a filter to weed out those who cannot reach the arbitrary intelligence level required to supposedly operate a civil aircraft. We have all met the brain surgeon type who cannot tie his shoe laces in the morning, so jumping through a series of exams has always been a pointless exercise for Ex mil types who have already gone through a selection process comparable to any airline. The ground school of Basic and Advanced flying trg as well OCU's plus Sqn training days more than covers the knowledge level required.
As an Ex Nav who spent 12 yrs flying on various types and now flying in civvy street it makes me laugh when I hear military pilots and Flt Engs trying to get exemptions from exams etc. Many (but not all) Royal Air Force pilots get their IR done with a rubber stamp on the Sqn with the civil examiner on the jump seat, a Sqn mate sat next to them and even a Nav sat behind them! They don't have to shell out for sim time or the aircraft and so save thousands of pounds. (Fastjet mates excluded!)
The JAR accreditation is long over due, but as someone who had to sit a PPL Nav exam and plan a 60nm cross-country when I had over 2500hrs as a Nav you can understand why it brings a smile to my face! The RT exam was also ridiculous.
A few years on now I couldn't pass 50% of the exams, it just shows how little relevance they have to normal line flying. The military guys who are benefiting from this should thank their lucky stars and avoid the subject in the pub for fear of a large bar bill. I'm of to fly my Boeing.
:)

[Arkroyal]

BEagle. Well done. These exemptions were being talked about when I came out in 1994.

I don't want to fuel a civvy vs military row. We all make our way in our chosen profession by whatever method suits. I chose to go the military route because it's what I passionately wanted to do. I did not want to become an administrator, so once my 16 years was up, I left to make my way in civvy street. I brought with me a wealth of experience which allowed me a 'foot in the door' and a chance to learn my new trade of airline flying. I'm no better or worse suited to the job than the guy who came here by any other route.

What, pray, did it benefit anyone (with the exception of the CAA's purse) to put me through a bunch of mostly irrelevant exams, the like of which I had already passed and been yearly checked on throughout my service.

For the straight through civvy, who quite rightly is in the left hand seat of a big jet in his early 30s, life is pretty well complete. The guy who exits the service in his early 40s has a long way to go (quite rightly) to catch up, and will never accrue a pension to match his counterpart's.

What is the point in further impoverishing the guy by forcing him to jump through expensive hoops just for the sake of it?

[rocketboots]

Basil My freind
Just to stick my oar in,in your defence.Ithink it`s outrageous the way we are treated.My background is RAF apprentice served as A&C,5 years on VC10 on the line,joined big Airways,and certifying 737,747,757,767,777,and scarebus.Also sat all ATPL exams at national level,passed all but flt planning(74%),and the cheeky bastards want me to re sit everything again under JAR,i.e,all 14 subjects.Like we need to know how a generator load sheds,or how a turbine moves a compressor,PLEASE.....
Unfortunatley mate your title in the proffesional world has the word ENGINEER in it,and that stands for nothing these days.Of course we won`t mention all the years studying for our apprentiships,followed by our licence`s,followed by type ratings,followed by everything else that revolves around the safe passage of aircraft in the skies.
There is no answer to your question.Just be under the understanding that your simply not from the correct club,and that those in the CAA once were,and never shall the boundary be breached

[Out Of Trim]

Probably True ~ seems like a good idea to me.. Why do people think that Military Experience counts for nothing - It's beyond me.. Some of the finest pilots in the world are obviously ex military.. If you think Civil training is better you are very much mistaken! :rolleyes:

[Carnage Matey!]

To add my tuppences worth:- everybody knows that the previous CAA theory exams were a pointless load of b******s with almost zero relevance to modern flying. I am assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong) that todays JAR exams are in a broadly similar vein. I really can't see the value in asking a highly experienced military multi engine pilot to pass a load of irrelevant theory exams on VP props and HF propagation in order to certify that they are safe to fly as P2 in an airliner. All the relevant theory of a specific aircraft they require will be covered in a type conversion ground school, and they have amply demonstrated during military service their ability to pole the aircraft round the sky. The only thing likely to be missing is an understanding of civil air law, a subject from which they are not exempt under JAR regs.

To return to Basils original posting, I consider it reasonable that a licenced flight engineer should be exempted from some of the technical exams in the JAR syllabus. That they have not been I put down to the dwindling numbers and political clout of the flight engineers in comparison the miltary jocks.

A number of people have offered some highly dubious statistics about the safety of ex-mil pilots. To these people I would say that any ex-mil pilot will have many years to learn the civil flying trade while they sit in the right hand seat, and when they achieve command it will be through the same rigorous training process which there civilian counterparts undergo. Furthermore I can add that in my company I've yet to fly with an ex-military captain (fast jet or ME) who hasn't been extremely competent and a pleasure to fly with. And usually a damn site less boring than some of the career civvies to boot!!!

