Will military aircrew need licences to fly military aircraft post April 2012?

[Alex Whittingham]

A question, really, as I can't satisfy myself with the answers I'm getting. Currently the military don't need licences to fly military hardware. The legal exemption, I believe, is in the ANO (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf) Part 6, para 58 which says:

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.

EASA Part FCL comes into force on the 8th of April 2012, I believe as EU law, and will be applied to licensing in the UK from that point on. I am told it will have primacy over UK law and therefore, I assume, the ANO.

I can find no exemptions in Part FCL that allow military pilots to continue operating without a licence and my tentative conclusion is that military aircrew may well therefore need EASA licences to operate military aircraft from 2012.

I might be completely wrong here, and all the advice I can get from those that do understand EASA is 'not to worry'. I would feel more comfortable if I could find the chapter and verse. Anyone know more about this, or can anyone point me to the exemption that I may have missed?

[Daysleeper]

Define "military aircraft".

There is no requirement for a "licence" to operate a military registered aircraft, there is one if you operate a Civil Registered aircraft even if you are the military. At the moment however, the CAA exemption exists to allow the Tutor/king Airs and so on to be operated by service pilots without civil licences. However even at present there is a debate as to whether this applies outside the UK. From 2012 that exemption to operate civil aircraft without licences will have to be from EASA rather than the CAA unless... you assume that any mil operated aircraft is a "state" aircraft regardless of what is painted on it and as such EASA has no authority.

[blagger]

Military aircraft fly to the MOD regulations (JSP550 series) not the ANO

[VinRouge]

How will this then affect the A330 MRT bearing in mind the civilian contractural arrangements and registration?

[Alex Whittingham]

I'm really thinking about military registered aircraft, but the Tutors and King Airs may be wrapped up in this. I know military aircraft operate under MOD regulations but there must be some legal basis for allowing them to do so. Will that legal basis continue to be valid if it is in conflict with EU law?

I could rephrase the question as 'Where is the legal exemption that allows military pilots to operate military registered aircraft without a licence and will that exemption be overridden by Part FCL?'

[Madbob]

I'll be willing to bet a penny to a pound (£) that if military licences are issued the won't be recognised by the JAA/CAA/EASA mobs! There'd be too much of a rush for the exit it they did!

MB

[Torque Tonight]

Would EASA have jurisdiction over military aircraft? I can't see that working. There are a lot of military manuals and documents which will have to be torn up and rewritten in quick time if that is the case. I find it very hard to keep up with the changes coming with EASA, many of which seem ill thought out.

[BEagle]

Military aviation is outside the scope of the Basic Regulation (216/2008), so part-FCL simply doesn't apply:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/216extract.jpg

The Basic Regulation would interest anyone who find bus spotting too exciting a hobby, or the AP&FS Newsletter too stimulating a read....:\

[Alex Whittingham]

Brilliant, thanks Beags. I couldn't see the wood for the trees.

[Fareastdriver]

On the 6th June 1961 as part of the course I took a Provost T1 from Ternhill to Church Fenton, (shutdown) to Shawbury and back to Tern Hill. Everybody did this and after we had given the Flight Commander a few quid our PPLs arrived in the post.

Problem solved.

[Chris Griffin]

Alex,

Indeed, as confirmed by other posts, we can only operate via state exemption which is recognised by other states. The problem is now arising that other states are now withdrawing consent and refusing to recognise this exemption.

I understand that this issue is currently being staffed by the MAA due to a few mil pilots failing to produce "licences from a relevant authority" whilst in one of the aforementioned states.

Apparently one suggestion is a "military licence" which would be broadly comparable with an ATPL, yet EASAs argument is believed to be why bother with an inferior licence when the ATPL is the recognised industry standard.

In short it is merely a matter of time until mil ME pilots will require a licence of sorts. The problem will come when someone at the MoD is asked to pay for hundreds of ATPLs.

