Military Licencing vs Civilian Licencing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Licencing vs Civilian Licencing
G'day all,
Trying to find out info about reciprocal licencing ie getting civvy quals for mil quals already held. I know a PPL is available after grad, and CPL after conversion, but what about endorsements etc? And especially IRT? Do you have to go and sit a complete civvy IRT and IREX? Seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing if that is the case, and seems fairly pointless. Eg, a Pig driver blats around in a high performance aircraft at night in IMC etc, then when he takes the kids flying on weekends in a bugsmasher he can't change cat to IFR etc and is exceptionally limited by this. Anyone care to enlighten me please?
Trying to find out info about reciprocal licencing ie getting civvy quals for mil quals already held. I know a PPL is available after grad, and CPL after conversion, but what about endorsements etc? And especially IRT? Do you have to go and sit a complete civvy IRT and IREX? Seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing if that is the case, and seems fairly pointless. Eg, a Pig driver blats around in a high performance aircraft at night in IMC etc, then when he takes the kids flying on weekends in a bugsmasher he can't change cat to IFR etc and is exceptionally limited by this. Anyone care to enlighten me please?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL is about all you will get for free.
IRT is not transferrable.
When you think about it, getting endorsements 'gratis' is probably a bad way to go. I personally believe there are enough differences between civvy and mil flying to justify making you go through the tedium of a proper endorsement process.
That goes for IRTs in some ways as well I guess.... although having gone through the process of getting an IREX etc done, I reckon you should be able to get at least military renewals on your civvy IRT.
Don't forget, the pig driver (if you want to go lowest common denominator) blatting around with the coffe maker dude next to him has got some significantly different equipment and a hugely different environment to deal with than the same guy in a Duchess working single pilot with the eldest rug-rat next to him and the wife in the back seat nursing the youngest ruggie as he vomits into a convenient Coles bag....
(That sentence was way too long, but be ******ed if I can work out where the full stop should go!)
If all else fails, wait for your first ground job, then use the Government credit card to go out and get all the endorsements, IRTs and other quals you want! (Keeping to within the credit limit of course)
IRT is not transferrable.
When you think about it, getting endorsements 'gratis' is probably a bad way to go. I personally believe there are enough differences between civvy and mil flying to justify making you go through the tedium of a proper endorsement process.
That goes for IRTs in some ways as well I guess.... although having gone through the process of getting an IREX etc done, I reckon you should be able to get at least military renewals on your civvy IRT.
Don't forget, the pig driver (if you want to go lowest common denominator) blatting around with the coffe maker dude next to him has got some significantly different equipment and a hugely different environment to deal with than the same guy in a Duchess working single pilot with the eldest rug-rat next to him and the wife in the back seat nursing the youngest ruggie as he vomits into a convenient Coles bag....
(That sentence was way too long, but be ******ed if I can work out where the full stop should go!)
If all else fails, wait for your first ground job, then use the Government credit card to go out and get all the endorsements, IRTs and other quals you want! (Keeping to within the credit limit of course)
Cougar.
I did my IREX and CIR last year and there were no concessions. Don't know if it's changed, though.
I was in the same boat -- can fly a P-3 low level IMC and around the world IFR but still had to fly a sh!tty twin to get my rating. The fixed card NDB was a real eye-opener! Hats off to anyone who flies them regularly.
My advice is the same as FishHead's, use the governments money.
Fishy - shouldn't you be studying for tomorrow?
Ruprecht.
I did my IREX and CIR last year and there were no concessions. Don't know if it's changed, though.
I was in the same boat -- can fly a P-3 low level IMC and around the world IFR but still had to fly a sh!tty twin to get my rating. The fixed card NDB was a real eye-opener! Hats off to anyone who flies them regularly.
My advice is the same as FishHead's, use the governments money.
Fishy - shouldn't you be studying for tomorrow?
Ruprecht.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roopy...
1. Of course, you aren't actually trusted to do 'low level IMC' operationally, and
2. How often do they let you out of the circuit to get to do that 'IFR around the world' thing?
Study, schmuddy.... how hard is it to quack and fly and the same time... ducks do it all the time!
