Military licence

[tartare]

Question:
If a private pilot has a PPL, a commercial pilot has a CPL etc. is there literally a military equivalent MPL or MPL(H) with different type ratings appended as per civillian licences?

[moggiee]

In a word: NO

In practice, the nearest thing I can recall is "Cat Card" which isn't a card at all but is a little book detailing a transport crew member's qualifications.

[Army Mover]

I recall going out to an Army Gazelle helicopter at Edmonton International to rescue a pilot/crewman after they got into a heated discussion with the RCMP about the fact the pilot couldn't produce a licence to fly said helicopter.

[Juan Tugoh]

From the Air Navigation Order:

Flight crew licence requirement – Exception for members of HM Forces
58 A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United
Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person
is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval,
military or air forces.

[Torque Tonight]

Cannot speak for other countries, but in the UK, military pilots do not hold pilot's licences - it is an entirely separate system of regulation. This can make the transition into civil aviation on retirement from the forces harder than it deserves to be.

[vecvechookattack]

Cannot speak for other countries, but in the UK, military pilots do not hold pilot's licences

Apart from the 3 pilots on my Squadron who do. But you are correct in stating that the UK military do not have to have civilian licences....But they may do.

[Rigga]

Contrary to TT's statement - I believe it makes the transition to Civil Licences much clearer by requiring proof of experience at all the levels requested by a military applicant, giving a positive view to the licence approver for his assessment.

Aviation Licencing authorities are not there to help people get one just because they want one - even us techies have to 'earn' them.

And when you've got one you tend to keep it "...because you're worth it."

[Torque Tonight]

Vec, would I be right in guessing that those three pilots have attained their licences independently in preparation for leaving the forces, rather than being issued licences based solely on their military training and holding them for the purpose of being a military pilot. The trend towards civvy registered, military operated aircraft may muddy the waters slightly, but AFAIK, military pilots of these aircraft still do not hold a professional civvy pilot's licence (in their official capacity).

Rigga, the current system can result in situations where an (ex-) military pilot of greater experience can be at a disadvantage to a civvy pilot of lesser experience when it comes to applying for a civil licences. In a just world when 'wings' are awarded they should probably come with a CPL, but we all know the effect that would have had on long term retention - possibly not such a concern now as a result of the latest cuts.

[Trim Stab]

In a just world when 'wings' are awarded they should probably come with a CPL


Why? Award of a CPL is not just a test of a pilot's ability to control an aircraft, it also requires that a pilot has learnt, understands, and has passed an exam on civilian regulations. As these are not taught in the military syllabus, why should award of "wings" also include award of a CPL? The two qualifications are different.

Besides, as no less an authority as BEagle has pointed out in another thread, on award of "wings" even ME-streamed pilots do not have enough PIC hours to qualify for a CPL.

[Rigga]

TT,
Same in my world - you just have to get over it and do the right things - or not get a licence.

[LFFC]

Trim Stab,

Why? Award of a CPL is not just a test of a pilot's ability to control an aircraft, it also requires that a pilot has learnt, understands, and has passed an exam on civilian regulations. As these are not taught in the military syllabus, why should award of "wings" also include award of a CPL? The two qualifications are different.


I think you’ll find that military pilots, who routinely operate in controlled airspace and at civilian airports across the world, are every bit as cognisant with civilian regulations as their civilian counterparts!

However, just as the Secretary of State for Transport (through the CAA) has to demonstrate to EASA that UK's civilian pilots conform to certain standards, I would suggest that the Secretary of State for Defence (through the MAA) should do the same for the UK's military pilots.

Once that principle is accepted, then proper accreditation will be easy.

If the MAA or MOD doesn’t do so, then what are EASA to think?

[60024]

I believe the Luftwaffe pilots have licences, which they have to carry with them and which can be revoked.

[Trim Stab]

I think you’ll find that military pilots, who routinely operate in controlled airspace and at civilian airports across the world, are every bit as cognisant with civilian regulations as their civilian counterparts!


I think you are missing the point.

A PPL/IR can also legally operate in controlled airspace, and at civilian airports across the world, but will have no idea at all about (for example) performance regulations for public transport operations, all weather operations regulations, air law, etc because a PPL has not studied all the theoretical material required for issue of a CPL.

