Civilians and RAF Brevets

[S-Works]

Civilians being given RAF Brevet in order to fly military aircraft. discuss.......

[TelsBoy]

What's the context? VGS? Not sure what we're supposed to discuss in all honesty.

[sharpend]

I and many others worked incredibly hard over many years within the RAF to earn mine. Why should civilian be given RAF wings, surely they should wear wings appropriate to their own training. Did not the ATS in WW2 wear different wings?

[tmmorris]

Not VGS, there’s always been a separate badge for that. Not AEF, there’s a separate (rocking horse doodoo) badge for that.

[TelsBoy]

So who are the civilians and what aircraft are they flying with mil wings?

[GeeRam]

Did not the ATS in WW2 wear different wings?

Think you mean ATA......

If so, yes, the ATA had their own wings, but uniform was also slightly different in other ways as well.

[VX275]

Not VGS, there’s always been a separate badge for that. Not AEF, there’s a separate (rocking horse doodoo) badge for that.



As Civilian Gliding Instructor on a VGS I qualified to wear the RAF Senior Gliding Instructor Badge. So yes some civilians can and did wear an RAF Brevet, probably just not the one the bose-x was thinking about.

[Davef68]

Are we talking AirTanker here? Or MFTS?

[Lynxman]

Civilians don't need a brevet in order to fly a UK military registered aircraft. RA 2101(1) para 2.d only requires a minimum of:




He possesses ►an appropriate◄ civil licence or is in possession of, or has previously been awarded, a foreign military qualification that has been approved as equivalent by the Aviation Duty Holder or AM(MF).

[Roland Pulfrew]

Dinosaur alert:

But I'm with sharpend on this.

Many years ago, when the RAF jealously guarded its own standards and traditions, there was a "senior responsible owner" (to use modern parlance) that set the rules for flying badges. I think it was (maybe still is) laid down in Queen's Regs. For some reason a civilian company wanted their aircrew to be given RAF flying badges without having done (IIRC) the "requisite courses of RAF flying training" for which the award of a flying badge was necessary. Unfortunately, the SROs post was disestablished in one of the many (never-ending?) reorgs and subsequent SROs (if such a thing exists) obviously haven't been as protective of standards/tradition and we seem to have decided that the flying badges are no longer hard-won, prestigious badges and we will give them to any Tom, Dick or Harry. I for one, cannot see what is wrong with civilian instructors or civilian-employed sponsored reserves wearing the "wings" of their parent company. Only those who have obtained their flying badges through completion of military flying training, be that RAF, FAA or AAC, should wear military wings.

[BEagle]

This appears to be an attempt by one of the snake-oil contractors to circumvent Part-FCL requirements. They think that, by giving civil flight instructors the RAF Flying Badge, they can take advantage of the Air Navigation Order applying to the flying of civil registered aircraft by members of the Armed Forces in the course of their duties.

However, a civil pilot must hold an appropriate pilot licence to fly for the contractor. This means a Part-FCL pilot licence, valid Part-MED medical for the privileges to be exercised and a Part-FCL Type or Class Rating for the aircraft on which the privileges will be exercised.

Giving the RAF Flying Badge to a 'plain vanilla' civil pilot (i.e. one who is not a Sponsored Reservist or other reservist) very clearly does NOT entitle the pilot to the exemption of the Air Navigation Order 2016:

Flight Crew Licence Requirement - exception for members of HM forces:

145 - 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.

Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.

And if an aeroplane is being flown out of sight of the surface below 3000ft amsl, the pilot is technically not maintaining VMC, thanks to Part-SERA, so will be under IFR....for which FCL.600 requires an Instrument Rating.

[roving]

I and many others worked incredibly hard over many years within the RAF to earn mine.

It was much easier in my dad's day.

After one's name was drawn out of the hat, one travelled from Liverpool on a liner across the Atlantic to Canada. There one was offered a choice of half a dozen holiday camps in the USA -- in his case he had watched lots of cowboy movies and thought one in Texas would be fun.

The stay at the holiday camps was to be for some 6 months during which one was to be pampered and fed on prime steak with all the trimmings..

Unlike Disneyland there were not going to be roller coaster rides. but that was not a problem because as an added treat, one was to be taught how to fly bi-planes, and if one did't make a horlicks of that, monoplanes, by civilian pilots who had mainly learnt their skill crop spraying. If one was lucky one would fly to the instructors ranch for home cooked lunch and admire his gun collection.