I was in the same boat -- can fly a P-3 low level IMC and around the world IFR
2. How often do they let you out of the circuit to get to do that 'IFR around the world' thing?
Fishy - shouldn't you be studying for tomorrow?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: CB, Aust.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20c worth
Having flown and instructed on both sides of the fence in aircraft of various sizes, and having been a military instrument rating examiner, I would suggest that the current rules are about right. (I would even dare to suggest that some more training on weight and balance would be a worthwhile addition to the ADF pilot's knowledge before you try and blast off in a light twin using your CPL for example). After upteen years and 6000 hours in the military I recently did my ATPL exams and was greatful to learn more again!
There are significant cultural differences between the operations, which as a military pilot I did not understand until I had attempted both systems. There is a massive difference between operating in a multi crew environment and single pilot IFR, and remember that the avionics and systems at your disposal in civil light aircraft are often, regrettably, of a lower standard of serviceablility and accuracy than what you are used to, and every aircraft you fly will have a different fit and different switches.
The IREX is an exercise in semantics. My colleagues and I passed well first go after three days study. Many questions seemed unrelated to pure instrument flying, but were things that you should be aware of if you venture out into the world on your own particularly in the smaller flying schools and aircraft hire operators that . They often seem keen to throw the aeroplane at you before you are really ready (if you have that many hours in your logbook you must be able to handle this little aeroplane!). They still kill you just as dead. Without proper training in the civil way of doing things you will inevitably contravene the civil aviation regulations and harm your chances of that airline career. Can that pig driver finish his light aircraft trip at night under the VFR for instance?
I am not trying to have a go at anyone, but suggest you approach the experience of civil flying with an open mind. Anyway, thats about 40 cents worth.
There are significant cultural differences between the operations, which as a military pilot I did not understand until I had attempted both systems. There is a massive difference between operating in a multi crew environment and single pilot IFR, and remember that the avionics and systems at your disposal in civil light aircraft are often, regrettably, of a lower standard of serviceablility and accuracy than what you are used to, and every aircraft you fly will have a different fit and different switches.
The IREX is an exercise in semantics. My colleagues and I passed well first go after three days study. Many questions seemed unrelated to pure instrument flying, but were things that you should be aware of if you venture out into the world on your own particularly in the smaller flying schools and aircraft hire operators that . They often seem keen to throw the aeroplane at you before you are really ready (if you have that many hours in your logbook you must be able to handle this little aeroplane!). They still kill you just as dead. Without proper training in the civil way of doing things you will inevitably contravene the civil aviation regulations and harm your chances of that airline career. Can that pig driver finish his light aircraft trip at night under the VFR for instance?
I am not trying to have a go at anyone, but suggest you approach the experience of civil flying with an open mind. Anyway, thats about 40 cents worth.
As I'm rowing in the same boat, I have to agree I think the current situation is about right. There is a big difference between flying around in something with a laser ring gyro guiding the INS and a fixed card (argh!!!) ADF. If you look at the CASA site it has a section there in the licensing section about what quals you can get and if you talk to the guys in Canberra it is actually a set system, its only the rumours that get around that change. The only change I'd like to see is once you have your civvy IFR rating, that mil renewals keep it current.
I agree with Coffee,
I have been on both sides and the environment is totally different. Civvy aircraft (light, not jets or heavies) are generally poorly equipped in comparison to the military and suffer nothing like commonality in areas such as radio layout or even operation.
There are generally no SOPs to fall back on, which add value to the rules and standardise the environment. The Ops manual is a CASA gate to pass through and does not neccessarily do much more than amplify a flight manual and the AIP. The value in conducting an exam (IREX) and then an IRT in the aircraft you will likely fly in IMC is not to be underestimated.
With six IRT renewals in military I found taking a Baron form TOD in IMC to landing after a visual approach at night a bit of a handful, and was entirely grateful for the time I spent being tested.
The civvy standards are quite high (if you shop right) and passing an IRT is not automatic for a military pilot.
I have been on both sides and the environment is totally different. Civvy aircraft (light, not jets or heavies) are generally poorly equipped in comparison to the military and suffer nothing like commonality in areas such as radio layout or even operation.
There are generally no SOPs to fall back on, which add value to the rules and standardise the environment. The Ops manual is a CASA gate to pass through and does not neccessarily do much more than amplify a flight manual and the AIP. The value in conducting an exam (IREX) and then an IRT in the aircraft you will likely fly in IMC is not to be underestimated.
