Help Required - Currency v Competency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help Required - Currency v Competency
Have I had a few ales - yes I have, so please forgive me! 
And maybe this kind of thread requires a sober head, but it has been playing on my mind for a while.
What is the definitive minimums for competency? I know that there are some international organisations that go 3 months between flying and still remain 'operational', but somewhere I know that there is a NATO STANAG that says 15 hrs a month (or 180 hrs a year) although I cannot find it.
My point is when the hierarchy 'take it on risk' that crews are not getting regular flying training what is the limit to which I say, I am sorry I as the aircraft captain/authorisor am not prepared to carry your risk as in the subsequent BOI you will be no where in sight Sir?
I do not want to be seen as the person that whinges, whines or 'lets go of the rope' but at the same time I do not want to be the person that knowingly is flying pre-deployment training sortie profiles bouncing off currencies (if even that - more like check ride to re-gain currency then crack on with demanding sorties).
My gut feeling is that because our previous high standard of currency/competency cannot be resourced because of where all of the resources are going (i.e. on Ops) then 'the bar has been lowered' and it is becoming accepted as the norm that we do more with less - especially back at peacetime location.
This is fine when you have a whole load of people with 1000s of hours to fall back on, but I look around me and there are not that many experienced 'dudes' left.
I will stop waffling - but am I being a wet pants of the Womans Auxillary Balloon Corps and should I just 'man up' and also accept the risk? What do you guys think is the minimum flying to keep both competent and current? Whether a FJ mate or rotary operator - competency is competency.
Is the 15 hrs per month NATO guidance 'old school'. How much can be transferred in to the Simulator? 10 hrs sim, 5 hrs aircraft? What happens if your sim is not mission configured with what you are fighting with on Ops or not on camp, base or station?
Sorry, to drivel on - but I welcome your thoughts.
FS
And maybe this kind of thread requires a sober head, but it has been playing on my mind for a while.
What is the definitive minimums for competency? I know that there are some international organisations that go 3 months between flying and still remain 'operational', but somewhere I know that there is a NATO STANAG that says 15 hrs a month (or 180 hrs a year) although I cannot find it.
My point is when the hierarchy 'take it on risk' that crews are not getting regular flying training what is the limit to which I say, I am sorry I as the aircraft captain/authorisor am not prepared to carry your risk as in the subsequent BOI you will be no where in sight Sir?
I do not want to be seen as the person that whinges, whines or 'lets go of the rope' but at the same time I do not want to be the person that knowingly is flying pre-deployment training sortie profiles bouncing off currencies (if even that - more like check ride to re-gain currency then crack on with demanding sorties).
My gut feeling is that because our previous high standard of currency/competency cannot be resourced because of where all of the resources are going (i.e. on Ops) then 'the bar has been lowered' and it is becoming accepted as the norm that we do more with less - especially back at peacetime location.
This is fine when you have a whole load of people with 1000s of hours to fall back on, but I look around me and there are not that many experienced 'dudes' left.
I will stop waffling - but am I being a wet pants of the Womans Auxillary Balloon Corps and should I just 'man up' and also accept the risk? What do you guys think is the minimum flying to keep both competent and current? Whether a FJ mate or rotary operator - competency is competency.
Is the 15 hrs per month NATO guidance 'old school'. How much can be transferred in to the Simulator? 10 hrs sim, 5 hrs aircraft? What happens if your sim is not mission configured with what you are fighting with on Ops or not on camp, base or station?
Sorry, to drivel on - but I welcome your thoughts.
FS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours don't always translate to good training though, either. I know of a single seat fleet which has been known to use its twin stick jets to get double the amount of pilot hours for the same number of ac hours. I've also been on the odd 3 hour tacan crawl so we can fly doggers the next month. Maybe, instead of hours currency, we should figure out which types of trips (and how many) are required to keep the sharp side of blunt. Put them in a spreadsheet to keep the stats boys happy if you must, but keeping track of what we do stops the junior guys getting shafted with more than their share of RED AIR trips, and the execs flying all the COMAO/DACT/Live Range stuff if/when they pop up.
It'll never happen though, because hours versus money allocated is a much easier equation to figure out and present to those who hold the purse strings.
It'll never happen though, because hours versus money allocated is a much easier equation to figure out and present to those who hold the purse strings.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe, instead of hours currency, we should figure out which types of trips (and how many) are required to keep the sharp side of blunt. Put them in a spreadsheet to keep the stats boys happy if you must
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spheroid,
Without wanting to disclose capability related issues on an open forum I think that FS point was that not everyone has the luxury of hours to fulfill whatever the directive is for their fleet of aircraft/command?
The big books (intranet web pages!) may quote monthly figures and skill set requirements in black and white, but the reality is that they are not being achieved. Although IMHO from my command the directive is right and should be enforced at all levels as if the requirements are not met then comeptency (which is very different from currency) will suffer.
Therefore FS if you are not meeting what your command directive then you have every right to take it through the chain of command. It would be interesting to see if those in the command actually knew and understood the implications of you bouncing from check ride to check ride or your competency being low?
As I said I am not disclosing capability related issues on an open forum but I can see where he/she is coming from as it is not unique.
Lets see the if/when the next aircraft spanks in whether the BOI look at competency over a period of time and not just a sudden 'spike' on Ops. But hopefully that will not happen to prove a point.
Without wanting to disclose capability related issues on an open forum I think that FS point was that not everyone has the luxury of hours to fulfill whatever the directive is for their fleet of aircraft/command?
The big books (intranet web pages!) may quote monthly figures and skill set requirements in black and white, but the reality is that they are not being achieved. Although IMHO from my command the directive is right and should be enforced at all levels as if the requirements are not met then comeptency (which is very different from currency) will suffer.
Therefore FS if you are not meeting what your command directive then you have every right to take it through the chain of command. It would be interesting to see if those in the command actually knew and understood the implications of you bouncing from check ride to check ride or your competency being low?
As I said I am not disclosing capability related issues on an open forum but I can see where he/she is coming from as it is not unique.
Lets see the if/when the next aircraft spanks in whether the BOI look at competency over a period of time and not just a sudden 'spike' on Ops. But hopefully that will not happen to prove a point.
