military CPL requirements
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the reply, Beags.
Is the CAP 409 simply the civvy logbook? How can I put Mil flying in there as no ac I have ever flown (except perhaps the Hawk) has been civvy rated?
It does seem that there is a lot of talk about requirements for CPL/(f)ATPL in our crewroom at the moment. Not because people want to leave, more to hold an insurance policy.
Is there still a requirement to have 100hrs night, or is this bypassed by the scheme?
Sorry if this info is in the bumf, I must have missed it.
Thanks,
HKF
Is the CAP 409 simply the civvy logbook? How can I put Mil flying in there as no ac I have ever flown (except perhaps the Hawk) has been civvy rated?
It does seem that there is a lot of talk about requirements for CPL/(f)ATPL in our crewroom at the moment. Not because people want to leave, more to hold an insurance policy.
Is there still a requirement to have 100hrs night, or is this bypassed by the scheme?
Sorry if this info is in the bumf, I must have missed it.
Thanks,
HKF
Sorry, that should read CAP407. Yes, it's the civvy logbook.
I suggest that you tot up all your military flying to date, including the relevant taxying time up to the specified limit, then 'bring it forward' to a CAP407, certifying that is correct. (Anyone who tried to bend their time to give themselves an advantage would then be guilty of making a false declaration, of course). Then just enter your military flights from then on as stated in para 4 of part 1 of your CAP407. That's what I did - except that I couldn't be ar$ed to add the taxying time as I had plenty of hours already.
Re, night flying, yes, for an ATPL you need 100 hrs as either PIC or PIC U/S (e.g. co-pilot's night leg as Op pilot). For a CPL, you need only 5 hours or an existing PPL Night Qualification.
You can be granted a Night Qualification if you are a QSP and have met the full 5 hr Night Qualification requirements during military flying. But, astonishingly, there are some pilots who graduated with their Wings having never flown an aeroplane solo at night! They could not therefore be granted such credit....
It really is worth downloading or getting hold of a copy of LASORS for your crewroom; also it's worth downloading a copy of JAR-FCL 1. But it's very heavy reading!
I suggest that you tot up all your military flying to date, including the relevant taxying time up to the specified limit, then 'bring it forward' to a CAP407, certifying that is correct. (Anyone who tried to bend their time to give themselves an advantage would then be guilty of making a false declaration, of course). Then just enter your military flights from then on as stated in para 4 of part 1 of your CAP407. That's what I did - except that I couldn't be ar$ed to add the taxying time as I had plenty of hours already.
Re, night flying, yes, for an ATPL you need 100 hrs as either PIC or PIC U/S (e.g. co-pilot's night leg as Op pilot). For a CPL, you need only 5 hours or an existing PPL Night Qualification.
You can be granted a Night Qualification if you are a QSP and have met the full 5 hr Night Qualification requirements during military flying. But, astonishingly, there are some pilots who graduated with their Wings having never flown an aeroplane solo at night! They could not therefore be granted such credit....
It really is worth downloading or getting hold of a copy of LASORS for your crewroom; also it's worth downloading a copy of JAR-FCL 1. But it's very heavy reading!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Beags, but I have another question about your reply [yes I know, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people]. Does this mean that if I put my mil flying into a CAP407, including all the (noduff) taxi time, then I bypass the 75 hour max taxi time allowance? Or do I put the Mil Flying with the 75hr taxi time limit in as 'certified correct' then any further mil flying acrues normal taxi time above the limit?
Many thanks for your forbearance.
Many thanks for your forbearance.
I don't think that it's ever been put to the test. If you transfer your no-duff military logbook time including up to the 75 hr of taxi time as your 'carry forward' figure, that should be OK. But any further military time which you record in your CAP407 should be as per the CAP407 instuction - i.e. chock-to-chock. Which is why it's always worth recording the exact off-chocks and on-chocks times (to nearest 5 minutes), not just lazily adding 10 min to each end of the take-off and landing time to keep Ar$ecoat Ops happy in the journey log ('Diary')!
Let's say yoou decide to start a CAP 407 from next Monday. Tot up your military flying plus allowed taxy time (not >75 hours max taxy time), enter it as the 'carried forward' figure and sign the declaration. But from Monday onwards, if you fly say 1030/40 to 1540/1550, then that would go down as 5:00 in your military logbook, but the CAA requires you to enter it as 5:20 in a CAP407..... You would only be following their requirement, after all!