With six IRT renewals in military I found taking a Baron form TOD in IMC to landing after a visual approach at night a bit of a handful, and was entirely grateful for the time I spent being tested.
The civvy standards are quite high (if you shop right) and passing an IRT is not automatic for a military pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies. In no way was i insinuating that civvy flying is worthless etc, nor was i saying that the civvy IRT would be simple. I agree that time on type is important, however i figured that making you sit an actual IRT is a little pointless, when you could just get time on type and go from there (as you guys stated, the actual test is probably one of the best learning opportunities anyway).
My point goes hand in hand with endorsements however. You fly 4 engine turbine in a radar environment every day, yet you don't get a civvy turbine rating?? You don't get night VFR rating? You don't get a radar endorsement? Hmmm.
My point goes hand in hand with endorsements however. You fly 4 engine turbine in a radar environment every day, yet you don't get a civvy turbine rating?? You don't get night VFR rating? You don't get a radar endorsement? Hmmm.
Cougar,
As far as I understand there is no actual "turbine" rating, but there used to be an initial gas turbine exam, which mil pilots were exempt from; this is no longer required for initial turbine endorsement as you get turbine training, etc as part of the whole aircraft endorsement.
You still get plenty of cross over endorsements (type rating) were relevant, i.e aerobatics, formation, winch, external load (for rotary), same aircraft types etc, so it isn't all that bad. Pretty useless if you only have PC-9 and F-111 or similar, but great if you have AS-350, B206, B205; helicopters must be the go!
Gibbo
As far as I understand there is no actual "turbine" rating, but there used to be an initial gas turbine exam, which mil pilots were exempt from; this is no longer required for initial turbine endorsement as you get turbine training, etc as part of the whole aircraft endorsement.
You still get plenty of cross over endorsements (type rating) were relevant, i.e aerobatics, formation, winch, external load (for rotary), same aircraft types etc, so it isn't all that bad. Pretty useless if you only have PC-9 and F-111 or similar, but great if you have AS-350, B206, B205; helicopters must be the go!
Gibbo
This came up a little while back here;
I've just been through the civvy IRT bizzo recently, and I'd say that it's well worth the IREX study to get to know the CAO hours / equipment / type of operation (ie RPT, Charter etc) 'what you can and can't do's'; and if you've only flown the higher performance military machines, it's well worthwhile finding out how limited your options are on one engine in a light twin.
From that point of view, it's not too smart to jump in a lightie without someone demonstrating to you how they go down instead of up on one!
I do feel that it's just CASA revenue raising not to recognise military instructor ratings; granted, we get some concessions with courses of training and hours requirements, but I think if you've been through CFS you can fairly happily claim to know how to instruct to a pretty fair standard and could, given appropriate type time, do the job well.
By the way, Gibbo, that's ex-Army rotorhead Gibbo, I take it... how's it going? Timbo here.
PS Cougar, not suggesting you would jump in a lightie without knowing how to work it; it just surprised me a bit how sad the engine out performance is in them, not having had much to do with them before.
I've just been through the civvy IRT bizzo recently, and I'd say that it's well worth the IREX study to get to know the CAO hours / equipment / type of operation (ie RPT, Charter etc) 'what you can and can't do's'; and if you've only flown the higher performance military machines, it's well worthwhile finding out how limited your options are on one engine in a light twin.
From that point of view, it's not too smart to jump in a lightie without someone demonstrating to you how they go down instead of up on one!
I do feel that it's just CASA revenue raising not to recognise military instructor ratings; granted, we get some concessions with courses of training and hours requirements, but I think if you've been through CFS you can fairly happily claim to know how to instruct to a pretty fair standard and could, given appropriate type time, do the job well.
By the way, Gibbo, that's ex-Army rotorhead Gibbo, I take it... how's it going? Timbo here.
PS Cougar, not suggesting you would jump in a lightie without knowing how to work it; it just surprised me a bit how sad the engine out performance is in them, not having had much to do with them before.
Last edited by Arm out the window; 15th May 2002 at 12:07.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest lesson I got out of the civvy endorsements that I've done is learning how the civvy flying school mentality works.
