Airtanker reservist pilots
Sorry chap. The requirement was for military pilots straight from the training system to be routed through the posting system to any type in the RAF's inventory. That means Abos going straight to A330
The poor guy in the LHS in going to have a stressful time then, no matter how brilliant the abo in the RHS may be.
I agree with the rest of your post though.
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year.
The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.
An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.
The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the RAF is going to be palmed off with the lower spec model again. It shouldn't really surprise me, but I had hoped for more.
I don't know why a few of you maintain this holier than thou attitude. I readily admit I have no idea about AAR, but given that the civvies would seemingly not be doing it, what difference does it make? And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous. I fly with plenty of ex-military pilots, and their quality and capacities are as variable as the rest. Being RAF is not as much of a guarantee of ability as a few of you would like to believe. I'm not one of those military pilot haters at all, like so many airline management pilots are - I have plenty of respect for you all, having started down that route myself, but you really need to lose that superiority complex as it will stuff you after you leave the service.
It shouldn't really surprise me, but I had hoped for more.I don't know why a few of you maintain this holier than thou attitude. I readily admit I have no idea about AAR, but given that the civvies would seemingly not be doing it, what difference does it make? And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous. I fly with plenty of ex-military pilots, and their quality and capacities are as variable as the rest. Being RAF is not as much of a guarantee of ability as a few of you would like to believe. I'm not one of those military pilot haters at all, like so many airline management pilots are - I have plenty of respect for you all, having started down that route myself, but you really need to lose that superiority complex as it will stuff you after you leave the service.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.
It will be interesting to see how the TRTO requirements are applied to the RAF 'ab initio' A330 pilot. Because the input standard for civil TR courses assumes that the pilot has been trained to at least CPL/IR standard....
An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
Quote:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.
The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
Amongst other requirements, the pilot must have 70 hrs PIC, of which 50 hrs PIC must have been on cross-countries, including one 2 stop 300nm solo cross-country. I doubt very much whether RAF (or MFTS ) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....
Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?
The challenges of operating 2-man flight deck, complex aircraft, in a tactical environment (C130J, C17, Nimrod MRA4, A400 and FSTA) particularly on low hours straight from the training system, means the standard/quality will have to rise.
It will be interesting to see how the TRTO requirements are applied to the RAF 'ab initio' A330 pilot. Because the input standard for civil TR courses assumes that the pilot has been trained to at least CPL/IR standard....
An integrated 'frozen ATPL' course is as follows:
Quote:
The aim of this course is to train pilots to the level of proficiency necessary to enable them to operate as Co-Pilot on multi-pilot, multi-engine aeroplanes in commercial air transportation and to obtain the CPL(A)/ IR. The course shall last between 12 and 36 months.
The course consists of a minimum of 195 hours of flying training and 750 hours of theoretical knowledge instruction. The course also includes training in multi-crew co-operation for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes.
Amongst other requirements, the pilot must have 70 hrs PIC, of which 50 hrs PIC must have been on cross-countries, including one 2 stop 300nm solo cross-country. I doubt very much whether RAF (or MFTS ) flying training achieves all this nowadays. I've already met one TriStar pilot with a considerable amount of operational experience who couldn't obtain a CPL without first having to do some hour building on PA28s....
Perhaps the RAF will evolve its own 'MPL' course for A330 ab-initio pilots?
Ironically, it seems the only major players interested in these cadets are EZY and RYR, and that's mainly because they can screw them with low pay for the first year or so (EZY cadets not only pay for their type rating but also pay to fly), such is their desperation to find a jbb. both companies run their training departments at considerable profit. Good for the companies, but terrible for the cadets who find it hard to afford to live (EZY cadet bankruptcies are growing fast). However, because there is so much competition for the places within the companies, they can be quite selective about who they take on. I have come across a few who seem to lack awareness or technical prowess, but not many - the standard seems to be pretty high, and is certainly higher than I saw in Excel ( a more conventional "old school" airline, and great to work for while it lasted) or have heard of from colleagues who have been in the same companies as me and have gone elsewhere. I have found in both EZY and RYR that most of the best FOs were cadets with about a year's line flying behind them, not experienced entrants from other companies.
Just like with new RAF pilots, a lack of experience and flight hours doesn't necessarily mean they are no good.