At the end of the six months, if one had attended all the Church Parades and not made unwelcome passes at the female instructors, one was to be commissioned and given a brevit.

Then the whole process reversed. One would travel back to Canada and from there back to Liverpool on the voyage, as a newly commissioned pilot, one was to be invited to dine with the Captain.

Once back in the Uk, if one had looked at one or two of the holiday camp library books, especially the ones with pictures of aeroplanes, one was to be posted to be trained as a flying instructor, the reasoning being that newly minted pilots and especially those with an acquired transatlantic accent were better at teaching others, than battle fatigued British pilots.

[Fareastdriver]

one was to be commissioned and given a brevit.

..and for a lot of them there career was noted by its brevity.

[Lima Juliet]

A slight point of order - a “Brevet” is either a paper certificate or an acting rank.

The correct term is a FLYING BADGE!

There is a very good book on the subject by Wg Cdr (Retd) “Jeff” Jefford; extracts of which appear in the RAF Historical Society Journals:

https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/rafhistoricalsocietyjournals.cfm

Page 103 of the following is what you need to know:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/833B1A33_C966_6277_570550917797C407.pdf

PS. Authority to wear or issue a Flying Badge is in QRs. Currently the sponsor is Asst Director Flying Training (ADFT) although this will soon sit under the RAF Flying Branch & Trade Advisors (Branch Sponsors for the older amongst you). They work directly for the Head of the Flying Branch who is a highly respected 2-star Chinook pilot. :-)

[Fareastdriver]

Branch Sponsors for the older amongst you

???????????????????????

[Wensleydale]

A slight point of order - a “Brevet” is either a paper certificate or an acting rank.


And FC Brevet is an Italian Football Team.

[Stuff]

A slightly bigger point of order:

as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.

Would imply that the naval and air forces aren't military!

[Lima Juliet]

QRJ727. Eligibility for Flying Badges. (1) The term "flying badge" is used to include all badges worn by personnel who have successfully completed a prescribed course of flying training. The initial award of a flying badge is on a provisional basis. It is not deemed to be fully earned until the holder has successfully completed an operational conversion or equivalent course and has joined an operational or nonoperational unit in the capacity for which the provisional badge has been awarded...

It also states the authority for award and wearing of such badges. I would be surprised if civilian pilots were to be allowed to wear such. However, “civilian qualified” pilots serving in the military have been authorised to wear Flying Badges. In the earliest days of the RFC the Royal Aero Club FAI Certificate was the qualification standard for the award of such a badge. As we know Sponsored Reservists have been awarded RAF Flying Badges who hold ATPLs and an A330 type rating. Even Sir Winston Churchill was awarded his Flying Badge as he gained his RAeC “ticket” whilst serving in the British Army prior to WWI.

On the RAF Museum website it says about Churchill
He took flying lessons before the First World War and 29 years after his first solo flight, he won his RAF wings [in 1942]. It is also said that he created the ‘wings’ badge of the RAF. The legend says that he had just been to France where he had bought a Napoleonic Eagle brooch as a gift for his wife. He was in discussion with Captain Murray Sueter [in 1913] about designing a special badge for pilots. ‘Something like this?’ he said and held the brooch against Sueter’s sleeve.

However, to award a military Flying Badge to civilians who are not in the military and thus do not wear HM Forces’ uniform should not happen...:=

QR206 lists the Flying Badges in issue and the ones that are obsolete. The Air Cadet staffs’ Glider Pilot and Gliding Instructor badges are not listed, so I guess as they are not mentioned in QRs then they are not de facto aircrew Flying Badges??

[langleybaston]

QUOTE:

A slight point of order - a “Brevet” is either a paper certificate or an acting rank.

I beg to differ.Brevet rank is or was advancement by rank for extra-regimental purposes.

As an example, a Captain granted a brevet of Major was a Captain within regimental duties, but a Major when, for example, serving on a Court Martial, or commanding a mixed force where all the officers were captains or subalterns.

[Lima Juliet]

LB - I believe you are correct in comparison to my clumsy definition. But one thing it certainly isn’t is a Flying Badge! :ok:

[Right Hand Thread]

Civilians being given RAF Brevet in order to fly military aircraft. discuss.......


Not so long ago a certain aviatrix was hung out to dry for just this, and rightly so according to the majority of this and other forae.

