Changes to ATPL Military Exemptions?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the thread is drifting anyway - surely at least some UAV time should count. It certainly does for the Americans. As it is somewhere half way between a sim and real flying, surely you should be at least able to count it like sim time (500 hrs etc). But I believe that there is currently no CAA policy on this. Anyone know anything else?
Backwards PLT, a fair point, well made.
I would certainly recommend to the CAA that military UAV time should be fully credited.....
....towards a civil UAV licence. But for flying real aircraft? YGBSM!!
I've read some bolleaux in my time, but to suggest seriously that your aeromodel time should count for anything is perhaps the most absurd notion I've ever heard.
I would certainly recommend to the CAA that military UAV time should be fully credited.....
....towards a civil UAV licence. But for flying real aircraft? YGBSM!!
I've read some bolleaux in my time, but to suggest seriously that your aeromodel time should count for anything is perhaps the most absurd notion I've ever heard.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pretty sad state of affairs if someone can spend 16 years as a pilot in the RAF and not get 2000 hours. Worst case, 6 years to front line (with some long holds), 400 odd hours (More if you sandbag a lot - it all counts 
). 1 ground tour, leaves 7 years to get 1600 hours. Need to do about 230 hours a year then. As I say, sad if that's unachievable. If your plan is to leave at 16/38, spend more time in the cockpit, ignore promotion and hence sidestep the ground tour, and then you have 10 years to get the 1600, which is now only an easy 160 a year! Chances are you'll exceed the 2000 minimum by a country mile!!! Of course, you may be lucky enough to be promoted and be able to stay flying. 
). 1 ground tour, leaves 7 years to get 1600 hours. Need to do about 230 hours a year then. As I say, sad if that's unachievable. If your plan is to leave at 16/38, spend more time in the cockpit, ignore promotion and hence sidestep the ground tour, and then you have 10 years to get the 1600, which is now only an easy 160 a year! Chances are you'll exceed the 2000 minimum by a country mile!!! Of course, you may be lucky enough to be promoted and be able to stay flying.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just chipping in here for what its worth from across "la Manche", but I did my ATPLf with a couple of French ex-mil pilots. One was ex-multi and had virtually no solo experience beyond a bit of circuit bashing, having done all his flying P2 on transport aircraft. He was excused all the JAR mandatory 100hours P1/300nm solo cross-country pre-CPL qualification requirements. The other had completed FJ streaming up to about 400 hours in total, with some Alphajet experience, and was also excused all the pre CPL requirements. The UK CAA transitional requirements as described in the LASORS are certainly a great deal more rigorous than in France. That may be why JAR are trying to tighten up the requirements to a standard.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle. Interesting viewpoint. I assume you are making up the "civil UAV licence" stuff.
Interested why you think flying a UAV is less real than flying most sims out there? Maybe I should qualify that - I am not talking about the mini UAVs that, I agree, are no more than model aircraft but about Predator/Reaper class UAVs. A 66ft wingspan is a reasonably sized aircraft by most standard (ok its not a VC10). The USAF/FAA is way ahead of the RAF/CAA in this area.
- don't jump to too many assumptions, now. I have plenty of real hours, thanks and no UAV hours!
Interested why you think flying a UAV is less real than flying most sims out there? Maybe I should qualify that - I am not talking about the mini UAVs that, I agree, are no more than model aircraft but about Predator/Reaper class UAVs. A 66ft wingspan is a reasonably sized aircraft by most standard (ok its not a VC10). The USAF/FAA is way ahead of the RAF/CAA in this area.
your aeromodel time
And USAF pilots can count their simulator hours towards their totals as well. I would say thay was more releavnt.
Getting hours in the military to get that all important total high enough to get a good job has aways been an aim with military pilots planning to leave for a civilian career. It's ironic that when you leave and get that first job, you soon discover your main aim in life is to do as few as possible! I spent 17 years in the RAF and amassed 4200 hours. Six years after leaving, I have more than doubled that figure.
One major difference between logging civilian time and military time is taxi time. Recording blocks time really does bump up the totals. Of course, some credit can be given by the formula described in LASORS, but this still leaves you short and the credit can't actually be recorded as time in the seat. Fifteen minutes is all you can assume for a multi engine aircraft per sector wheras the real figure can be far greater. My record is 2 hours 10 minutes time spent on the ground one trip. This of course goes in my logbook. One way round this is to keep a separate civilian logbook with blocks times recorded. I didn't do this myself, but I know other who have.