As for the specific aircraft type being an issue, it isn't. A330s are very similar to fly as A320s, with an almost identical cockpit and fly-by-wire that makes them similar to handle. It's heavier, but has more thrust and bigger wings, so take off and landing speeds/distances are not that different. The 737 NG is harder to fly than the Airbus family because it has some odd characteristics, principally being so damned slippery in the descent and having nasty landing handling qualities. If so many cadets can fly it without too much trouble, then the RAF should manage to but the newbies on the A330 without much fuss.
It's not the aeroplane that makes the difference but what you do with it. It's the AAR which involves the complex skill, and I imagine it's the calculations of how much fuel to give away and when, especially when the plan is screwed up by weather or faults, as per the examples given, that is really complex. Given that each aircraft will have a refuelling operator in the specialised flight deck who will be trained and experienced in the role, and given the fact that the tankers won't be able to receive fuel, it begs the question again, why can't the civvy pilots do it too?
Last edited by Whippersnapper; 27th Aug 2010 at 09:25.
And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous.
There's no doubt that any airline pilot could meet the first 2, but the 3rd is an 'unknown'. The course needed would perhaps be longer than converting an existing AAR pilot to a new AAR aeroplane and there would be some risk that the airline pilot might be unsuccessful as you say. But at the end of the day it boils down to one thing alone - cost. If it costs more to train an airline pilot to become a competent AAR pilot than it does to convert an RAF AAR pilot to the new aeroplane, the military being as it is a 'price-sensitive' customer is going to take the latter option.
The 'fATPL course' includes rather more than the RAF ME course does. But you have to bear in mind that RAF candidates are given pre-entry screening, whereas in theory anyone with enough money can buy their own 'fATPL' and 737/320 TR. However, the new MPL course does require end-user airline involvement - so it's in the financial interest of the airline to pre-select its 'MPL' candidates.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous.
Think of it this way. An AT/AAR pilot needs to be competent in aircraft operation, AT role operation and AAR role operation.
There's no doubt that any airline pilot could meet the first 2, but the 3rd is an 'unknown'. The course needed would perhaps be longer than converting an existing AAR pilot to a new AAR aeroplane and there would be some risk that the airline pilot might be unsuccessful as you say. But at the end of the day it boils down to one thing alone - cost. If it costs more to train an airline pilot to become a competent AAR pilot than it does to convert an RAF AAR pilot to the new aeroplane, the military being as it is a 'price-sensitive' customer is going to take the latter option.
The 'fATPL course' includes rather more than the RAF ME course does. But you have to bear in mind that RAF candidates are given pre-entry screening, whereas in theory anyone with enough money can buy their own 'fATPL' and 737/320 TR. However, the new MPL course does require end-user airline involvement - so it's in the financial interest of the airline to pre-select its 'MPL' candidates.
And why are you so insistent that it would forever be out of the civvies' learning ability? Were you born with some special insight into AAR, or was it taught to you? Why would it be so impossible for civvy pilots to do the AAR course, hypothetically? Some might not be up to it, granted, but to make the statement that none of them would be capable is ridiculous.
Think of it this way. An AT/AAR pilot needs to be competent in aircraft operation, AT role operation and AAR role operation.
There's no doubt that any airline pilot could meet the first 2, but the 3rd is an 'unknown'. The course needed would perhaps be longer than converting an existing AAR pilot to a new AAR aeroplane and there would be some risk that the airline pilot might be unsuccessful as you say. But at the end of the day it boils down to one thing alone - cost. If it costs more to train an airline pilot to become a competent AAR pilot than it does to convert an RAF AAR pilot to the new aeroplane, the military being as it is a 'price-sensitive' customer is going to take the latter option.
The 'fATPL course' includes rather more than the RAF ME course does. But you have to bear in mind that RAF candidates are given pre-entry screening, whereas in theory anyone with enough money can buy their own 'fATPL' and 737/320 TR. However, the new MPL course does require end-user airline involvement - so it's in the financial interest of the airline to pre-select its 'MPL' candidates.
I'm not trying to suggest that all the civvies be trained to conduct AAR, but if AirTanker are as selective in their recruitment as I believe they will be, then their crews should be perfectly capable of completing the AAR course. I would expect AT to be recruiting only high quality, experienced and adept applicants, not just any old crew who hold a licence. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if their recruitment was more thorough than the Service's.