'Walting' is the term I believe.

[rolling20]

At the end of the six months, if one had attended all the Church Parades and not made unwelcome passes at the female instructors, one was to be commissioned and given a brevit.
Then the whole process reversed. One would travel back to Canada and from there back to Liverpool on the voyage, as a newly commissioned pilot, one was to be invited to dine with the Captain.



Very well put! I think the majority of newly commissioned young pilots stayed on in the States as instructors, rather than return home? Creaming was alive and well back then it seems

[BEagle]

Notwithstanding all the irrelevant drift on this thread, the simple fact remains that merely giving the RAF Flying Badge to a civilian pilot (assuming that the pilot is not a military reservist) does NOT mean that ANO Art. 145 may be applied.

I gather that this pieced of MFTS nonsense has now attracted the attention of the Regulator...:hmm:

[Lima Juliet]

BEags

You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”

However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
http://warnesysworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Prefect-first-training-sortie-from-Barkston-Heath-1-8-17-RAF-Cranwell-800x445.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4391/36453988586_5ffc9b00ea_c.jpg

PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!

[S-Works]

BEags

You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”

However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
http://warnesysworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Prefect-first-training-sortie-from-Barkston-Heath-1-8-17-RAF-Cranwell-800x445.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4391/36453988586_5ffc9b00ea_c.jpg

PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!

Being flown by a mix. of civvie and military pilots.

[cynicalint]

Beagle,
Good point and well made. Conversely, if it is thought permissible to award an RAF flying badge to allow circumvention of the ANO, should the award of an RAF flying badge circumvent the need for RAF pilots to follow CAA requirements to fly as civil pilots?

[BEagle]

Lima Juliet, the Ford Prefects are still 'aircraft registered in the United Kingdom' nonetheless.

Thus to fly them for ab initio flight instruction, a civilian pilot will need a Part-FCL pilot licence, valid Part-MED medical certificate, SET Class Rating, IR to fly other than in VMC, Aerobatic Rating to fly aeros and (presumably) an FI certificate. The SET Class Rating, IR and FI certificate will need to be revalidated by civil Examiners, as will the Part-MED medical certificate.

Of course if the RAF still had its own aeroplanes and QFIs, things would be much simpler....

No matter what the calibre of the civil pilots employed by an MFTS contractor might be, the issue is that the legal requirements of Part-FCL cannot be ignored for commercial convenience and the contractor's bottom line.

[Lima Juliet]

BEags

Just to clarify my thoughts, I don’t believe that an aerobatic rating would be needed though as the Grob TPs are NOT operated under EASA but under national provisions within the ANO as a Mil reg aircraft. As you probably know there is no requirement for an aerobatic rating in Annex II aircraft on Permit to Fly, the Mil airworthiness system it is operated under would be deemed the same. Further, I don’t believe the TPs are subject to any EASA Part regulations at all with respect to maintenance, licensing, operations or medicals? So actually a nationally accredited licence would suffice for the non-mil pilots rather than the more stringent EASA regs that you have pointed out.

[BEagle]

'Nationally accredited licences' will not be valid for flying EASA aircraft after 8th April 2018.....

The G120TP is not an Annex II aeroplane, so a civil pilot must meet EASA regulatory requirements. Which means the relevant Part-FCL pilot licence, Type / Class Rating, Instrument Rating if flying under IFR, Aerobatic Rating if flying aerobatics etc etc.....

These 'stringent EASA regs' are no more than are required for civil flight instructors at somewhere like Kidlington or Jerez, so why should a civilian flight instructor flying for an MFTS contractor be considered exempt?

Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?

Turning to another MFTS aircraft type, have any of the Cranwell-based Phenom 100s flown yet, apart from their delivery flights?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?"


Indeed - but more likely it's about cost - possibly the contract doesn't specify EASA requirements and so (in the wonderful world of Govt outsourcing) it's now an additional extra????

[Chris Kebab]

What's the current plan for EASA regs post Brexit in the UK?

[Wander00]

Chris Kebab - "That's another fine mess you have got me in to"

[Davef68]

As a point of (possibly related) interest, how does this leave Qinetiq and ETPS, whose new aircraft, such as PC-21s, appear to be all going onto the civil register?

[BEagle]

Pilots of HM Forces flying civil aircraft may do so in accordance with ANO Art.145 - which does NOT apply to civil pilots.