Edited for typos!

[ 14 July 2001: Message edited by: Carnage Matey! ]

[Ghostflyer]

I'm ex-military fast jet and now fly big busses! I massively respect the pilots that I fly with that have come through the civil training route. They are skilled at operating in an airline environment. I learnt an immense amount from them and will always be greatful.

When I first arrived I found that most of the questions I asked the Captains that I flew with were to do with passenger handling and the flight operation manuals rather than how to handle the aircraft, aircraft tech or how to operate along routes. My time in the military had covered all those bases neatly. The transition course furnished me with enough knowledge to fly a different aircraft type. Don't forget, apart from galleys and toilets, military fast jets have just about all the main sub-systems that a modern airliner does. Yes they differ in exact detail but I used to have to understand the system so that I could diagnose flaws. In an airline environment, that is positively discouraged, the key is just to follow the ECAM.

I shelled out my own money for the exams and got an exemption from only the GFT. I worked reasonably hard, passed all the exams first time and the lowest mark that I got was in the low 90%s. The exams were not difficult just a learn/dump examination exercise. The whole process from start to finish took 4 months. I can honestly say that the CAA academic exams have had no bearing at all on how I operate on the flightdeck today. The only pleasant surprise was that I didn't have to do Astronav and that Dip is a thing of the past. My military training covered pretty much all of the important aspects of operating within controlled airspace both at home and abroad. Yes, military aircraft do operate in Class A-G airspace, in and out of major airports.

Lets face it, the academic exams in the UK are a hoop jumping exercise. We are just not as good at it as the FAA. There you get the book with the Master Question File, learn the answers to the questions: Ques. What is the beam width of an ILS beam. Ans. D. Yep, most of the guys I did my FAA exams with didn't even bother to learn the actual answer because the questions never changed. I think this might be the reason that the US majors like hiring ex-mil pilots because they are known quantities with a known training background.

I don't personally know of any ex-mil pilot that failed to pass the CAA exams or IR (eventually) in the last 5 years. Some have spent a little more money than others but c'est la vie. Since I have left, the military now pay for the civil exams and instrument training anyway so that guys will sign on for a bit longer.

I had a great time in the military, awesome flying but I now have a life away from work. Every time I flew I made decisions, now I eat meals. I don't begrudge the Long Haul flyers their flight time. I just wish I could have claimed for the time spent in the crew room eating between sorties. The other day a guy gave me a hard time saying that the key to experience was hours. He said that experience could only be gained that way. He did spit some food onto the newspaper that he had been reading for the last 2 hours as he said it.

I believe experience is exposure to all types of inputs and situations that will make you an effective commander. It can be done by osmosis or it can be ticked off methodically. The only real difference I see between the military and the civvies is that the military tick off the boxes and make certain the pilot has been exposed to everything that it is necessary for them to see to operate effectively in their environment. A lot of civvy companies 'hope' that by waiting a bezillion hours for command the boxes will be ticked.

I think the whole system should be overhauled, the CAA should decide exactly what is required of a First Officer and Captain and produce some training and exposure objectives. Then all the companies should make certain that those objectives are met by their crews irrespective of background.

I am now a civvy, I was in the military. The bottom line is that the CAA exams are a hoop jumping exercise designed to insulate the industry from no-hopers. They are not difficult, you just have to have average intelligence and be committed to pass! The flying test is different but probably harder in a Herc than a Duchess.

Ghost :eek:

[Alex Whittingham]

Actually the new JAR exams, for all their failings, include sections on MNPS, RVSM, Operations Manuals and MELs. They also have much more on FMS and EFIS operation than the old national exams. These are some of the sections of the exams military pilots (other than truckies) still have to sit.

[BEagle]

Alex - are you guys going to be running the 'bridging courses' for the non-truckies needing them under the new 2000 hr accreditations? Will Lulsgate become a one-stop shop for such folk with the IR and MEP Class Rating work also available on-site?

Hi to Basil, by the way!

[MAXIMOL]

I have a friend and former colleague who was for many years a FE in the RAF. He then left and did his FE licences and got a job as a FE. He subsequently went through pilot training, paid for by his company and only had to do the Nav writtens and Air Law. It would seem to me that he did get relavent exemptions. i.e. the stuff that he had already covered as a flight eng.
His company have also given him credit, albeit not much, for his experience as a flight eng.