All that aside, surely it would not be unreasonable for those civvy pilots that demonstrated a high level of ability within the AT fleet to subsequently be integrated into the military group of pilots, completing the AAR training a year or so after starting on the line on the noddy stuff, sort of a cross-pollination, if you will.
BEagle
I'm sure you know that there are RAF AT co-pilots who have successfully converted to type with about 200 hours total time, straight off their King Air wings course.
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.
The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.
The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances on the AT/AAR fleet. Only two main destinations, and much unserviceability, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights for recency.
Civilian A330 pilots would normally get at least 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.
Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be well in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an airline.
A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.
The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.
The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances on the AT/AAR fleet. Only two main destinations, and much unserviceability, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights for recency.
Civilian A330 pilots would normally get at least 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.
Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be well in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an airline.
A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!
Last edited by cessnapete; 27th Aug 2010 at 15:09. Reason: grammar
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure you know that there are RAF AT co-pilots who have successfully converted to type with about 200 hours total time, straight off their King Air wings course.
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.
The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.
The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances. Only two main destinations, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights.
Civilian A330 pilots would normally get 400 to 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.
Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an Airline.
A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!
They have been role trained for both Transport and AAR over the first year or two of their Squadron careers.
The A330 will be an easier a/c to operate in these roles due to its state of the art electronics and handling, over the present 'clockwork cockpit'.
The biggest problem seems to be keeping role recency and flying hours up in the present circumstances. Only two main destinations, requiring local base flying, and empty aircraft European crew training flights.
Civilian A330 pilots would normally get 400 to 600 hours a year airline time to multiple destinations..
AirTanker are going to have to work with Military crews some at present getting less than half that yearly experience.
Any 'civilian' Air Tanker crews would have to operate to JAA rules with ATPL licences and crewed separately from the military flying. An expensive set up compared to the RAF, as civilian salaries for these types would have be in excess of £65000 for a Capt. to tempt pilots from an Airline.
A joint crewing with RAF crews studying and obtaining the civilian licences in RAF time to operate the A330, would probably mean RAF career retention problems!!
I am concerned if they just want civvy crews to fly the aircraft on wet-lease sub charter to airlines. I really don't think it'll work. These aircraft are going to have significantly more weight and drag than standard A330s and in these times of high fuel costs and great excess fleet capacities of airlines all around the globe, I can't see AT offering competitive sub charter rates unless they fly at a loss. It might be cheaper to AT than having the aircraft sit around unused, though.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whippersnapper
Source: National Audit Office report 2010Aircraft Air-to-air refuelling capability:
Fuel capacity of 111 tonnes for dispensing to aircraft.
All aircraft capable of simultaneously refuelling two fast jet receivers.
Seven aircraft capable of, and five fitted for, refuelling large aircraft.
Air transport capability: Seating capacity of 290 seats.
Various configurations for medical evacuations of up to 40 patients. Commercial standard freight-carrying capacity.
Able to operate in military and civilian roles.
Crewing services 14 Sponsored Reserve pilots able to operate on military and
civilian flights.
48 qualified cabin crew
Infrastructure at
RAF Brize Norton
Maintenance hangar capable of servicing two FSTA.
Flight operations, storage and office facilities.
Training building.
Training services Training for military and AirTanker flight and cabin crews, technical and support personnel.
Provision and support of FSTA flight simulator.
Air transport capability: Seating capacity of 290 seats.
Various configurations for medical evacuations of up to 40 patients. Commercial standard freight-carrying capacity.
Able to operate in military and civilian roles.
Crewing services 14 Sponsored Reserve pilots able to operate on military and
civilian flights.
48 qualified cabin crew
Infrastructure at
RAF Brize Norton
Maintenance hangar capable of servicing two FSTA.
Flight operations, storage and office facilities.
Training building.
Training services Training for military and AirTanker flight and cabin crews, technical and support personnel.
Provision and support of FSTA flight simulator.
One of the Captains at Brize has just PVR'd as Airtanker have recruited him to create their training package.... I don't think there will be an issue between civilian and military crews and pay - we currently work alongside many reservists both rich and poor and generally no one cares less. You will always get the odd one or two folk whom have issues but the same people winge about everything being 'not fair'. I am sure you have them in your world too.