Regarding EASA, the likelihood is that the UK will remain an EASA MS after the stupidity of the plebiscite, just as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein now are.

[Chris Kebab]

Thanks BEagle; and I presume we will have to pay handsomely for that "privilege"?

[Fortissimo]

MOD does not operate a licence scheme and all flying ops are conducted under a SofS derogation from the ANO. This means it is OK for a civilian without a licence to operate an MOD (military registered) aircraft provided the activity is managed and approved by MOD (via the Services or a contractor) and takes place under the derogation (iaw the MAA Regulatory Publications). However, you would expect the risk management process to require that instructors had an appropriate licence.


What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.

[hoodie]

I'd like to know the background to the OP's question.

Can he describe scenario that he's talking about?

[ahwalk01]

Are we talking AirTanker here? Or MFTS?

Yeh I'd be interested in that - Thomas Cook certainly didn't have one on their uniform :p

[Tankertrashnav]

Slightly off topic but some years ago there was a scheme to recruit civilian instructors to become RAFVR QFIs in the university air squadrons. A rather nice design of wings was produced, similar to the RAF pattern but with blue feathers and the letters 'VR' in the centre. In the event the course was so tough that only a handful made it through and got to wear the wings. I bought a load from government surplus supplies and sold them in my shop - wish I had kept a pair.

[Lynxman]

MOD does not operate a licence scheme and all flying ops are conducted under a SofS derogation from the ANO. This means it is OK for a civilian without a licence to operate an MOD (military registered) aircraft provided the activity is managed and approved by MOD (via the Services or a contractor) and takes place under the derogation (iaw the MAA Regulatory Publications). However, you would expect the risk management process to require that instructors had an appropriate licence.


What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.



See post #9 above. They do require an 'appropriate' licence.

[1771 DELETE]

Civilians being given RAF Brevet in order to fly military aircraft. discuss.......

If you post a thread like this, it would be helpful if you would answer some questions raised.
Personally, i dislike postings that end in "Discuss"

[ahwalk01]

Slightly off topic but some years ago there was a scheme to recruit civilian instructors to become RAFVR QFIs in the university air squadrons. A rather nice design of wings was produced, similar to the RAF pattern but with blue feathers and the letters 'VR' in the centre. In the event the course was so tough that only a handful made it through and got to wear the wings. I bought a load from government surplus supplies and sold them in my shop - wish I had kept a pair.

Awesome, I'd love to have done something like that, where is your shop TTN?

[Right Hand Thread]

If you post a thread like this, it would be helpful if you would answer some questions raised.
Personally, i dislike postings that end in "Discuss"


It puts me in mind of children who ask “What if....?” they had broken a window, flushed the goldfish down the trap, eaten all the cake before deciding whether or not to confess their sins.

[S-Works]

Sorry, I have been away for a few days so only just catching up.

I am a referring to civilian pilots working for MFTS. The discuss comment really was just that, to raise discussion and opinion on it. I already know what I think.

[Herod]

Call me old-fashioned, (wings parade May'66), but as far as I'm concerned you ONLY get a set of RAF * pilot's wings when you have PASSED the appropriate RAF training course. (*Insert RN, AAC, USAF, RAAF etc.)

[ahwalk01]

A B200 is a B200, it flies just the same Civil or Military

[Heathrow Harry]

Call me old-fashioned, (wings parade May'66), but as far as I'm concerned you ONLY get a set of RAF * pilot's wings when you have PASSED the appropriate RAF training course. (*Insert RN, AAC, USAF, RAAF etc.)


I agree - otherwise it's what m' legal friends call "passing off"

There are plenty of other winged badges you could wear

[Danny42C]

Point of Order: the WWII "Arnold Scheme" trainees, having completed the "Aviation Cadets" course in the US Army Air Corps, were awarded an Air Corps Pilot's Badge (in the form of a silver brooch), identical, I think to the current USAF wing. I still have mine, but it was not permitted to wear it with RAF uniform (although foreign decorations can, with permission, be worn).

On our return to Canada, we were issued (without ceremony) a pair of RAF Wings from Stores (the only issue pair), after that you had to buy your own - and at 5/6 a pair (£11 in today's money), it wasn't funny. How did we fit in the system ?