[Fareastdriver]

So when the President of Russia, having just completed a major international conference in Paris, is told by some jumped up Eurocrat that he cannot fly back to Russia on his military IL 62 because his crew have not got civil licences, is going to have to go to the Air France desk and buy a ticket.

I cannot see that happening and I cannot see Air Force One doing it either.

[clunckdriver]

A Civilian Lic to fly a military aircraft?!!! Dear God, never have I heard such total crap! By the same logic Rynair pilots will need to pass a Weapons Leaders course? In Canada, whenever anybody wants to protest about the creeping hand of "Big Government" the EU is always used a the prime example of this, Im sure they will have a field day when this gets around!

[Daysleeper]

The president of Russia / USA probably wouldn't be flying in a civil owned civil registered but mil operated aircraft. They'd fly a proper state owned mil reg'd aircraft and are untouched by any of this.

[Co-Captain]

This begs the question: Do we rush to do our bridging packages before next April, or wait to see what happens? Who knows, perhaps we'll be able to pick up a license from stores? :E

(Not that I'm thinking of leaving...)

[Arty Fufkin]

If you qualify for a bridging package, GET IT DONE.........NOW!

There is nothing that gives a warmer, fuzzier feeling than an ATPL in your back pocket. Have a look at the pension and Virgin recruitment threads then tell me it isn't so.

Rumour has it that the KC30 conversion course has possession of a frozen ATPL (or equivalent depth of groundschool and flying hours) as minimum entry standard. if that turns out to be the case, 45 Sqn will have to raise their game (or block book each douse on to Bristol GS - Eh Alex?) and maybe even run a KC30 lead in course as we used to have on the Trimotor to top up hours before the course.
If you're going to do all that, might as well give them a licence to make it all above board.

[Just This Once...]

We have been looking at this for a while and the current bottom line is that military aircrew / aircraft come under the 'State' exemptions, so no change for Europe. As hinted at earlier the 'equivalency' laws for ICAO are becoming strained as some nations (outside of Europe) have withdrawn all 'State' exemptions.

See the relevant AIP for the countries that do not recognise State aircraft (as we may have UK Mil aircraft based in one of them). Another one of these 'State revoked' countries did indeed demand to see the 'relevant crew licences' from a 2 Gp type; this issue now sits with the MAA.

[Torque Tonight]

Perhaps they can point to the First pilot Day/Night scribble at the front of the logbook and say 'This is a licence issued by the relevant authority'. If everyone in th RAF is issued with an ATPL there'll be no-one left before long.

[High_Expect]

Gents (BEagle & Alex Whittingham), I've heard a rumour that post 2012 there will be a requirement of a 45-50hrs flying course for the issue of the frozen ATPL (rather than just hours A/R to pass the IR + Skills Test). Is this true? I'm aware of the whole bridging course issue, but unfortunately I'm currently some 400hrs P1 short. If the 50hr course rumour turns out to be true I may as well just do 'all 14' now using ELC's. Any ideas? Or news from 22Gp as to if anyone is working on the bridging course case for EASA.

Regards,

High_Expect

[BEagle]

High_Expect, I have no knowledge concerning military accreditation proposals for EASA part-FCL pilot licences.

It is up to HQ22Gp to formulate proposals and put them to the CAA.

Currently, the whole CAA / EASA situation is a complete dog's breakfast. EASA redefined its definitions after the CAA has made a start on conversion proposals, then changed its mind again - wasting everyones' time in the process.....:rolleyes:

In addition, industry is very concerned that the CAA will rush headlong in to the EASA abyss without taking the maximum advantage of available 'opt out' periods. Which might suit the CAA, but perhaps not industry. Or chaps in the miitary seeking accreditiation....:\

[Chris Griffin]

Beagle,

from what I understand the Apr 12 date is when all opt outs cease to be and EASA has primacy.

Could be wrong but thats what CAA chap told me 10 days ago.

[Si Clik]

Also coming next year - EASA Class 1 and 2 Test Pilot's licences.

CAA have already taken the 2 year opt out, but it is coming.

Grandfather rights will apply..or so we think.
:rolleyes: