Airtanker reservist pilots
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue with having ATr aircraft with military markings on the military register will be their inability to return to the civil market
All these points were raised about 10 years ago, so they're nothing new.
Given the size of the RAF at the time the PFI AT/AAR requirments were released, compared with its post-SDSR size, the viability of the PFI business plan will be...well, let's just say 'probably rather challenging'. But ATr will be well aware of that.
I recall going to one of those FSTA stakeholder meetings about a thousand years ago - and the requirements which led to the numbers and equipage of the A330MRTTs to be used by ATr were somewhat different to those which one sees today. Some senior chap asked me what I would suggest - and I told him that, having heard the AAR requirements stated at the meeting, I considered that the RAF should replace all its VC10s and TriStars with the 24-ish A310MRTTs then on offer from BAe Filton and bin the whole PFI notion...
3 squadrons of A310MRTTs, all with 2 pods and AAR probes and of which 2 squadrons' aircraft would also have centreline hoses.
He agreed, but said that the politicos had already made up their minds............
And don't ask about any AAR role for the UK's A400Ms...
Given the size of the RAF at the time the PFI AT/AAR requirments were released, compared with its post-SDSR size, the viability of the PFI business plan will be...well, let's just say 'probably rather challenging'. But ATr will be well aware of that.
I recall going to one of those FSTA stakeholder meetings about a thousand years ago - and the requirements which led to the numbers and equipage of the A330MRTTs to be used by ATr were somewhat different to those which one sees today. Some senior chap asked me what I would suggest - and I told him that, having heard the AAR requirements stated at the meeting, I considered that the RAF should replace all its VC10s and TriStars with the 24-ish A310MRTTs then on offer from BAe Filton and bin the whole PFI notion...
3 squadrons of A310MRTTs, all with 2 pods and AAR probes and of which 2 squadrons' aircraft would also have centreline hoses.He agreed, but said that the politicos had already made up their minds............
And don't ask about any AAR role for the UK's A400Ms...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual registers
I think that some of you misunderstand Rigga when he talks of transfering between civil & military registers.
Transfering to the civil register requires that the aircraft is IAW the civil type ceritficate and all the required maintenance has been done.
Essentaly it is a paperwork excersise but as always the devil is in the detail and the whole deal will hinge on maintenance history, If the RAF has the maintenance done IAW EASA 145 the transfer would be reletively easy.
If the maintenance is done by the RAF under military oversight then the transfer paperwork would be troublesome time consuming but not imposable.
The long and short of this is the transfer between registers is to become a regular happening the MoD (RAF) needs to become an EASA 145 company for the maintenance of these aircraft or the costs will be prohbitive.
Transfering to the civil register requires that the aircraft is IAW the civil type ceritficate and all the required maintenance has been done.
Essentaly it is a paperwork excersise but as always the devil is in the detail and the whole deal will hinge on maintenance history, If the RAF has the maintenance done IAW EASA 145 the transfer would be reletively easy.
If the maintenance is done by the RAF under military oversight then the transfer paperwork would be troublesome time consuming but not imposable.
The long and short of this is the transfer between registers is to become a regular happening the MoD (RAF) needs to become an EASA 145 company for the maintenance of these aircraft or the costs will be prohbitive.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FSTA One rolled out
Flightglobal reports (27/8) that the first A330 for AirTanker has been rolled out after indoor testing for pre-flight tests outdoors, before first flight due in the coming weeks. The time to have all the loose ends noted in this thread to be sorted (if they haven't been already) is getting short !
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sponsored Reserves
Lets try and understand the concept of SRs chaps. They are an integral part of the contract with Air Tanker who have to provide a certain number of air and groundcrew SRs. To be acceptable all the normal requirements for Reserve Service have to be met: nationality, medical, age etc. The aircrew will also have to pass the Service medical but they do not have to pass through our flying training system to wings standard. To be given commissions (unless they've held them before) they will have to pass the Reserve Officers Initial Training course. The groundcrew - unless ex-servicemen, will attend Halton and undertake the Basic Reserve Training course. Oh and they'll have to pass the fitness test too!
Other Sponsored Reserves are the Serco groundcrew who maintain the Royal Flight aircraft, the Mobile Met Men, and I think there are a group of Boeing employees who do something clever for the E3D. As more capabilities are placed in the hands of contractors we can expect more Sponsored Reserves in future. I think the next likely project (after FSTA) to include them will be the new Air Traffic system which I believe the IPT want to staff with contractors rather than Blue Suiters.
Like it or not - it's part of the future so get used to it.
Other Sponsored Reserves are the Serco groundcrew who maintain the Royal Flight aircraft, the Mobile Met Men, and I think there are a group of Boeing employees who do something clever for the E3D. As more capabilities are placed in the hands of contractors we can expect more Sponsored Reserves in future. I think the next likely project (after FSTA) to include them will be the new Air Traffic system which I believe the IPT want to staff with contractors rather than Blue Suiters.
Like it or not - it's part of the future so get used to it.