:rolleyes:

[albert]

Alex Whittingham!! Top Bloke!! That's all I'll say. Yes I'm ex-military, ex-slowprop and I would have qualified for the latest round of exemptions. If i'd have stayed, but no I may'd my choice and did the last of the old Consolidated Mil Exams(taught by Alex!).
Exams were still a load of boxxocks and JAR's still will be. Fact is that ME guys were and are qualified to fly WorldWide from way dot and these days even FJ Pilots have to be procedurally qualified for an IR. Notwithstanding all that, I work for the Woollypully Brigade and I don't care what you're back-ground is. As long as I feal that you are a safe and steady operator than that's good for me!!

[Crash Barrier]

So now we are all talking 'badger' you wont mind if an FAA rated pilot on 'heavy' jets comes across to the U.K. gets exempt from all JAA exams and swipes a job at B.A.

It should 'NOT' be the case of one law for one and one for another, I am sure that ex-mil pilots are extremely competant but why should they be exempt? The answer is they shouldn't, either have a system that applies to all or don't have one at all.

I am astounded by the sheer level of prejudice and favouritism that the CAA conveys on this matter.

Mind you the CAA is mostly ex-mil anyway so I suppose it's a case of 'you scratch my back', and here's a shiny new ATPL.

[Max Brakin]

Crash Barrier: If the CAA is full of ex-mil types why then has it taken years of hard work to get these exemptions or has the CAA just recruited all the latest drop-outs from the mil ???

Prior to these exemptions our mil flying was worth 3/4 of F%&k all when trying to get civil recognition. Hours yes there was something to wave with your CV but try to short-cut the exams no chance.

IMHO the exams system has been long overdue a re-haul and needs to be more relevant to todays operations, and yes I think people like Basil should get accreditation for all his work, but sorry BF don't get bitchy with us mil types because at last we've got something good from the Campaign against......

I certainly will make use of these new rules to gain an ATPL, but at the minute I have no intention to use it as I don't intend to jump ship, but it's always good to have something in the back pocket.

As many have already said, and I will repeat to get through some thicker skulls, there are &rseh*les in all walks of life so let's not have the thread denigrate into a civ vs mil slanging match, and if you're going to throw statistics around be prepared to be.
a) accurate
b) back them up

Just cos I'm paranoid, don't mean they ain't out to get me :eek:

Edited due to spooling mistoks

[ 17 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Brakin ]

[Crash Barrier]

:rolleyes: Max Brakin, I am fully aware that ex-mil pilots used to have to sit the old ATPL exams, I know because I trained in Bournemouth with a VC10 skipper, ex mil fast jet pilot and numerous military heli-pilots.

The good thing was that we all helped each other to study. We all griped about the cost etc, but we knuckled down and passed the exams. I would like to say that they were an extremely professional bunch. I get the impression of a tad of arrogance with yourself and a few others on this thread. I say again if your colleagues can pass a few exams without whining about the injustice of it all then why cant the rest of you.

There should be 'NO' exam credits, you should all sit the same as the rest of us had to...

Grow UP!!!!!! :mad:

[Max Brakin]

Crash Barrier:
You do seem to have the wrong end of the stick here. I was quite willing to do the b@lls ache of the CAA's money making scheme, to wit the exams and would have done so if not for recognition of the hours I've put in doing essentially the same job as any shiny airliner. I don't think I'm better than anyone who has had to put up with hours or learn and dump for the CAA and I am not arrogant enough to think that should I apply and be lucky to get a job in civvie land that I will have a lot to learn about the aircraft and SOPs for flying in that company.

The only arrogant person here is I'm afraid YOU CB who has taken the stand of 'I did it so should everyone else.' I also believe that CAA/JAA ATPLs should be transferrable to FAA and vice versa. After all if we are happy for them to operate in our little bit of airspace why can't we recognise their licenses ??

So Crash get off your high horse and move with the times there are people out there who have relevant experience that can be put to good use. The 'I did it......' attitude makes for bitter and twisted people who don't want any progress. :mad: :mad:

[Crash Barrier]

:rolleyes: Max,
The point of the matter is that the CAA have their favourites, the ex-mil pilots mainly.

I am all for scrapping the JAA exam b*llocks the majority of it being worthless, but it probably wont happen. So if you exempt military pilots then you will have to allow all other national licence holders such as FAA to transfer their licences directly without sitting the multi-guess pepsi-challenge. I don't have a problem with that, but the majority of UK commercial pilots would. Also if that were to happen the UK commercial schools would close down, potential pilots would go stateside, get their FAA and transfer it to a JAA with no hassle.

The whole point of the CAA/JAA exams is money making, we both know that. If the CAA are so hypocritical to grant exemptions to one group, they will surely have to grant it to all regardless of the impact on the industry it would have.