And on another point regarding credits. Credits are useful for easing the path to civilain life, but non JAA aviation authorities often don't recognise them. For example, the Hong Kong CAD want to see your exam pass marks to issue an accreditation for a HK licence. If they see 'credit', they will want you to take the equivalent HK exam. Having credits will limit your horizons if you aspire to work overseas. And although the work is a pain, the study is quite useful for interviews. One interview I sat involved ATPL tech type questions. I wouldn't have the job I have now if I hadn't done the ATPL subjects.
Getting hours in the military to get that all important total high enough to get a good job has aways been an aim with military pilots planning to leave for a civilian career. It's ironic that when you leave and get that first job, you soon discover your main aim in life is to do as few as possible! I spent 17 years in the RAF and amassed 4200 hours. Six years after leaving, I have more than doubled that figure.
One major difference between logging civilian time and military time is taxi time. Recording blocks time really does bump up the totals. Of course, some credit can be given by the formula described in LASORS, but this still leaves you short and the credit can't actually be recorded as time in the seat. Fifteen minutes is all you can assume for a multi engine aircraft per sector wheras the real figure can be far greater. My record is 2 hours 10 minutes time spent on the ground one trip. This of course goes in my logbook. One way round this is to keep a separate civilian logbook with blocks times recorded. I didn't do this myself, but I know other who have.
And on another point regarding credits. Credits are useful for easing the path to civilain life, but non JAA aviation authorities often don't recognise them. For example, the Hong Kong CAD want to see your exam pass marks to issue an accreditation for a HK licence. If they see 'credit', they will want you to take the equivalent HK exam. Having credits will limit your horizons if you aspire to work overseas. And although the work is a pain, the study is quite useful for interviews. One interview I sat involved ATPL tech type questions. I wouldn't have the job I have now if I hadn't done the ATPL subjects.
Dan, I've been advising people for years to keep a separate civil log book - with hours logged chock-chock in accordance with civil requirements. But few seem to bother....
Regarding the HK authorities, the last I heard from the UK CAA was that the issue regarding exam credits had now been resolved and was no longer a problem.
As for UAV hours, if navigators and air engineers are not permitted any credit for real flying time, why on earth should drone operators think that they somehow qualify?
Regarding the HK authorities, the last I heard from the UK CAA was that the issue regarding exam credits had now been resolved and was no longer a problem.
As for UAV hours, if navigators and air engineers are not permitted any credit for real flying time, why on earth should drone operators think that they somehow qualify?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because, BEagle, they are not flying the aircraft. Large UAV pilots do, just as "realistically" as any sim and they probably do far more "flying" than the average airline pilot.
Were you hit by a UAV as a child? You seem to have a bit of a dislike there. And to reiterate - I am not arguing for my own case, I am thinking of others unfortunate enough to be sent to the UAV world.
Were you hit by a UAV as a child? You seem to have a bit of a dislike there. And to reiterate - I am not arguing for my own case, I am thinking of others unfortunate enough to be sent to the UAV world.
Were you hit by a UAV as a child? You seem to have a bit of a dislike there
But never was I arrogant enough to consider that it had any relevance towards flying real aeroplanes.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, let me try another way.
Why should someone sitting on the ground in a box, flying a computer simulation of a pretend aircraft be allowed to log those hours, but someone sitting on the ground in a box flying a real aircraft not be able to? And I reiterate - I am not suggesting that they count the same as proper flying hours but should partially count in much (exactly?) the same way as sim hours do atm.
Normally you post reasonably sensible stuff, BEagle (for an ex-truckie and QFI) but to suggest flying a full sized UAV has no relevance towards flying real aeroplanes just because the pilot is sat on the ground is incredible, and I might even say supremely arrogant. You'll be suggesting that non-pilots should fly them next!
Apologies to the thread, btw, for turning it into a 2-way discussion.
Why should someone sitting on the ground in a box, flying a computer simulation of a pretend aircraft be allowed to log those hours, but someone sitting on the ground in a box flying a real aircraft not be able to? And I reiterate - I am not suggesting that they count the same as proper flying hours but should partially count in much (exactly?) the same way as sim hours do atm.
Normally you post reasonably sensible stuff, BEagle (for an ex-truckie and QFI
) but to suggest flying a full sized UAV has no relevance towards flying real aeroplanes just because the pilot is sat on the ground is incredible, and I might even say supremely arrogant. You'll be suggesting that non-pilots should fly them next!Apologies to the thread, btw, for turning it into a 2-way discussion.
someone sitting on the ground in a box flying a real aircraft
A dynamic flight simulator is fully representative of the real aeroplane - except that you don't die if you crash. But we QFIs used to make life quite hard for our fellow pilots - as our colleagues did to us - and a sim session was an extremely useful exercise.
