Missapropriation of RAF Equipment
Guest
Posts: n/a
Missapropriation of RAF Equipment
Does anyone else here feel that the recent use of RAF aircraft by pilots (with civvy IR authorisers on board) to gain thier instrument rating ticket for civialian aircraft AFTER they have PVR'd is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of RAF equipment and resources.
In this day and age where resources are at thier most scarce a recent station cmdr (at a northern air base) took an aircraft up for the sole reason of gaining his civy ticket before he swanned off to a nice cushy (civvy) job down south.
Wrong wrong wrong
In this day and age where resources are at thier most scarce a recent station cmdr (at a northern air base) took an aircraft up for the sole reason of gaining his civy ticket before he swanned off to a nice cushy (civvy) job down south.
Wrong wrong wrong
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
No. It is an entirely legitimate example of the Service taking it's committment to Resettlement Training (or whatever its called these days) seriously and professionally. Having qualified as aircrew, you have served the approriate and stated length of service required before PVR or natural retirement, so your debt is clear, it is the service that is now obligated to make every effort to train and qualify you for a second career, based on you primary employment while serving. This applies to everyone, whatever trade or branch they serve, it just seems more glamorous if it happens in a cockpit rather than warehouse, but the principle is the same.
Does anyone else here feel that the recent whining and moaning by some malcontent blunt tw@t is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of our valuable time and attention?
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sounds like a clear cut case of good old fashioned green-eyed envy to me.
Pops away ginger can't get an ATPL, IR etc, so why should anyone else.
A cruel person would say "should've worked harder at school". I am that cruel person
Pops away ginger can't get an ATPL, IR etc, so why should anyone else.
A cruel person would say "should've worked harder at school". I am that cruel person
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: wiltshire
Age: 48
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably Ginge, you're a just jealous of these types going to get paid twice as much as you do because ou chose the wrong profession! Perfectly legitimate use. As previously stated, you have paid you debt and it is then the RAF's responsibility to re-train you as they kick you out at 38 if you can stand it that long (ageist).
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be normal of me to jump in here and agree with whats'isname but I can't. This is one of the few perks that we have left. Trouble is, now its in the open that aircrew are using military aircraft to take their civilian exams in then it will be on page 4 of the MOS tomorrow...and then Joe Public, rather than supporting his Armed Forces, thinks that we are all a load of cocks and out to pull a fast one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ginger - your post smacks of jealously and the desire to create a scandal.
For a start, this practice cannot be "theft" if the sortie is correctly authorized. Secondly, what is demonstrated to a CAA examiner is a series of manoeuvres that service pilots have to perform regularly during routine training sorties, the only difference being that a CAA examiner has been invited onboard to watch. Sometimes the examiner will have to sit through hours of other training that is irrelevant to them, before watching the instrument flying portion of the sortie. If a sortie is generated for pilot currency then it comes from a pot of hours intended for exactly this type of training anyway.
You may ask why this type of training is not done in simulator and the answer is that, unlike the airlines, the MoD have not paid for simulators with the fidelity needed to dispense with the requirement for routine pilot training in the aircraft. When we get new aircraft and Level D simulators then it will all be done synthetically.
As to pilots that have PVR'd - if the service wishes to employ them on flying duties up to their exit date then they must continue to meet all the training requirements. It would be churlish (and probably illegal) to single-out those that have PVR'd by prohibiting only them from taking an examiner along on such sorties. Personlly, I would have got the licence before PVRing, but I'm cautious like that.
Now that I have explained how the flying is generated, all that is left of your case is an objection to allowing external examiners to watch servicemen at work. This surely cannot be the crux of your argument; do you also object to NVQ assessors etc?
For a start, this practice cannot be "theft" if the sortie is correctly authorized. Secondly, what is demonstrated to a CAA examiner is a series of manoeuvres that service pilots have to perform regularly during routine training sorties, the only difference being that a CAA examiner has been invited onboard to watch. Sometimes the examiner will have to sit through hours of other training that is irrelevant to them, before watching the instrument flying portion of the sortie. If a sortie is generated for pilot currency then it comes from a pot of hours intended for exactly this type of training anyway.
You may ask why this type of training is not done in simulator and the answer is that, unlike the airlines, the MoD have not paid for simulators with the fidelity needed to dispense with the requirement for routine pilot training in the aircraft. When we get new aircraft and Level D simulators then it will all be done synthetically.