Some of the earlier Posts here may give the impression that all our pilots were then commissioned at "Wings" stage . Not so, some 4/5 were promoted to Sergeant (at 13/6 a day, better off than many newly commissioned Pilot Officers). Many of these would be commissioned "in the field" later in the war.

I believe that qualified RAF "drone" operators are awarded a flying badge almost indistinguishable from the Pilot's, except that the laurel wreath is green rather than brown. Likely to deceive, I would say, even if not calculated to do so.

[roving]

Greetings Danny,

You trained in 1941. After the US declared war at the end of that year, the existence of Royal Air Force pilots u/t in the USA was no longer a "secret" and even the US flying instructors wore brevets. The year book for my dad's course shows a number of them wearing their brevets.

[Tankertrashnav]

Awesome, I'd love to have done something like that, where is your shop TTN?

Sorry ahwalk, I sold the shop 6 years ago, and don't have any nice badges left, RAF or otherwise.

[Lima Juliet]

'Nationally accredited licences' will not be valid for flying EASA aircraft after 8th April 2018.....

The G120TP is not an Annex II aeroplane, so a civil pilot must meet EASA regulatory requirements. Which means the relevant Part-FCL pilot licence, Type / Class Rating, Instrument Rating if flying under IFR, Aerobatic Rating if flying aerobatics etc etc.....

These 'stringent EASA regs' are no more than are required for civil flight instructors at somewhere like Kidlington or Jerez, so why should a civilian flight instructor flying for an MFTS contractor be considered exempt?

Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?

Turning to another MFTS aircraft type, have any of the Cranwell-based Phenom 100s flown yet, apart from their delivery flights?

BEagle

These Grob TPs are on the MILITARY REGISTER and have nothing to do with EASA. Just because the TP is able to be operated under EASA rules does not mean that it has to be. Think about it, there are plenty of aircraft that can fly in the UK, could be operated under EASA rules and regs but do not - like a Russian registered Cessna, a FAA registered Piper, a US military registered King Air or a RNZAF 757. None of these aircraft need Part-FCL licences even though they could all be operated under EASA rules if they wanted.

The Phenom 100s are military registered as well...:rolleyes:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/09/1l-image-91.jpg

[S-Works]

So what licence would a civilian fly then under? They can’t fly them under a military brevet as they are not in the military. Who would prosecute in the event of error? The military have no authority over a civilian so they can’t in the same way the CAA would not prosecute a military pilot.

Does this mean that MFTS pilots get a magic get out of jail free card if they are flying a military registered aircraft without a licence?

[BEagle]

...an FAA registered Piper

A visiting US citizen with an FAA licence could fly his/her N-reg 'Piper' in the UK for private purposes. But the rules changed last year regarding FAA-licensed pilots flying G-reg aircraft or those resident in EASA MS.

Lima Juliet, perhaps you are unfamiliar with ORS4 No.1228? Or the Aircew Regulation?

Has that Phenom yet been flown by anyone at Cranwell? I wonder what the attitude of the insurers would be towards it being flown by people without TRs?

[S-Works]

None of the Phenom have flown. They are still on the G eg and still have no RTS for being put on the military register.

[Danny42C]

roving (#49),

Your Mr Rodreick has me speechless ! AFAIK (and I was there till March '42), the "Arnold" Primary Schools were staffed by civilian instructors in civilian clothes; their Basic and Advanced Schools with all US Army officers.

The "British Flying Training Schools" which were set up at the same time as the "Arnold" Scheme (mid-1941) had US civilian instructors in civilian clothes to begin with: the intention (after Pearl Harbor) was to replace them progressively with "creamies" (RAF Pilot officers) from their own or Arnold or Canada-trained graduates. However, although the Arnold Scheme ended in 1943, the BFTS operated to the bitter end, so what happened after I left I do not know (do you know your Dad's Class Number - or dates ?)

This character is just a joke, never seen anything like it, it's "fancy dress", I suspect ! (Wot, no "scrambled egg" ?)

Danny.

[Lima Juliet]

BEagle

Elsewhere on this thread it states

MOD does not operate a licence scheme and all flying ops are conducted under a SofS derogation from the ANO. This means it is OK for a civilian without a licence to operate an MOD (military registered) aircraft provided the activity is managed and approved by MOD (via the Services or a contractor) and takes place under the derogation (iaw the MAA Regulatory Publications). However, you would expect the risk management process to require that instructors had an appropriate licence.