I wouldn't take this as 100% guidance if you are at all close to the limit; however, if the CAA tried to quibble with hours recorded in accordance with their instructions, it wouldn't take a very expensive lawyer to make them back down!
Let's say yoou decide to start a CAP 407 from next Monday. Tot up your military flying plus allowed taxy time (not >75 hours max taxy time), enter it as the 'carried forward' figure and sign the declaration. But from Monday onwards, if you fly say 1030/40 to 1540/1550, then that would go down as 5:00 in your military logbook, but the CAA requires you to enter it as 5:20 in a CAP407..... You would only be following their requirement, after all!
I wouldn't take this as 100% guidance if you are at all close to the limit; however, if the CAA tried to quibble with hours recorded in accordance with their instructions, it wouldn't take a very expensive lawyer to make them back down!
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. Just a note to say that most of us now in the civvy world record flight times (chock to chock) to the minute, especially if we have the ability to print that information out from the aircraft's own systems.
I didn't bother adding taxi time to my RAF hours (I subsequently worked it out to nearly 1000 hours!) as I didn't need to. The 75 hour 'limit' is new, but only applies to corrections to military logbooks. Time logged in the CAP407 according to the CAA's pinciples should always be chock to chock. So, if your entire career had been logged in a CAP407 (or 407-compliant computer programme), all of it would be chock to chock and all that time would count!
I didn't bother adding taxi time to my RAF hours (I subsequently worked it out to nearly 1000 hours!) as I didn't need to. The 75 hour 'limit' is new, but only applies to corrections to military logbooks. Time logged in the CAP407 according to the CAA's pinciples should always be chock to chock. So, if your entire career had been logged in a CAP407 (or 407-compliant computer programme), all of it would be chock to chock and all that time would count!
Exactly as I see it, scroggs.
Plus CAP 407s are much easier to fill out than military logbooks and don't require the infamous monthly and annual summaries!
To get hold of one, either use one of the pilot shops on-line or call round to the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome's Flying Club!
Plus CAP 407s are much easier to fill out than military logbooks and don't require the infamous monthly and annual summaries!
To get hold of one, either use one of the pilot shops on-line or call round to the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome's Flying Club!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South England
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading LASORS, it looks like if you do add the taxi time and then continue filling in a CAP 407 as suggested then this cannot be counted towards the mil accreditation scheme, ie it will not bring you any closer to the magic 2000 hours, however for licence issue purposes it will count, so therefore you could have only 1425 mil hours plus the 75 taxi time, makes enough for initial issue of the ATPL.
Therefore unless you have 2000 hours in your mil logbook excluding taxitime you will not get ATPL theory examination exemptions and must do all 14 exams.
This takes 12 months with Bristol and involves 4 weeks of groundschool plus 2 weeks for exams.
It seems that the only benefit of adding the taxitime is to increase your total flying hours, to make your hours total more attractive to employers or to reach 1500 hours for the initial issue of ATPL, unless I have missed something that is!
Therefore unless you have 2000 hours in your mil logbook excluding taxitime you will not get ATPL theory examination exemptions and must do all 14 exams.
This takes 12 months with Bristol and involves 4 weeks of groundschool plus 2 weeks for exams.
It seems that the only benefit of adding the taxitime is to increase your total flying hours, to make your hours total more attractive to employers or to reach 1500 hours for the initial issue of ATPL, unless I have missed something that is!
Last edited by abbotyobs; 30th Aug 2006 at 18:21.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South England
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mil accreditation scheme set up by BEagle and others is excellent of course, but as a FJ mate it does take a long time on the frontline to build up the hours to 2000! Servicability rates etc.
I wonder how long it takes compared to our Gp 2 brethren?
The best FJ place for hours building is probably on the windy Isle!
I wonder how long it takes compared to our Gp 2 brethren?
The best FJ place for hours building is probably on the windy Isle!
Last edited by abbotyobs; 30th Aug 2006 at 18:19.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure an AAC pilot I knew once got his CPL(H) in recognition of his hours a couple of years ago. The chap in question didn't have the 2000/1500 mentioned in LASORS, and wasn't interested in an ATPL - he just wanted a basic CPL(H). Believe it or not, not everyone wants to get an ATPL(H) + IR; some people just want to operate single pilot VFR only.
Has anyone else heard of something similar, and if so, what they managed to do to get it? Or am I completely mistaken? I tried speaking to the CAA recently, but just got completely fobbed off ('Look at LASORS' they said, except LASORS doesn't cover this point).