Whereas sitting on your ar$e in an ISO stuffing your face whilst watching TV pictures from some drone? Do me a favour.
OK - 5 minutes per UAV session for the take-off and landing (assuming you don't crash it), maybe. But that's all....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, sorry, I get it now.
You have no knowledge, experience or understanding of UAV ops.
Welcome to the 21st century, Beags. I just hope the CAA don't adopt the same head in sand approach. Or maybe they should - less competition when I try to get an airline job. Jack's alright!
So as we wont agree on this lets at least agree to disagree.
I would be curious to know how you (and anyone else can chip in!) would regulate UAV ops in the UK? Do you define size classes to differentiate between the 2m span scale model flyer and the 20m span MALE UAV? I think you have to, personally. And licensing - presumably some would be good (!) so would you create a new UAV license totally separate to manned aircraft? Would the exam requirements be broadly the same? Any read over? Would a 747 pilot be allowed to get a UAV license? Would he get any credit for his "sitting on his arse, stuffing his face whilst talking to the hostie" hours? and vice versa, of course. How do UAVs fly in any class of airspace (they will need to soon so best make some rules up quick)?
I believe the CAA have been presented these sort of problems and as far as I know the answer at the moment is "too difficult" so lets solve them here on PPRuNe - it will save a lot of committee hours.
Whereas sitting on your ar$e in an ISO stuffing your face whilst watching TV pictures from some drone? Do me a favour.
Welcome to the 21st century, Beags. I just hope the CAA don't adopt the same head in sand approach. Or maybe they should - less competition when I try to get an airline job. Jack's alright!
So as we wont agree on this lets at least agree to disagree.
I would be curious to know how you (and anyone else can chip in!) would regulate UAV ops in the UK? Do you define size classes to differentiate between the 2m span scale model flyer and the 20m span MALE UAV? I think you have to, personally. And licensing - presumably some would be good (!) so would you create a new UAV license totally separate to manned aircraft? Would the exam requirements be broadly the same? Any read over? Would a 747 pilot be allowed to get a UAV license? Would he get any credit for his "sitting on his arse, stuffing his face whilst talking to the hostie" hours?
and vice versa, of course. How do UAVs fly in any class of airspace (they will need to soon so best make some rules up quick)?I believe the CAA have been presented these sort of problems and as far as I know the answer at the moment is "too difficult" so lets solve them here on PPRuNe - it will save a lot of committee hours.
Backwards,
I am curious, and apologies if I have missed it, but why are you defending the UAV stuff so hard? Dynamic simulators simulate the flying that will be conducted under the rules that govern an ATPL. UAV in civilian airspace? So what?
And for the chaps who are worried about any EASA problems with mil dispensations - either get your license NOW or crack on and do ALL those exams, like lots of folk did years ago. No excuses ........
I am curious, and apologies if I have missed it, but why are you defending the UAV stuff so hard? Dynamic simulators simulate the flying that will be conducted under the rules that govern an ATPL. UAV in civilian airspace? So what?
And for the chaps who are worried about any EASA problems with mil dispensations - either get your license NOW or crack on and do ALL those exams, like lots of folk did years ago. No excuses ........
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am curious, and apologies if I have missed it, but why are you defending the UAV stuff so hard?
It could also be that I like a bit of heated discussion on PPRuNe occasionally for a bit of light entertainment.
So how are we (UK) going to regulate it? Because it is happening now.
"You have no knowledge, experience or understanding of UAV ops."
And neither do the JAA. But good luck in persuading them to your point of view. But if they do, I suspect that there will be a caveat that the hours should not be included in any total of recorded flying hours, much like simulator hours and the taxying credit. However, I can't see any problem in putting them on a CV. Some prospective employers may be impressed and may take them into account. You can argue that they are valid - probably more valid than sitting in the cruise.
I used to fly 4 pilot Ultra Long Haul. As I was qualified as a cruise commander, that's about all I did for about a block of three months. I logged about 200 hours in command of a 747 when all I did was sit, eat, read the paper and change the heading bug while getting the weather for places like Irkutsk and Novosibirsk where the weather was too bad to divert to anyway. And having only landed once in that period (for currency) I felt guilty about logging those hours. You could easily argue that controlling UAVs was more valid to flying experience.
However, in Hong Kong, pilots employed as Second Officers on ULH flights log their hours as 'P2X'. There is a separate column in the HK logbook annotated for P2X hours. They are not recognised as flying hours by a lot of other authorities.