That information is correct. RA2101 refers and it states an “appropriate licence” is required - that does not mean it has to be an EASA one, a national one or from another country will be fine if deemed sufficient by the Duty Holder. Indeed they will even accept those trained by another foreign military.

You make not like it old fruit, but dems da rules. It isn’t a SofS for Transport matter but a SofS for Defence one...he ultimately owns the risk.

[BEagle]

Lima Juliet, back in October you wrote: I agree, CPL/ATPL FIs should have a type rating if flying the Phenom. It would be a huge oversight and a matter for the CAA Enforcement Team if they didn’t!

So why have you now reversed this opinion?

Foreign licences? Quite how a 'Duty Holder' can assess whether some Parker pen licence allegedly issued by some '$hithole country', to use a Trumpism, is 'appropriate' is beyond me!

For civil pilots in the UK, the CAA is the only regulator which can confirm the definition of 'an appropriate licence' - and it will be very surprising if that means anything other than a CPL/ATPL, TR, IR and Class 1 medical for CPL/ATPL FIs flying the Phenom.

[Lima Juliet]

BEags

Because originally I thought they were going to be flown on the G-Reg! :ok: But it appears they are going to be military registered and so that changes the position somewhat.

[cynicalint]

Danny42c and Roving, why would Mr Rodreik wear an RAF pilots wings on his hat as well? Adds credence to Danny's protests and fancy dress

[S-Works]

BEags

Because originally I thought they were going to be flown on the G-Reg! :ok: But it appears they are going to be military registered and so that changes the position somewhat.

How? A civilian is a civilian.

[Ormeside28]

Here we go again. At 1 BFTS Terrell Texas when I was on 18/19 Course from October1943 to June 1944 the majority of our instructors were civilians. They held honorary commissions so were saluted and called Sir. Our CO was a RAFWing Commander Pilot. He had an assistant CFI, a flight lieutenant, an RAF gunnery officer, an RAF navigation officer all pilots. The Primary CFI was Mr Roderick. He was an honorary wing commander.The chief flying instructor, also honorary Wing Commander was Mr Van Lloyd. They were saluted and called Sir. No problem! They woreUSArmy shirts and trousers. On their hats were facsimile RAF wings but without the crown and with BFTS as badge. They were all very experienced pilots and excellent instructors, and all standardised to RAF training requirement staff.

[Danny42C]

Ormeside (#61),

Your Mr Rodreick still has me puzzled. 1943 was long after my time, would've thought that by then the BFTS would be staffed with all RAF Officer (and SNCO ?) instructors: they were effectively RAF Units operating on American soil. Not so, it now appears.

All instructors (in my time) were addressed as "Sir" (whether civilian or of lower rank than the pupil).

Mr Rodreick had. you say, an Honorary Commission. In which Service ? On his collar he has what might be (hard to see with my old eyes) the silver oak leaf of a USAAC Lieut-Colonel. The three bars on the shoulder may be intended to be a representation of Wing Commander rank braid - but why ? Plenty of real braid avaiable. These look like airline First Officer slides. On his shirt he has what looks very like a RAF Pilot's brevet. Can't be sure about the thing on his cap.

Either way, he would be entitled to wear the uniform (inc cap) of his honorary rank (we have a lady [TC-T] who has appeared here [on "Private Flying" Forum] in full rig as a Lieut-Commander RNR (hon), as she is quite entitled to do). He had no need to appear in this get-up - if he were an honorary Wing Commander, he would be entitled to wear the uniform, surely ?

Changing the subject: what would be the average "wash-out" rate in the BFTS in your day, Ormeside ?

Cheers, Danny.

[Ormeside28]

Danny. All our flying instructors were civilians. The RAF staff, gunnery officer, navigation officer, PTIs, CO And Sqn Lhr Admin all lived off base. There was never a problem with ranks with the civilian instructors. No ex pupils came back as instructors. There was a U S Flight surgeon and staff and US Air Force detachment for aircraft maintenance and for looking after the American cadets. I think that maybe 25 per cent were eliminated from the courses.

[langleybaston]

Surely the Air Force List would sort ut these "Hons"?

[roving]

It is truly remarkable that two WWII pilots, both of whom trained in the USA, and whom between them have clocked up nearly 190 years, are not only able to recall their training in the USA some 75 years ago, but are able to share it here on this thread.