Will it happen? probably not..

Campaign Against Aviation you see!!!

[Max Brakin]

Crash: We do seem to agree on some things (definition of CAA for one) but I still believe you're missing the point. Lets stop calling it 'Military Exemptions' and I know I've used that phrase once or twice myself. How about Military Accreditation which is truer to what the CAA/JAA have done.

All that has happened is that 'adequately experienced pilots' have had the years of training in the military recognised. (I won't enter the debate on yearly flying and knowledge checks, that has been done sufficiently)

And while you bring up the point why not allow FAA/JAA/CAA cross recognition of ATPL/CPL etc etc? Go for a unified license, people already go to the sunnier and cheaper climes of the US of A to hours build.

To repeat it's accreditation not exemption. ;) ;)

[RoboAlbert]

BF makes a good point in his first post. Relevant engineering experience and examination passes should be given accreditation. Likewise, there would also seem to be a strong case for holders of FAA or equivalent licences to be given accreditation towards JAA licences. Rather than a means of ensuring suitable levels of professional knowledge amongst Europe's aviation fraternity, the current system seems to smack of protectionism. Whilst standards of professional knowledge should stand, the JAR exam papers should be only one of several ways of assessing a person's professional knowledge.

The accreditation of military training was carried out after a very detailed assessment of the military's training system. The CAA having assessed the content of the various training routes leading to a variety of aircraft types and tailored the accreditation given for each type accordingly.

What perplexes me BF is that one the one hand you would welcome accreditation for your own engineering experience, but feel that my experience and training, as the captain of a military multi-engined aircraft, should not receive such accreditation. If I were to be uncharitable, I'd say it was a childish case of sour grapes. Of course, I accept I may have misinterpreted your first post.

Finally it would also seem strange that someone who didn't want a slagging match to develop would fan the flames with post full of words obscured by lots of F*****g '*'s! Unless of course this is a top wind up - if so, nice one, I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

Now where did I put that Air Law book............

:D

[ANZAC]

Gentleman,

I realise this has nothing to do with me (being Australian (1-0 ASHES !) and all) and I usually stay out of these sort of discussions but I am a little confused :confused: The facts of this as I understand them are:

That military types have managed to put together a convincing (it must have been because they got it !) submission to have certain qualifications and experience recognised for the new ATPL.

Now Basil Fawlty and others believe, for a variety of reasons, that this either unfair, unsafe and/or unwelcome (is this a fair summary ?)

For unfair, I believe that the ball is now in your court. If you believe that you should have some accreditation for your qualifications and experience then; commend Beagle for his triumph, humbly asked how it was achieved and you start the ball rolling !!! The worst response you can get is NO !?!

For unsafe, I presume that the people responsible for setting the standards for the ATPL were the ones who conducted the review of mil training etc. This seems to be accepted as NOT being deficient in meeting the appropriate standards.

For unwelcome, I think this says more about you than the ex-mil guy.

Do not malign others because they saw an opportunity to improve their lot in life and then achieved it !! A pervading attitude in Australia at the moment is "if I can't have it, why should they !" Some of you should come on over....you would fit right in.

[Arkroyal]

Csash,

As Max points out, the mil types are not being exempted anything. The CAA is simply recognising that they have already jumped through the hoops in their previous life. There is no point (apart from money making) in making them take a bunch of worthless exams again (standfast air law).

As I pointed out earlier, the ex military people are not being favoured here. They will almost all wind up worse off financially over their entire flying careers than the straight through civvy. That was their choice, but why do you insist that a further round of exams, which prove naff all at great expense, should be sat?

[Crash Barrier]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Arkroyal,
Because if you had the scenario of any other professional licence holder trying to convert to a JAA, i.e FAA etc, then they would 'HAVE' to sit the 'EXPENSIVE' written exams.

No exemptions, no excuses, should be one rule for all!!!

C.A.A. prejudice beyond belief!

[rocketboots]

Many seem to be harping on about iv`e done my time blah,blah,blah,but nobody has given BF an answer.His experience is worth more than enough to exempt him all of the techie exams.Are you seriously telling me that a mili pilot knows more technical stuff about aeroplanes than a ground or flight engineer?.I thought not!.BF is not asking for a total exemption,just what he feels he should be entitled to.Who cares who is the best trained.As long as we all get jobs,but we get there with an even playing field.The CAA system stinks from top to bottom,this we are all quite clear on.Points on people who have FAA licenses,should be able to be afforded the same luxury with exemptions as those of our mili freinds.Likewise ground and flight engineers should also get there slice of the cake.
Spare a thought for those that are financing the whole thing themselves,and people like myself who have studied,and worked full time,to jump through all the hoops,only to be told that my failing on a mesley 1%,entitles me to sit everything again under JAR.If i was a mili pilot,then yes i would be taking full advantage of the loop hole,but i`m not,and so i will fight my corner just as CB is entitled to do.OUT OF TRIM you state that why do people think that mili training counts for nothing?.Well outside the world of the CAA bubble,it counts for exactly that...NOTHING.You will learn that entering civi street,on a commercial carrier,will entitle you with the same respect that a cleaner,caterer,dispatcher,loadie,or whatever gets,and thats that they all treated with the same respect,and nobody is afforded the title of SIR.Get used to it!.I feel your reply to mine smells of a touch of arrogance,you might want to lose it if you want to work in civy street