In a (very) broad way of speaking, the military made me prove that I could fly the aircraft before they let me sign for it. The civvy schools seemed to be happy to throw any aircraft I wanted at me, working on the assumption that I probably knew how to fly it.
It was a bizarre feeling having to ask for more engine failures to practice!
In a (very) broad way of speaking, the military made me prove that I could fly the aircraft before they let me sign for it. The civvy schools seemed to be happy to throw any aircraft I wanted at me, working on the assumption that I probably knew how to fly it.
It was a bizarre feeling having to ask for more engine failures to practice!
Fishy,
I thought your biggest lesson was how to change tyres after they went bang on landing!
Don't you just hate people with memories like that!
Don
Timbo, the twin I fly now goes pretty well on one! And the back enders are a whole lot better looking as well.
I thought your biggest lesson was how to change tyres after they went bang on landing!
Don't you just hate people with memories like that!
Don
Timbo, the twin I fly now goes pretty well on one! And the back enders are a whole lot better looking as well.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
May your long memory be cursed with the fleas of a thousand camels arriving in your backyard....
So I learnt a lot about short field landings and the quality of the tyres whilst flying civvy aircraft......
May your long memory be cursed with the fleas of a thousand camels arriving in your backyard....
So I learnt a lot about short field landings and the quality of the tyres whilst flying civvy aircraft......
What any military pilot needs to know before venturing into the GA world, is that the aircraft you fly could have defects that have gone un-reported by previous pilots. There is a culture in the flying schools and charter operators that perceives those pilots who write up defects in the aircraft maintenance release, as trouble makers. Pilots who have persisted in doing the right and legal thing in writing up snags have been known to lose their jobs. That is unheard of in the airlines and the military.
The end result is that you can climb into a real IFR bomb and never know about it until it gets embarrassing in IMC with a dodgy ADF, huge bearing errors on the OBS, DME inoperative and a flat brake coupled with nose-wheel shimmy. The majority of civilian GA pilots operating the piston light twins (and singles) will do anything to avoid writing up snags - it is almost a matter of pride that some will fly a bomb with airworthiness defects that would scare a normal pilot to death. If you are the next to fly that aircraft, then their attitude is that it is your problem - not theirs anymore.
The end result is that you can climb into a real IFR bomb and never know about it until it gets embarrassing in IMC with a dodgy ADF, huge bearing errors on the OBS, DME inoperative and a flat brake coupled with nose-wheel shimmy. The majority of civilian GA pilots operating the piston light twins (and singles) will do anything to avoid writing up snags - it is almost a matter of pride that some will fly a bomb with airworthiness defects that would scare a normal pilot to death. If you are the next to fly that aircraft, then their attitude is that it is your problem - not theirs anymore.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the window
Just had a military chap join me with a brand new civvy instructor rating and 1800 hours military instructional time and I have to disagree with you entirely; the guy could probably teach on the military type perfectly but in a bugsmasher; he was about on par with all the other 'brand new' instructors. Fortunately, the civvy world DOES NOT recognise military instructor ratings as such for a very good reason.
Centaurus
Your comments are far too general when you are really speaking obout a select few. The majority of civvy operators DO NOT discourage defect reporting at all but the operators do like to keep a tight reign on most things written up for very sound reasons. Just to mention one; we don't have the benefit of writing up a snag and having 10 engineers running out and towing the a/c away and replacing it with a shining new one in 10 minutes AT NO COST. If this other practice IS happening in your organisation, then I suggest you either leave or report it! If you know about it without reporting it, then you are as guilty as the operator who schonks on the maintenance in the first place.
Just had a military chap join me with a brand new civvy instructor rating and 1800 hours military instructional time and I have to disagree with you entirely; the guy could probably teach on the military type perfectly but in a bugsmasher; he was about on par with all the other 'brand new' instructors. Fortunately, the civvy world DOES NOT recognise military instructor ratings as such for a very good reason.
Centaurus
Your comments are far too general when you are really speaking obout a select few. The majority of civvy operators DO NOT discourage defect reporting at all but the operators do like to keep a tight reign on most things written up for very sound reasons. Just to mention one; we don't have the benefit of writing up a snag and having 10 engineers running out and towing the a/c away and replacing it with a shining new one in 10 minutes AT NO COST. If this other practice IS happening in your organisation, then I suggest you either leave or report it! If you know about it without reporting it, then you are as guilty as the operator who schonks on the maintenance in the first place.