As to pilots that have PVR'd - if the service wishes to employ them on flying duties up to their exit date then they must continue to meet all the training requirements. It would be churlish (and probably illegal) to single-out those that have PVR'd by prohibiting only them from taking an examiner along on such sorties. Personlly, I would have got the licence before PVRing, but I'm cautious like that.
Now that I have explained how the flying is generated, all that is left of your case is an objection to allowing external examiners to watch servicemen at work. This surely cannot be the crux of your argument; do you also object to NVQ assessors etc?
Well, all that happens is that some IRE mate from the CAA watches from the jump seat whilst you do a bit of routine MCT. Which you have to do anyway for military currency basic training requirements - the difference being that you organise things so that the MCT meets the CAA IR requirements. In my case it was SID, MALBY-BCN and off at NITON, radar vectored ILS at Lyneham, SEFATO then once round the Brize NDB hold and a 3-e NDB at BZN, 3-e go-around and 3-e vis circuit to land. Everything except the airways leg was without autopilot.
And then a cheque for several hundred quid to the nice CAA chap.
Incidentally, these trips also serve to keep the CAA well informed about how the military operates big aircraft - so are of mutual benefit.
And then a cheque for several hundred quid to the nice CAA chap.
Incidentally, these trips also serve to keep the CAA well informed about how the military operates big aircraft - so are of mutual benefit.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I did a couple of IRT practice, land Bedford, pick up IRE, do test, lunch, fly second test, RTB to Bedford and home.
Met Sqn Boss, said just done some more resettlement training. No No he bristled they are not PVRing.
He got back to his office to find the papers on his desk. And that was 17 years go.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with the indignant obvious aircrew chaps up there about the resettlement aspect - if I thought for one moment that the troops got an equal chance to bite that cherry. Your crappy point is poorly made and emphasises the disparity rather than validate the actions.
I would agree with the indignant obvious aircrew chaps up there about the resettlement aspect - if I thought for one moment that the troops got an equal chance to bite that cherry. Your crappy point is poorly made and emphasises the disparity rather than validate the actions.
So does that mean that no-one should be allowed to attain any civil quals using Military kit, drivers, tech's etc? Aircrew pay a lot of cash to get a civil license, doubling up a check ride doesn't seem a lot to ask.
Meaning what, Mr Chinecap?
If you can find a similar parallel for the non-pilot world, then I suggest you push ahead with seeking civilian recognition of your military qualifications - good luck!
The pilot accreditation was sparked by a statement in JAR-FCL, followed by a Statement in the House concerning recognition of military skills.
Something similar was also supposed to be achieved for ATC and FC branch - but it requires effort to staff any proposal.
Which particular 'bite' of the 'cherry' are you advocating for the 'troops'?
If you can find a similar parallel for the non-pilot world, then I suggest you push ahead with seeking civilian recognition of your military qualifications - good luck!
The pilot accreditation was sparked by a statement in JAR-FCL, followed by a Statement in the House concerning recognition of military skills.
Something similar was also supposed to be achieved for ATC and FC branch - but it requires effort to staff any proposal.
Which particular 'bite' of the 'cherry' are you advocating for the 'troops'?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
NEBOSH is one such civilian qualification and several other H&S courses have a final exam that is acceptable to a civilian qualification. You pays your money, you get the qualification, and then you get your money back.
PN, IOSH!
PN, IOSH!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Pops away" is obviously a blunty who can't afford the resettlement course that will teach him to spell 
If there's a perk to a job, then you use it. There's enough crap flying peoples way in service life these days that why shouldn't some benefit come out of it too. As has been pointed out it costs the military nothing as the sortie would already have taken place, and the individual is still paying the examiner for the test.
I wasn't fortunate enough to be in that position and had to bite the bullet and pay (£10K+) to get a meaningful civil qualification. You play the cards you're dealt.
Get a life.
If there's a perk to a job, then you use it. There's enough crap flying peoples way in service life these days that why shouldn't some benefit come out of it too. As has been pointed out it costs the military nothing as the sortie would already have taken place, and the individual is still paying the examiner for the test.
I wasn't fortunate enough to be in that position and had to bite the bullet and pay (£10K+) to get a meaningful civil qualification. You play the cards you're dealt.
Get a life.