I can understand why from the RAF's point of view they don't want people to get an ATPL without having put the time in, but it seems ridiculous of the CAA to equate those with just less than 2000TT (but not necessarily much less) with those who have 200TT.
Any thoughts?
SBW
Has anyone else heard of something similar, and if so, what they managed to do to get it? Or am I completely mistaken? I tried speaking to the CAA recently, but just got completely fobbed off ('Look at LASORS' they said, except LASORS doesn't cover this point).
I can understand why from the RAF's point of view they don't want people to get an ATPL without having put the time in, but it seems ridiculous of the CAA to equate those with just less than 2000TT (but not necessarily much less) with those who have 200TT.
Any thoughts?
SBW
Yes.
Meet the LASORS D6.3 criteria:
A minimum of 2000 hours flying experience on
military aircraft, including at least 1500 hours as
1st pilot of helicopters (can incl. max. 500 hours
under supervision, as P2 or in a flight simulator).
Meet the LASORS D6.3 criteria:
A minimum of 2000 hours flying experience on
military aircraft, including at least 1500 hours as
1st pilot of helicopters (can incl. max. 500 hours
under supervision, as P2 or in a flight simulator).
Don't forget this link folks. Always a good start point for UK military pilots thinking about licensing ..... which is probably most of them!
http://www.tgda.gov.uk/CAA_Accredita...reditation.htm
..... or you could just continue to use the services of BEagle! Never seems to tire of offering his depthless knowledge ..... thank goodness.
How about putting up an English Heritage blue plaque on the wall of a Sqn at an airfield somewhere in Cotswoldshire. I can just see it now:
http://www.tgda.gov.uk/CAA_Accredita...reditation.htm
..... or you could just continue to use the services of BEagle! Never seems to tire of offering his depthless knowledge ..... thank goodness.
How about putting up an English Heritage blue plaque on the wall of a Sqn at an airfield somewhere in Cotswoldshire. I can just see it now:
BEagle
1822 - Forever
For services to military aviators hankering for a civvy license.
Hurrah!
1822 - Forever
For services to military aviators hankering for a civvy license.
Hurrah!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not strictly true Beags.
From LASORS 2006 G2.3
A QSP(A) who does not meet the eligibility criteria of
either accreditation scheme, will be required to
demonstrate the appropriate level of theoretical
knowledge by passing ALL of the theoretical
knowledge examinations at ATPL level. However,
credit will be given against the requirement to complete
an approved course of theoretical knowledge
instruction prior to attempting the examinations.
Applicants will be required to undertake theoretical
knowledge instruction as determined by the Head of
Training of an approved training provider.
And, more importantly,
Important Note: In order to qualify for a JAR-FCL
ATPL(A), a QSP(A) is required to show a minimum of
500 hours flying experience on ONE type of military
multi-pilot aeroplane (MPA), and pass an IR(A) skill test
on that same type. The following types in current
military service are considered to be multi-pilot
aeroplanes for this purpose:
Andover BAC 1-11
BAe 125 BAe 146
Jetstream T3 Hercules (C1/C3 and C4/C5
variants)
Sentry Nimrod
VC10 Tristar
So pass all the exams (no need to do the full course, or at least it's at the mercy of the Head of Training) get 500 multi time on a approved MPA, pass the IR and that's it.
You do get something for less than 2000 hrs.
From LASORS 2006 G2.3
A QSP(A) who does not meet the eligibility criteria of
either accreditation scheme, will be required to
demonstrate the appropriate level of theoretical
knowledge by passing ALL of the theoretical
knowledge examinations at ATPL level. However,
credit will be given against the requirement to complete
an approved course of theoretical knowledge
instruction prior to attempting the examinations.
Applicants will be required to undertake theoretical
knowledge instruction as determined by the Head of
Training of an approved training provider.
And, more importantly,
Important Note: In order to qualify for a JAR-FCL
ATPL(A), a QSP(A) is required to show a minimum of
500 hours flying experience on ONE type of military
multi-pilot aeroplane (MPA), and pass an IR(A) skill test
on that same type. The following types in current
military service are considered to be multi-pilot
aeroplanes for this purpose:
Andover BAC 1-11
BAe 125 BAe 146
Jetstream T3 Hercules (C1/C3 and C4/C5
variants)
Sentry Nimrod
VC10 Tristar
So pass all the exams (no need to do the full course, or at least it's at the mercy of the Head of Training) get 500 multi time on a approved MPA, pass the IR and that's it.