[BEagle]

Notwithstanding the fascinating insights into World War II training practices, I would just like to make the point that this thread does not concern the 'award' of the RAF Flying Badge to civil pilots upon completion of a training course.

Instead it refers to the alleged attempt being made by some civilian contractor to circumvent the regulatory requirements for civil instructors, who are NOT members of HM forces, by handing them the RAF Flying Badge - as though that trumps all other requirements - so that the contractor can take advantage of an Air Navigation Order article which ONLY refers to members of HM forces. This is so that they can avoid having to pay for the issue and maintenance of the relevant civil ratings.

Could we stick to the scope of that topic, please?

[pr00ne]

Er,

BEagle,

Where do these contractors get hold of the RAF Flying Badge to hand out in the first place?

[BEagle]

Err, Tovarich pr00ne, perhaps here: https://www.rafmuseumshop.com/raf-pilot-wings-cloth-badge.html ?

Or perhaps eBay - they'll do anything to cut costs...

[beardy]

so that they can avoid having to pay for the issue and maintenance of the relevant civil ratings.

It's not necessary to supply and maintain a rating. Ryanair don't. That's not to say Ryanair is necessarily a good model to follow.

[roving]

For those who thought my narrative on the speed of moving from cadet to QFI was wide of the mark.

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/taking-flight/personal-experiences/second-world-war/squadron-leader-ian-glover.aspx

[brakedwell]

Err, Tovarich pr00ne, perhaps here: https://www.rafmuseumshop.com/raf-pilot-wings-cloth-badge.html ?

Or perhaps eBay - they'll do anything to cut costs...

My wife has a couple of my old brevets in her sewing box :ok:

[Wander00]

BW - so does mine.


Beardy - not sureI understand the point about Ryanair and type ratings - surely they have to comply

[BEagle]

Wander00, these days virtually no airlines are prepared to pay to train their novice pilots. Even if they do, this usually means that the pilot will have to repay the cost of obtaining the Type Rating by being bonded and on a lower pay scale in his/her first few years with the airline.

However, the likes of Ryanair require pilots to pay for their own Type Ratings before they apply for a job.....

I don't know whether they also have to pay for their own TR revalidations in the flight simulator as well, but it wouldn't surpise me.

Gone are the days of Hamble and Prestwick and their high quality in-house training for those selected for the airline...

Yes, it's an utter scandal, resulting from the policies of LoCo airlines.

[Wander00]

aah, thanks, misunderstood. I understand and appreciate the point you now make. Wonder where Unfair Contracts terms would fit into that scenario

[beardy]

Ryanair and most loco training is very good indeed and in many respects more acute than the isolated, almost incestuous, BA system.

It's just a matter of who pays.

[BEagle]

beardy, I certainly agree about Ryanair training standards. High quality and they equip their pilots well for the secondary airports they are often obliged to use.

[Danny42C]

Ormeside (#63),

Thanks - as many as that ? But still better than the 40% carnage in the Arnold Scheme ! How did the US "Kay-Dets" mix in with your LACs (did they try any "hazing" on each other - or on you?), and were their "scrub" rates better or worse than ours ? Were you all doing a 200 hour Course then, and if so what did the Americans think of the obvious fact: that their own Basic Schools were clearly both wasteful and unnecessary ?

Did they regard their BFTS trained pilots as in any way inferior to their own three-stagers ? (Our OTUs could see no difference at all). Your:.."No ex pupils came back as instructors".. ? The Arnold Scheme took in 7,000 plus LACs, we got about 4,500 pilots back plus 550 or so (all Commisssioned), kept on for a further twelve months out there as "creamed off" Instructors. So whom did they instruct ? One at least turned up at Craig Field (Arnold Advanced) when I was there, but the story was that they were intended to replace the civilians in the BFTS (which makes sense).

As for your civilian Instructors: either they should have remained in mufti, or if deemed necessary (ie a RAF requirement - why?) given appropriate RAF honorary Commissions and put in proper uniform - not in these "Fred Karno" outfits (IMHO).

"Curiouser and Curiouser", said Alice.

Cheers, Danny.

[S-Works]

Er,

BEagle,

Where do these contractors get hold of the RAF Flying Badge to hand out in the first place?

Its not the handing out of a physical brevet. Squadron badges include whatever brevet. Its the concept of signing of a civilian pilot with a QCT on type with basically a logbook signature and stating that they can fly the type because they have done a QCT and that grants them a brevet so they meet the requirements of RA2101........