"It isn't for my benefit, but I feel those that fly the UAVs could end up losing out." Just like other pilots on a ground tour then!
And BEagle: "A Veron Robot powered by a PAW 19BR diesel with 4-channel Grundig Variophon/Varioton radio...." But I thought you hated diesels!!!!
And neither do the JAA. But good luck in persuading them to your point of view. But if they do, I suspect that there will be a caveat that the hours should not be included in any total of recorded flying hours, much like simulator hours and the taxying credit. However, I can't see any problem in putting them on a CV. Some prospective employers may be impressed and may take them into account. You can argue that they are valid - probably more valid than sitting in the cruise.
I used to fly 4 pilot Ultra Long Haul. As I was qualified as a cruise commander, that's about all I did for about a block of three months. I logged about 200 hours in command of a 747 when all I did was sit, eat, read the paper and change the heading bug while getting the weather for places like Irkutsk and Novosibirsk where the weather was too bad to divert to anyway. And having only landed once in that period (for currency) I felt guilty about logging those hours. You could easily argue that controlling UAVs was more valid to flying experience.
However, in Hong Kong, pilots employed as Second Officers on ULH flights log their hours as 'P2X'. There is a separate column in the HK logbook annotated for P2X hours. They are not recognised as flying hours by a lot of other authorities.
"It isn't for my benefit, but I feel those that fly the UAVs could end up losing out." Just like other pilots on a ground tour then!
And BEagle: "A Veron Robot powered by a PAW 19BR diesel with 4-channel Grundig Variophon/Varioton radio...." But I thought you hated diesels!!!!
Ah, but Dan this type of diesel fuel was mainly ether and castor oil, with a little amyl nitrate. Oh - and some kerosene....
Yes, I always considered that, when it came to cars, diesel was not an officer's fuel. OK for tractors and farm machinery, but not for cars.
Until, that is, the advent of things like the latest Audi Tdi. The joys of living in the Stalinist state of Brave New Britain means that my 23 mpg is a bit expensive these days. But the Audi A5 3.0Tdi quattro achieves over 35 mpg and is a very nice car...
....and personally I would say that it is 'powered by jet fuel' rather than use the d-word!
Back to the hours thing, the US also records PIC in a different manner compared with the UK. As I understand it, a pilot flying with an instructor for currency logs time as PIC, whereas under JAR-FCL that would not be accepted.
Your snooze pilot hours do sound rather spurious - perhaps as irrelevant as the time I maintained night currency by hopping into the seat for 30 min and twiddling the heading bug twice on the way back from Goose....
Yes, I always considered that, when it came to cars, diesel was not an officer's fuel. OK for tractors and farm machinery, but not for cars.
Until, that is, the advent of things like the latest Audi Tdi. The joys of living in the Stalinist state of Brave New Britain means that my 23 mpg is a bit expensive these days. But the Audi A5 3.0Tdi quattro achieves over 35 mpg and is a very nice car...
....and personally I would say that it is 'powered by jet fuel' rather than use the d-word!
Back to the hours thing, the US also records PIC in a different manner compared with the UK. As I understand it, a pilot flying with an instructor for currency logs time as PIC, whereas under JAR-FCL that would not be accepted.
Your snooze pilot hours do sound rather spurious - perhaps as irrelevant as the time I maintained night currency by hopping into the seat for 30 min and twiddling the heading bug twice on the way back from Goose....
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a first glance I was with BEagle on the UAV thing but the more I think about the type of flying that I am about to do (longhaul A330) the more I seem to have in common with a UAV driver!
In my opinion some accomodation for pilots who do a UAV tour should be made however I would not count on it any time soon.
But on the practical side I think that it would be good to look ahead and get those civilian licences ASAP as once you hold them they offer another option should life in the military change for the worse.
I would offer the same advice to the guys in the hangar when it comes to maintenance engineers licences.
In my opinion some accomodation for pilots who do a UAV tour should be made however I would not count on it any time soon.
But on the practical side I think that it would be good to look ahead and get those civilian licences ASAP as once you hold them they offer another option should life in the military change for the worse.
I would offer the same advice to the guys in the hangar when it comes to maintenance engineers licences.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Air 'school' bus feels pretty similar to a UAV at times!
Bloody computer has to validate everything I ask it to do before it does it anyway!
Give me something with real control rods, FBW is for computer geeks
W2P
Bloody computer has to validate everything I ask it to do before it does it anyway!
Give me something with real control rods, FBW is for computer geeks
W2P