As UK military pilots also do not study the same theory as civil pilots how could the MOD argue to EASA that the qualifications conform to the same standards?

[LFFC]

Trim Stab,

As UK military pilots also do not study the same theory as civil pilots how could the MOD argue to EASA that the qualifications conform to the same standards?

Very easily! The military pilots that operate the aircraft that you hint at, do indeed study the subjects that you talk about. They have to - it's their business. Indeed, they routinely have to go into detail that many civilian pilots wouldn't have come across since their training days; for example, the level of ops support provided to a military pilot on a one-off flight to somewhere in Africa isn't a patch on what BA pilots would get flying from London to New York - so they are often on their own to do trim sheets, perf A calculations, aircraft turn-rounds, flight plans and the whole range of other things required, from scratch, to keep the show on the road.

As regards the choice of diversion airfields and weather factors; again, the rules that govern military crews in peacetime are now all but identical to civilian regulations. Even ETOPS considerations are on the way for some crews. So you see, there really is little difference for the military crews that we're talking about.

Admittedly, fast-jet pilots will need to study some new subjects, that weren't previously relevant to them, before they move across to flying the big kit in the environment that we're talking about; but my experience is that they learn quickly. :)

[Rigga]

I think the point is that all military pilots are treated the same, as are all military Techies. They (we) all come from the same basic background and have the same ethos bred into them. Some old habits will need to be quelled.

It took me two years to drop my military way of thinking and accept often better ways of doing things.

Either way, you still have to meet their rules and they dont have to give you a licence.

Many times I've watched them slowly sit back... and wait.

[NutLoose]

I totally agree with Rigga....... From an Engineers point the difference legality wise and legislation wise are miles apart, even the skill set differs. Whilst in LaLa Land ( EASA) the allowances to get dispensation on exams has widened, (of which I oppose) the simple fact is it is a totally different world and set of rules..... Somewhere along the line a benchmark point has to be set, Whilst a VC10 pilot or a Tristar Pilot would no doubt easlily convert across to the likes of a Ryanair (cringe) 737, as they are or tend to be operating in the civilian environment, a Tornado or Hawk Pilot would be a different kettle of fish, as they are not operating as such to civil standards........... you have to set the benchmark somewhere and to be honest, to allow issue for one such as transports and not for the other would set a double standard, so you all have to jump through the same loops...............

Oddly enough I operated to the same principals as you guys when I was still in the RAF, in the belief that it should be a straight across transition, but having worked on both sides of the fence now, I can and do see the reasoning between the two and the need to "re-qualify" for want of a better word, whilst we all fly and operate aircraft, a lot of civilian flying and the way it works is totally alien to the military way.......... the problem is, you cannot show or it is very hard to show that to a Military pilot or Engineer when they haven't gone through the process of transiting from one to the other and seen for themselves the differences, probably why Rigga and myself, who have are saying so..

Look on the bright side, you will only hopefully need to do one hop, I have had to do two, from a RAF Sootie to a Licenced Aircraft Engineer ( A and C) and then to an EASA B1 and C... another slight difference in the RAF is you tend to hold one type or possibly 2 on your current experience, I hold over 200 Aircraft and engine types on my licences!!!!!!!!!

[Torque Tonight]

I think the Air Law / Performance comment is a bit of a red herring as your average military pilot should be able to pass those exams after a couple of days of swotting and still have a better working knowledge of the subject than a civvy abbo who's just done 6 months of groundschool but has no flying experience.

In my opinion the overall level of piloting ability required to qualify for wings is far in excess of the CPL standard (and I feel qualified to comment as I've done both). The hoops that must be jumped through and the associated expense for a mil pilot to gain an fATPL is unfortunate when you consider that the frontline military pilot has demonstrated a far greater level of competence and experience than the dozy 18 year old who is reluctantly pushed towards the licence by his daddy (of which there are many). A CPL for the appropriate 'stream' of aircraft would not be unjust. However, it's not going to happen so we needn't get our knickers in a twist over it.