[Ormeside28]

Danny.. we had 20 per cent of our courses American Aviation Cadets. We all happily mixed in together. After a very short time we had the Americans calling each other by their Christian names and swinging their arms! We all got on fine, they regaled us with horror stories of hazing and eating square meals. Nothing like that happened at Terrell. Apart from the constant threat of elimination on the whole my time at Terrell was most enjoyable. Certainly our instructors were the tops and we certainly earned our wings. Missing out basic on the Vultee didn’t seem to matter and we did get 150 hours on the Harvard. We were also very lucky in having such great rapport with the locals in Terrell which continued, in my case, for many years.

[roving]

Ormeside28

Was W/C Moxham still OC when you trained at 1 BFTS?

[Wander00]

US cadets still eating in squares when I visited the Academy in 65. Probably still are!

[BEagle]

:rolleyes:

Notwithstanding (some of) the fascinating insights into World War II training practices, I would just like to make the point that this thread does not concern the 'award' of the RAF Flying Badge to pilots upon completion of a training course.

Instead it refers to the alleged attempt being made by some civilian contractor to circumvent the regulatory requirements for civil instructors, who are NOT members of HM forces, by handing them the RAF Flying Badge - as though that trumps all other requirements - so that the contractor can take advantage of an Air Navigation Order article which ONLY refers to members of HM forces. This is so that they can avoid having to pay for the issue and maintenance of the relevant civil ratings.

Could we stick to the scope of that topic, please?

[roving]

Any scheme which saves money has to be a plus. Is there any evidence that it is lowering standards?

As the posts about WW2 training in the USA demonstrate there is nothing novel about civilian instructors being given brevets. The precedent having been set, why should it not be followed?

Is there anything else to discuss on the point?

[Shackman]

Surely this goes a bit deeper than 'just' the award (?) of an RAF Brevet; this must presumably mean that these civilian instructors will fly under Military Flying Regulations, which then opens up their 'ability' to instruct ALL elements of the course. This would no doubt include low flying and other military specific evolutions which cannot be done under the ANO, but which they would have had little, if any, previous experience. They would not just be teaching 'circuits and bumps' and basic IF - assuming that the students will receive live flying in those other disciplines rather than a bit of time in a part-task trainer!!! No doubt a win-win for MFTS and their accountants - much cheaper to hire civilian FIs than ex-mil QFIs (and QHIs?). The first CFS standards visits could be interesting.

[roving]

Is there any evidence that ex mil QFIs (and QHIs) have turned down such employment because of the remuneration being offered?

[Ormeside28]

Hello roving. Wing Commander Moxham was the C.O. at Terrell when I arrived in October 1943, shortly followed by Wing Commander Tomkins who was the C.O. When I left in June 1944. They did a lot of check rides with the pupils and were both very good COs. There is a very good BFTS Museum in Terrell. Worth a look on the internet.

[roving]

Hello roving. Wing Commander Moxham was the C.O. at Terrell when I arrived in October 1943, shortly followed by Wing Commander Tomkins who was the C.O. When I left in June 1944. They did a lot of check rides with the pupils and were both very good COs. There is a very good BFTS Museum in Terrell. Worth a look on the internet.

Thanks Ormeside28. One of my Facebook "friends" is involved with the museum and got me a group photograph of my dad's course, which shows him sitting close to the centre on the front row.

Moxham was very kind to my dad. Having completed his flying instructor's course, my dad requested a posting to a front line operational squadron flying Spitfires. That request was refused and he was destined to be posted to a training unit in the UK. Moxham, then back in the UK, heard about this and said "Leave it with me". True to his word he arranged for my dad's posting to 208 Squadron, then in Syria (I think) and about to re-equip with MK V (and later MK IX) Spitfires, before being posted to Italy in 1944.

[Danny42C]

Ormeside (#79),

Nice to hear that you "civilised" your American colleagues ! As to Terrell, you BFTS lot had it "jammy". We poor Arnoldites only had eight weeks in any one spot, and that usually in some God-forsaken camp in the back of beyond, with no town in sight.

You were (in most cases) on or near the a town airport, settled for the whole six months in one locality, finding it much easier to develop social contacts (particularly with the younger, smaller, prettier and sweeter-smelling of the townsfolk !)

Grrr ! Danny.