With ref to your comment on BEags and his CRM qualities, i flew with him many times whilst he was serving and he was great to fly with (he is actually very amusing in real life). ... if you can take the banter ....
I agree that AAR is not rocket science and i am sure many civilian pilots would be very good at it given the chance.
I agree that AAR is not rocket science and i am sure many civilian pilots would be very good at it given the chance.
BEags - you crash one hire car...................
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To return to the original question with particular reference to AAR training for civil trained pilots I would offer the following thoughts as an ex OCU and Staneval pilot on both the Victor and the VC10. A good AAR operator seems to require little more than the basic training and the experience of a few operational trips but those individuals are not that common. They seem to have an inbuilt sense of spatial awareness, good airmanship and the ability to anticipate the needs of their customers right from the start. The average pilot is another matter and requires guidance throughout the course and beyond for a good six to nine months before they become confident in role. Indeed some never progress beyond a rigid following of procedures and that is particularly true of the older pilots from other types both multi and fastjet. A good AAR pilot needs regular practice to keep his thinking sharp, there is a lot more to the role than just trailing the hoses.
....an ex OCU and Staneval pilot on both the Victor and the VC10.
Although we might have shared the occasional professional difference of opinion
, Arters has flown every V-type (except, perhaps, the Vimy, Victoria and Vildebeeste - although I'm not totally sure..
) in the AAR role and his wisdom and sagacity should always be heeded. PS - why weren't you at the ex-241 OCU barbi' the other week, you old bugger?
(PPS - Justanopinion, how much do I owe you? Please say it doesn't involve tongues....or baby oil!).
Trim Stab:
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time
Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "
Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever registration they carry, they will only appear on one register. Another example are those of certain helicopters with no registrations.
Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time
Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "
Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever registration they carry, they will only appear on one register. Another example are those of certain helicopters with no registrations.
Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!
Trim Stab:
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time
Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "
Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever markings they display, they will only appear on one register. Another example of registration "mixes" are ex-military types such as Spitires, RE8's and FE2B's.
Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!
The issue with having ATr aircraft with military markings on the military register will be their inability to return to the civil market - they won't be able to do CAT work on the military register, so the project will be unable to make a running profit - and if they can't make a running profit you will get a reduced quality service akin the that of using decrepit old jets like you already have - and you'll be much, much poorer for it. Even by next years standards!
"Quote:
Any aircraft can only appear on one register at any time
Really? Surely the MOD can put anything they like on their register? They're not beholden to anybody.
And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of civil registered aircraft that are also on the mil registry - eg the DA42s the RAF used in Iraq last year. "
Although the aircraft you mention may display civil markings they won't be on the civil register - but on the military register with civil markings. Devilment and subterfuge - y'know.
However, whatever markings they display, they will only appear on one register. Another example of registration "mixes" are ex-military types such as Spitires, RE8's and FE2B's.
Dont confuse these with the training Fleets which are civil registered on the civil register!
The issue with having ATr aircraft with military markings on the military register will be their inability to return to the civil market - they won't be able to do CAT work on the military register, so the project will be unable to make a running profit - and if they can't make a running profit you will get a reduced quality service akin the that of using decrepit old jets like you already have - and you'll be much, much poorer for it. Even by next years standards!
It is for this reason that some (if any) aircraft may be permanently military registered to keep a minimum mil fleet available..
That begs another question - will there be mixed crews of RAF and sponsored reservists? Will the sponsored reservists have RAF rank?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Another S**thole
Age: 51
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with SDSR about to cut aircrew numbers across all fleets how much bad feeling might there be towards these 'sponsored reservists' who could be seen to be taking jobs for the boys?
As I understand it, all ATr crews will hold military rank albeit as reservists for when they fly military sorties. I cannot see a civilian company selecting civilian pilots to be awarded with Queens Commissions, so I would have thought that the caveat would be you must be an ex QSP to qualify. Just a guess though.
If not, then I'd imagine they would have to at least do the tarts and vicars course at IOT. I guess they have already thought of all this though. Like they did with DAS and FTI......
If not, then I'd imagine they would have to at least do the tarts and vicars course at IOT. I guess they have already thought of all this though. Like they did with DAS and FTI......