[deltahotel]

Time to enter the fray....

Military Accreditation is a national responsibility. Thc CAA has recognised that the flying abilities and knowledge base of certain military pilots with specific experience meet the requirements of parts of the licensing structure. Lucky old them, I say.

If other groups (FE etc) feel that they have a case for accreditation (and I believe that they do, though can't be specific because I don't profess to have intimate knowledge of their training and licensing) then put the case and keep putting the case to the CAA and keep fighting the corner -and good luck to you, because I'm sure it's a justified case.

I predict that this one will run and run.... and before you ask I am ex-mil, now civ, with all the exams under my belt. Having qualified under both training systems and operated in both, I feel that I can legitimately pass comment on both.

[stablepowerset]

got to agree with Hoppy on this one (hiya mate)having done a bit of time in civvie aviation, not long but long enough, the ex mil guys take a totally different view to the job, safety and profesionalism being paramount. The 52 weeks at Finningley on the F/E course count for nothing as far as the CAA is concerned, the only reason being that if they gave us the exemptions how would they rake in the cash.
The SOP,s on the RAF tri* vary very little from what BA Cali etc used!!!! the biggest difference is mil pilots go in the sim every 2 months and get checked out on all the systems!! Basic training requirements have to be fulfilled to maintain currency
Having 5000hrs on the tri* did the course with BA and I still had to stump up the cash to the CAA what does that tell ya?
And just think about it, how many operators out there now have the full worldwide ops that the military do! thats why the guys train so hard and are checked so often!!!!!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Guys,
if you look over on the African Forum you'll see Crash Barrier asking about the possibility of getting a job in the Congo with a PPL/500hrs 'cause 'he can't be bothered with all that JAA ATPL crap'.
Does this industry throw up more than it's fair share of tossers or are other professions similar??
CB do you have a death wish or are you the most overconfident wannabe I've ever heard of?

Chuck.

PS. And he asks for only sensible answers :eek:

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]

[Al Titude]

Cb
Busted!!!
So when you were at Bournemouth and "knuckled down to pass the exams" were you talking about ATPL or PPL?!!

Regards ;) ;)

[basil fawlty]

RoboAlbert,

The first paragraph of your post exactly summarises the point that I am trying to make. I do not have any problem at all with mil guys receiving accreditation for previous experience and qualifications. My problem is with those in the CAA/JAA who will give a fair creditation to some, but not to the others that also deserve it. (Flight engineers, other ICAO CPL/ATPL holders etc. etc.)
The process of determining who gets what exemptions can't be so difficult and time consuming can it?? If so then maybe this is a case of people in the authorities looking to make work for themselves!!
I also concur with Rocketboot's comments.
No, this thread is not a wind up, and I realise that nothing will change as a result, but if it opens peoples eyes to the fact that there are some very fundamental inequalities in our system of aviation regulation then thats nothing but good as far as I'm concerned.

[Max Brakin]

Nice one Chimbu, maybe I was biting the line a bit(whoa here's goes another one) but CBs attitude was starting to stink and get right up my hooter.

Thanks for the back up Ark.

But to get back to the original theme yes I agree that all of Basil Fawlty's experience should be counted and maybe the military have pushed a thin, but hopefully long, wedge into the CAA for accreditation of ALL experience levels.

BF I wish you all the best with trying to get recognition, maybe you can quote the military as a precedent. :) :)

Edittedd fur spoolin mistaoks

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Brakin ]

[Arkroyal]

Crash,

Thanks for your considered reply.

You cannot compare apples and oranges. The mil peeps have done all this crap already. Once in a lifetime is enough.

They are notexemptions, just a recognition that the knowledge has already been proved and credited.

You chopped ex-mil by any chance?

[LRdriver]

Just to clarify,
this is not a thread which questions the training of a mil pilot. but I agree with the former that it should be equal all around. If a pilot shows up with time and proven experience in the logbook they should get a checkride and an airlaw exam. Correct me if I am wrong but does a high time captain on heavy jets really HAVE to go fly cessnas and senecas when he/she wants to convert from an FAA to ICAO ATP. And why should the mil pilot with the same exp. get pref. treatment?