Pitch and Break,
As I said, with an appropriate amount of time on type I'd back the CFS training to give anyone a good basis for instructing work.
Having said that, what happens after completion of instructors course, the on-the-job training, so to speak, is the important thing.
Perhaps this person you're talking about instructed only on PC9s and then on his or her squadron type, therefore missing out on some 'bug-smasher' type experience, I don't know. There are a number of military scenarios that would leave the individual without much ab-initio work in a basic piston-powered machine.
The Tamworth CT4 operation, on the other hand, should give military instructors a good grounding in that, albeit not in Cessnas, Pipers or similar.
However, the military instructors course is, like any decent instructors course I'd hope, a grounding in how to get the important facets of a sequence across to a student in a safe and hopefully efficient way. Perhaps you'd agree with me that the majority of an instructor's learning occurs after the award of the rating.
If that's the case, then I think that it's not unreasonable to suggest that a military QFI could claim to have jumped through hoops equivalent to those that CASA prescribes for instructors, and should therefore be eligible for a rating on the basis of that.
But, and it's an important point, I wouldn't say that any instructor should be allowed to jump into a type that he or she is not well acquainted with and pretend to be some kind of instant expert. That's only going to happen with exposure to that machine, and it's up to any flying school operator to make sure that the instructors are up to speed before letting them loose.
As I said, with an appropriate amount of time on type I'd back the CFS training to give anyone a good basis for instructing work.
Having said that, what happens after completion of instructors course, the on-the-job training, so to speak, is the important thing.
Perhaps this person you're talking about instructed only on PC9s and then on his or her squadron type, therefore missing out on some 'bug-smasher' type experience, I don't know. There are a number of military scenarios that would leave the individual without much ab-initio work in a basic piston-powered machine.
The Tamworth CT4 operation, on the other hand, should give military instructors a good grounding in that, albeit not in Cessnas, Pipers or similar.
However, the military instructors course is, like any decent instructors course I'd hope, a grounding in how to get the important facets of a sequence across to a student in a safe and hopefully efficient way. Perhaps you'd agree with me that the majority of an instructor's learning occurs after the award of the rating.
If that's the case, then I think that it's not unreasonable to suggest that a military QFI could claim to have jumped through hoops equivalent to those that CASA prescribes for instructors, and should therefore be eligible for a rating on the basis of that.
But, and it's an important point, I wouldn't say that any instructor should be allowed to jump into a type that he or she is not well acquainted with and pretend to be some kind of instant expert. That's only going to happen with exposure to that machine, and it's up to any flying school operator to make sure that the instructors are up to speed before letting them loose.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Sydney
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arm out the Window
Thanks for your prompt reply and I take onboard every thing you have said however, one statement you made sums up my reservations totally:
"There are a number of military scenarios that would leave the individual without much ab-initio work in a basic piston-powered machine."
I think this statement clearly supports the present procedures which preclude military instructor types from automatically receiving civilian equivalent qualifications without the appropriate testing and proof of qualifications.
"There are a number of military scenarios that would leave the individual without much ab-initio work in a basic piston-powered machine."
I think this statement clearly supports the present procedures which preclude military instructor types from automatically receiving civilian equivalent qualifications without the appropriate testing and proof of qualifications.
Pitch and Break,
I think that I can see what AOTW is saying; is it not true that the operation of the aircraft is a function of the aircraft endorsement and not the instructor rating? Therefore a military instructor would be qualified to teach flying on aircraft for which he/she has an endorsement.
I think giving a military QFI a grade 3 instructor rating with a license as a matter of course is absolutely justified. This is in an environment where we give kids with <500 hours, very little of which is operational (i.e. outside of the cct/training area) the same privilege.
Gibbo
I think that I can see what AOTW is saying; is it not true that the operation of the aircraft is a function of the aircraft endorsement and not the instructor rating? Therefore a military instructor would be qualified to teach flying on aircraft for which he/she has an endorsement.
I think giving a military QFI a grade 3 instructor rating with a license as a matter of course is absolutely justified. This is in an environment where we give kids with <500 hours, very little of which is operational (i.e. outside of the cct/training area) the same privilege.
Gibbo