You do get something for less than 2000 hrs.
No, with <2000TT you do not qualify for the LASORS D3.3 accreditation for 'experienced QSPs'.
The 500 hrs on Multi-Pilot Aeroplanes (MPA) you quote is merely one of the requirements you require for an ATPL - you must still have 1500 TT (this can include military taxying time up to the stated limit). See LASORS G1.2. Less than 1500TT and you are limited to a CPL.
Basically, less than 2000 military TT and you have to go by the same route (including all the exams) as anyone else applying for a civil licence. Having 500 TT MPA merely means that, as soon as you reach 1500TT, you will be able to 'unfreeze' your CPL/IR and extend your licence privileges to include those of the JAR-FCL ATPL(A). Which is hardly worth the effort unless you really think you will get a CAT command with only 1500 hrs TT!
The 500 hrs on Multi-Pilot Aeroplanes (MPA) you quote is merely one of the requirements you require for an ATPL - you must still have 1500 TT (this can include military taxying time up to the stated limit). See LASORS G1.2. Less than 1500TT and you are limited to a CPL.
Basically, less than 2000 military TT and you have to go by the same route (including all the exams) as anyone else applying for a civil licence. Having 500 TT MPA merely means that, as soon as you reach 1500TT, you will be able to 'unfreeze' your CPL/IR and extend your licence privileges to include those of the JAR-FCL ATPL(A). Which is hardly worth the effort unless you really think you will get a CAT command with only 1500 hrs TT!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all that.
But that does mean you don't need the 1000 hrs captaincy under the accredited experienced QSP, which is proving hard for guys to crack, esp in 1 tour on aircraft such as the VC10.
I would say 90% of guys getting the ATPL is through doing the exams, IR on the jet.
Few can afford to hope that they hit the 2000 hrs before the 38 point. And 2 guys I know of have fallen foul of that (posted to Ascot with 1 year to go and short of the time required)
But that does mean you don't need the 1000 hrs captaincy under the accredited experienced QSP, which is proving hard for guys to crack, esp in 1 tour on aircraft such as the VC10.
I would say 90% of guys getting the ATPL is through doing the exams, IR on the jet.
Few can afford to hope that they hit the 2000 hrs before the 38 point. And 2 guys I know of have fallen foul of that (posted to Ascot with 1 year to go and short of the time required)
What? Are you really teling me that people aren't reaching 2000TT before 38 in the multi-engine world? The original estimate was that most pilots would qualify at around 34. Which meant, for example, a co-pilot's tour, a captain's tour, CFS and a UAS tour, then back for a second captain's tour. However, with the virtual demise of the UAS world and more overseas adventurism by Trust-me-Tone, I would have thought that most people would reach the 2000/1500/1000 requirements sooner these days?
The scheme was intended as a recruting and retention incentive - not a quick route to a 'free' ATPL after only a few years of service. It was to encourage people to stay in long enough to meet the requirements, not to help them leave early.
But the contemporary atmosphere is such that people seemingly can't wait to leave and are still using the 'old' route (14 exams etc) to CPL/IR.
Hardly surprising, given the plethora of embuggerances and crippling overstretch one reads about these days....
The scheme was intended as a recruting and retention incentive - not a quick route to a 'free' ATPL after only a few years of service. It was to encourage people to stay in long enough to meet the requirements, not to help them leave early.
But the contemporary atmosphere is such that people seemingly can't wait to leave and are still using the 'old' route (14 exams etc) to CPL/IR.
Hardly surprising, given the plethora of embuggerances and crippling overstretch one reads about these days....
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure (in fact know) that some people are getting the hours, but with some people getting a ground tour when they just need a couple of hundred hours to make it, the rest of us are not taking the chance.
Many would rather do the exams and the IR on a jet that they are familiar with than have to do the exams in the last year of service when you've been stiffed with a ground tour and then have to go to Exeter and pay £5,000 to get the IR on a Seneca.
Just not worth waiting till your last tour to see if you get a flying one or not to make the hours.
Many would rather do the exams and the IR on a jet that they are familiar with than have to do the exams in the last year of service when you've been stiffed with a ground tour and then have to go to Exeter and pay £5,000 to get the IR on a Seneca.
Just not worth waiting till your last tour to see if you get a flying one or not to make the hours.