It once again gets political.. :rolleyes:

[Stan Woolley]

Arkroyal

How do you reckon that the military pilot will be worse off financially over a career than the straight through civvy?

I don't object to relevant experience being recognised consistently.

[BEagle]

Where is all this nonsense about 'political' accreditation coming from? The CAA merely fulfilled its national responsibility for recognising military pilot experience.

It is up to those organisations acting on the behalf of their members who consider that they are entitled to formal recognition to do something about it, not just whine "Sir, sir, it isn't fair, sir" like some group of petulant children.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

As a complete luddite who doesn't know Jack, having now acquired my CAA ATPL (having done all the exams I hasten to add & just left the military) can I now get an FAA licence gratis by mere dint of my CAA licence or do I have to sit some (more) exams??

[Low_and_Slow]

can I now get an FAA licence gratis by mere dint of my CAA licence or do I have to sit some (more) exams??

You will have to sit the written and the flight test, both relatively easy (compared to the JAA version). Information on the written and test standards can be found at FAA Pilot Certification (http://www.faa.gov/aviation.htm). Cheap prep software at Test Prep Software (http://www.faatest.com).

As for the question of the thread:

I agree with Basil (great show, BTW) that the FE should be exempt from some of the JAA exams. With regard to the military, it seems to me that the CAA, being part of the government, has simply added a second method of compliance for ATP certification.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: What was the DH again????? ]

[Arkroyal]

Flanker,

Haven't done any exact calculations, but my case is fairly typical.

16 years in military provides a pension of about £4500, rising to £10k at age55. Leave mil into recession, a bout of unemployment soaking up most of commuted pension, succession of civilian flying jobs netting fragmented pension funds and finally a proper job. Few years in RHS and finally a few years in LHS and no chance of topping pension up to the max without great impoverishment.

Compare that to 18 year old entering same airline, and progressing to LHS in late 20s. Hes already earning far more than any mil pilot can and will retire with max pension.

This is not a winge, just a statement of how it is. Still eminently glad I went the route I did. Could have done without those pointless exams though.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]

[Stan Woolley]

Arkroyal

Thanks for the answer.I agree that the eighteen year old joining BA or similar should do well.

I am a typical self improver and have self financed all my licenses from age twenty, unfortunately daddy wasn't a millionaire!Earning very low salaries and spending it all on flying was the name of the game for around five years while working in South Africa.Then a further four getting some relevant UK experience after a UK license(exempt signals-the only thing I knew nothing about!)found me in the right seat with Britannia.Nearly five there and a further three hopping around got me a command at last.Thats when I started earning reasonable money (after sixteen years)which has improved with the market and is now pretty good.

My feeling is that financially most military people should be one up.The pension may not be stunning but its something.The fast jet guys suffer with low hours but all the other fixed wing military pilots should be doing well in charter companies or the low cost companies as there is a need for guys with experience and ability.

Luck/Timing can play a big part of course.
Rgds

[Dan Winterland]

Luck/Timing indeed (or should that read ability?). Ark Royal's case in point was for a pilot joining the RAF at age 19 compared with one joining as a BA CEP at the same age. Pretty similar circumstances, except for the renumeration at age 38 when the RAF pilot leaves at the cessation of his contract.

Being in the first category, I know which would have been more rewarding financially.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]

[Stan Woolley]

Dan Winterland

I agreed with your example in my first sentence.I am however also a straight through civvy am I not?

But of course the military guy would be much more able,especially you ,but actually I meant what I wrote.Very capable people are still in the right seat at Britannia through Luck/Timing,not ability.Arkroyal himself said he left the military during a recession,ability had toss all to do with that,did it?If you don't recognise this possibility you are indeed fortunate and/or inexperienced.

[basil fawlty]

BEagle,

I had no intention of contributing further to this thread, but after reading your post I feel compelled to reply!
You now seem to be showing your "true colours".
As I have stated before (and will now repeat for those that have difficulty READING and UNDERSTANDING at the same time, or are "HARD OF LEARNING") I think that exemptions for ex mil pilots are justified, but only if other obviously qualified personnel get relevent exemptions/accreditations also.
It seems that eliciting some understanding and sympathy from people like yourself is a lost cause. Your opinion is "to hell with what is FAIR and CORRECT as I've already got what I can out of the system"
Perhaps you could explain this "national responsibility" that you keep going on about, and why there is a "national responsibility" to ex mil pilots, but nobody else in the aviation world. (You can leave out all the "we could die for our country" c**p, you all have a choice- i.e don't join up.)
Why is STATING AN OPINION on the lack of consistency and fairness in the licensing system acting, as you put it, "like a petulent child"?? You are showing your modern military credentials splendidly by using such "put downs" when faced with the opinions of others outside your clique.
Unfortunately, you mil guys it seems are told from day one that your s**t doesn't smell, and some are foolish enough to believe it.
One final thought; remember "what goes around comes around"!