[charliegolf]

Look at it the other way: Bloggs asks, "Do I have to do absolutely everything in the Basic Flying Training syllabus, I am a CPL you know?"

Love to be a fly on the wall when that one is asked.

CG

And, no, it's not different!

[Blacksheep]

There's something that springs to mind as I read through these posts.

There's no such thing as a "civilian licence".

There's an FAA licence, a New Zealand licence an Australian licence and so on ad infinitum. These licences are certainly not universally interchangeable even though all the pilots may be performing basically the same job in the same airspace. It has nothing to do with experience, flying ability or even knowledge. Its all about the syllabus and what each regulatory body feels is important in their own operating environment.

While I was sitting in the waiting room at Redhill I overheard a conversation between several pilots waiting for their "Performance A" examination. An indignant Canadian CPL holder was complaining that he had to take the exam even though he already held a Canadian CPL on the same type of aircraft as he was to fly on the UK register. After much discussion it came to light that this Canadian fellow was re-sitting - having failed "Performance A" on two previous occasions.

[Thone1]

Not just the Luftwaffe.

Army and Navy do as well, and so do I.

With 3 checkrides (for the Navy Sea Kings), you have to renew them every year.
Required is the IF Check plus a "standards check". We in the SAR world additionally do a "status check".

Bust your stand check and your license is gone.

Conversion to a civilian ATPL (H, IFR) license is a different matter.
More than 1000 hours in a multi crew, multi engine: Air Law exam and your done.
Less than 1000: Air Law, Power and Performance and Flight Planning gets you that ATPL.
Our big advantage obviously is that we hold an IF rating.

Thomas

[Trim Stab]

for example, the level of ops support provided to a military pilot on a one-off flight to somewhere in Africa isn't a patch on what BA pilots would get flying from London to New York - so they are often on their own to do trim sheets, perf A calculations, aircraft turn-rounds, flight plans and the whole range of other things required, from scratch, to keep the show on the road.

When the RAF does need to plan a flight of that nature, would it ever be advantageous from a operational point of view if 2 Group aircraft had an AOC and the crews had civilian licences? I am just interested whether the additional diplomatic obstacles that military flights presumably have to overcome on flights across some countries could be mitigated with parallel qualifications.

[LFFC]

Nope, no one bit! In fact, even if the crew was civilian and the aircraft was civilian owned and registered, if it was on State business, then it would fall outside of the Chicago Convention (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/iasl/chicago1944a.pdf).


Article 3 (b). Civil and State aircraft. Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft.


I thought you knew about Air Law?

[Trim Stab]

I'm just interested in how the MOD's "whole force" doctrine can be applied imaginatively. The Chicago convention dates from 1944 when definitions of state and non-state aircraft were clearly defined - the definitions have been blurred since then.

Could 2 Group have any operational advantage in obtaining overflight authorisations if it obtained an AOC and licensed it's crews?

[LFFC]

No.

About the closest you can get to that sort of synergy is what Airtanker are trying to achieve.

The trouble is that the Chicago Convention (CC) is as alive today as it was in 1944; it's the basis of all modern civilian air transport operations. However, a strict line has to be drawn between those civilian flights and State flights which have to be arranged outside of the CC. Airtanker planned to walk the tightrope between the two.

[Hueymeister]

I had a 'Flugshein' with the Luftwaffe..tried to convert to CPL(H) on release from prison 'Kriegsgefangener' as we were called...CAA said...'non' :sad:

[Rigga]

TT Said:

"I think the Air Law / Performance comment is a bit of a red herring as your average military pilot should be able to pass those exams after a couple of days of swotting and still have a better working knowledge of the subject than a civvy abbo who's just done 6 months of groundschool but has no flying experience."

And with that testament of arrogance...I rest my case m'lud.

[Torque Tonight]

Easy tiger. Like I said, I've experienced both mil and civvy flying training at a first hand so I feel qualified to comment; that is my opinion, whether you like it or not.

In my case, Air Law was taken after about 20hrs of studying in the two days before the exam. I passed respectably, the reason being that a significant proportion of the syllabus was already familiar working knowledge to me as a military pilot. Other subjects have even greater overlap and taking exams, once again, in PofF, Nav etc really is like pulling teeth.