PS....Perhaps if anyone from the CAA/JAA is reading this thread, then perhaps they could comment (anonymously of course) in order to justify the situation as it stands. Although this in itself may be biased, given the sheer number of ex RAF bodies there building up a good pension......!!

[mjenkinsblackdog]

MILITARY PILOTS SHOULD DO THE SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE AND PUT ON A CRM COURSE AT THE END FOR GOOD MEASURE.

[boris]

Basil,
You are right where you infer that BEagle has a thin skin when someone doesn`t quite agree with him and he does seem more than a little patronising,(see his little spat at me on the bottom of page 3 of this thread).
I too am not sure where this "national responsibility" comes from, but, just because only one class of applicant has some alleviation, it does not follow that they cannot profit because others do not get the same treatment. One step at a time and if it takes the hard work of someone like BEagle to sort one lot out, someone else can now take up Beagle`s mantle for the next in line.
The CAA will not necessarily think of everyone and if there ain`t a rule to cover it you will get bugger all. The next bunch in line will therefore have to sort their own exemptions out and the CAA will surely agree if there is a sustainable case as has been demonstrated.

[BEagle]

Whoa there Basil - I quite agree with you! All I'm saying is that the CAA did what they were required to with regard to military accreditation because both they and the MoD were reminded that there is a JAR which specifically requires this - JAR-FCL 1.020. I agree that there should also be accreditation for other groups and you have a very valid point concerning accreditation for someone of your particular experience and background. But who is going to broker your case?

In contrast, others on this thread are not putting forward reasoned cases; rather they are just criticising military pilots with no justification apart from jealousy.

Noting one of the last posts, ALL military aircrew are now required to do the CRM foundation course; instructors are also required to do the CRM facilitator's course and examiners are obliged to comment on CRM on every military multi-pilot checkride!

boris - Yes, I admit I disagreed with your first post; however, the later one which clarified things I entirely accept.

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Dan Winterland]

Exactly. The reason why military pilots have these exemptions is that they took up the opportunity offered by JAR OPS. This was helped by the MoD who saw an opportunity to help retention by providing pilots with an ATPL when they leave after 16 years, hoping to keep them in that long rather than see them leave after eight. And the reason why Mil pilots were specifically included as a group deserving recognition. It's all part of the homogenised euro licence - some JAA countries have been offereing those exemptions for years.

Other groups, such as FAA ATPLS have the same opportunity. They just need to organise themselves. But going on the Military experience, it will take a long time and a lot of cash.

And Flanker, I apologise for the apparent arrogance of my post. My reference to 'ability' was regerding the original financial comparison after 16 years between the BA CEP cadet and the RAF Pilot, both of which require some ability to acheive. Luck and timing has something to do with it - there was no BA recruitment when I joined the RAF.

However, I feel I am qualified to comment, as I leave the RAF next week to take up a FO job with an airline. Even with my RAF pension, I will be worse off for the first year. How better off would I be had I joined an airline 16 years ago instead of the RAF - quite a bit!

[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]

[Roc]

How about a fresh angle to this debate, from a Yank who had to spend $1300 USDollars to get my ATP (FAA) in a piece of crap Seneca, while flying as a C-141 Flight Examiner! So the Bulls#@ts on both sides of the pond. However, how about looking at the excemption for the mil pilots as part of the THANKS OF A GRATEFUL NATION!!!! I see alot of jelousy and pettiness aimed at the mil pilots, they should get some kind of break. And at least in the States, when passengers learn that their Captain was an ex-mil pilot, it carries alot of respect and admiration, even among fellow flight-crew, You guys seem to miss the big picture, these guys are not some spoiled lot who are given free training, and great equipment, so as to further their future airline careers, No, they have taken an oath to die for your nation and defend your families!! so let them get credit for some tests!! some of them have had to take the ultimate test!

[Stan Woolley]

Roc

How did you find the Seneca when you were used to flying such old equipment?

[MasterGreen]

I have managed to avoid dignifying this debate on Mil / Civ for the past 16 years, but there is a point that defies reason.

With 32 years of professional flying I have equal time now on both sides. I feel I have a voice and I am now going to use it.

This whole debate is venial and petty. None of the Military people I have known on both sides of the fence deserve anything less than these exemptions. Sure there are a few assimilation problems with some, but this is only a matter of time. We (ex mil) have a lot to learn in order to make the professional transition to the civil market. Most of us find it relatively easy to prostitute ourselves to this rather shallow world - but some find it harder.

I have rarely known a ex mil that doesn't know more (in the theory sense) than his civ counterpart. Civ training is shallow and goal orientated - as dictated by economics. The mil training is result orientated and that takes depth.

I will not go into the handling ability issue, since to me that is a done deal. Apart from a few dusters, I have never met a civ handler that can really fly an airplane . They wiggle it about a bit and get lucky now and then - but the basic understanding just isn't there. On the other hand I have had the honour to fly with some real magicians, (Hi Dudly) and it makes you wonder - on this stairway to heaven.

But handling skills are not the issue here, and I will agree. However the "magicians" of whom I speak would also have a knowledge base that you would die for. You could drag these guys from a party, half cut, and they would still blitz an ATPL written or oral.

Also the mil people have indeed paid the ultimate price for their survivors' elevation to this position that we now discuss. I realise that the civ people have paid real money to get there. However the mil people have paid much more. Of the 27 I started with in 1966 only 12 are left in the banking sense. 3 to AA and SA6, 6 to equipment failures, 2 on the same day to a formation screw up, the rest in various problems that we are still not party to. So I would assume that they have paid....

Get real you civ people. The mil training is the best and you can eventually hope to achieve parity. But the bottom line is that you won't. The people who had the calling to give 14 years + to their country and its' ideals have an edge. Sorry, but that's a fact - winge away, but it changes nothing.

MG

Hard Hat on .....
;)

[javelin]

I want to comment on this and will try to do so in as positive a way as possible ! The question of exemptions will always leave some greatly disadvantaged and some with a sly grin. I was priviledged to gain my PPL on an RAF Scholarship when I was 17. I subsequently was offered a long service commision but turned it down as I felt that the length of service was too much to commit to at that age. Whether I would have passed training is another matter! I continued flying and by age 30 had sufficient hours to do my commercial licence. I personally financed and paid over £25,000 for my training which included a jet type rating after a job swap. Now I flown with many ex mil and civ guys and gals in both seats and what comes out time and time again is the personality of the individual and how they have transitioned from mil to civ or how they arrived down the civ path. Experience gained from either path is good, it blends into the big pot eventually. Without doubt you get a good training from the mil route but I must note that more people from that route end up with huge knowledge about all sorts of things aerodynamic but absolutely no common sense or concept of what a customer is. Here is where the exemption falls down because the mil person knows huge amounts and in many cases can fly extremely well but the training has in many ways been inapropriate to the next career - civilian transport flying. The civilian route generally produces a more suited person but with very varied experiences and knowledge of aerodynamics, systems etc. Big question - do we as transport pilots NEED such encyclopaedic knowledge about things - personally I doubt it. Therefore I am going to swing down on the side of fewer exemptions but more relevant training for ex mil pilots. We know you know everything because you keep telling us so - now learn about life and customer service and you truly will be perfect :D

edited for crop spalling !

[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: javelin ]

[fireflybob]

MasterGreen, like yourself I have been trying to stay out of the mil/civil debate but I have to take issue with some of your comments.

Having spent circa 10 years in the training role with the charter airlines I do not agree that the ex mil pilots are necessarily better handlers of the aircraft than civil. Some ex civil have the ability to handle the aircraft at a much higher standard - it all depends on the individual.

The ex mil camp seem to fall into two different categories:- 1. Those who come into civil aviation with the attitude that they have got new things to learn, they keep their heads down and get on with it and become outstanding airline officers (notice not pilots but officers - the handling is a small part of the job!)

2. The other group never really adapt and are a contant pain to work with! Need I say more!

Us civil guys are real - we just don't have to go round shouting about it all the time!

[MasterGreen]

Before this gets out of hand - I must declare that my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I typed the above. Instead of the smily I was considering the line :

Look Mum, Brians caught a fish on that knotted string - he hasn't even got a hook."

Forgive me, please, the little expansion of reality. Of course what I wrote isn't true (apart from the mates lost). How can it be? Sure we have all sacrificed much to be where we are - and we all bring difference skills and abilities to the aviation table. If only we could all share and learn from each other, instead of slagging each other off all the time - we would be a stronger and better respected community.

Nuff Said

MG

[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: MasterGreen ]

[javelin]

Nicely put fireflybob. MG, be careful how you post, you know how sensitive us pilot types are :D

[Capt PPRuNe]

As this thread has now reached over 100 replies I am closing it due to the limitations of the software when handling long threads.

Feel free to restart a new thread with the same title Mk II