Last edited by Impiger; 28th Aug 2010 at 17:53. Reason: Extra info
Lets try and understand the concept of SRs chaps. They are an integral part of the contract with Air Tanker who have to provide a certain number of air and groundcrew SRs. To be acceptable all the normal requirements for Reserve Service have to be met: nationality, medical, age etc. The aircrew will also have to pass the Service medical but they do not have to pass through our flying training system to wings standard. To be given commissions (unless they've held them before) they will have to pass the Reserve Officers Initial Training course. The groundcrew - unless ex-servicemen, will attend Halton and undertake the Basic Reserve Training course. Oh and they'll have to pass the fitness test too!
Sponsored Reservists are just a handy way for the MoD to avoid being accused of employing mercenaries.
If what you say is true. Impiger, then all of the air and ground staff will be military or ex-military and therefore the whole project will be a waste of investment as they will not work to the required EASA standards or regulations and will not initially have the required experience to maintain these jets.
I say this because no A330 Type Rated LAE (on £50K+) is going to go through those hoops for a return to service pay and conditions - just not worth the hassle.
I would guess that, within two years, the whole shebang will be degraded to military standards and unable to conduct CAT work - instant profit loss - with subsequent service provision drops.
If true, this scheme is destined to seriously degrade the whole project. Pity.
I say this because no A330 Type Rated LAE (on £50K+) is going to go through those hoops for a return to service pay and conditions - just not worth the hassle.
I would guess that, within two years, the whole shebang will be degraded to military standards and unable to conduct CAT work - instant profit loss - with subsequent service provision drops.
If true, this scheme is destined to seriously degrade the whole project. Pity.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say this because no A330 Type Rated LAE (on £50K+) is going to go through those hoops for a return to service pay and conditions - just not worth the hassle.
As a multi-type rated LAE on £60k (£75-80k if you factor in the overtime) working for a large UK Airline/MRO there is no way I would live out of a suitcase in digs at Brize away from my family on what is effectively the equivilent of service pay and conditions. When you consider the sponsored reservist requirement it does not appeal at all.
I envisage a few problems along the way with this project. For starters civil and military regulations/standards differ greatly and RAF personnel will have to completely change the way they work. Any serving RAF member employed on FSTA in a maintenance capacity without a licence, A330 type rating and company approval will be nothing more than a spanner monkey and that includes SNCO's. As for EngO's, well I guess you are still going to need somebody to sign leave passes.
Last edited by EGT Redline; 29th Aug 2010 at 01:46.
Interesting posts from the engineering chaps!
If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.
There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??
When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......
If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.
There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??
When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting posts from the engineering chaps!
If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.
There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??
When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......
If a company thinks that it can pay below the market rate on the assumption that it's employees are in receipt of a Service pension, they are deluding themselves. Particularly if the job comes with unattractive terms and conditions.
There seems to be a growing trend amongst civil contractors supporting military requirements to avoid advertising pay and conditions. Why??
When the experienced techies move on from TriStar and VC10, perhaps some might be tempted to transfer to ATr. But who will replace them when they eventually retire? Sustainability of personnel has always been rather a doubt with some of these companies - the unsuccessful FSTA bidder, for example, had no real idea about the potential cost of manning their flight simulator with civil qualified SFI(A)s......
At the moment, there are hundreds of moderately experienced UK pilots looking for jobs who are currently unemployed following the collapse of their last airline. They would be fairly desperate and some may be willing to work for low pay, but with Emirates taking on 700 pilots, almost entirely from the UK, within the next year and BA looking for 300, I can't see many UK pilots accepting a full time job on half the money they're used to. Then there are many people like me, who are in secure jobs with good pay and decent rosters, but lack satisfaction in what they are doing and want to feel a part of something more challenging and important... I'd make the jump if the money was similar, despite the increased risk, as long as the terms of duty and rostering allowed me to continue a reasonable family life.
As far as engineering and maintenance are concerned, I had assumed that it was to be done in-house by ATr, given that the consortium is the manufacturer of the aircraft and its systems. They'd need some sorts of contracts to support the aircraft down-route unless they arrange for RAF engineering support, and that regulatory hurdle must already have been cleared.
Beagle, I still don't understand why you insist that AAR would be beyond the wit of civvies. AAR wasn't in the OASC test, so the RAF took just as much of a chance with you as ATr would be in recruiting civvy, the key difference being that at least the civvy pilots would be experienced and trained to fly the aircraft, unlike all RAF new entrants. I have no doubt it's a complex skill, but since the civvy pilots will not have to work too hard at operating the A330 in any other aspect, being entirely familiar with large aircraft operation and procedural flying, it should be a relatively simple task to train the civvies to do the job under the tutelage of the RAF. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are just not that superior or special. Whether ATr choose to invest in the training in order to maximise its operational flexibility and efficiency is down to them - they're the ones with the figures and projections of costs vs efficiencies, so I'd trust them to make that informed decision, but I really can't see those experienced pilots that pass ATr's selection process struggling with such training any more than Service pilots.
Whippersnapper,
"BA looking for 300"? BA has hinted that it may look for 20 - 30 pilots in 2011. But 300? Where did that figure come from? That seems very unlikely.
They would be fairly desperate and some may be willing to work for low pay, but with Emirates taking on 700 pilots, almost entirely from the UK, within the next year and BA looking for 300, I can't see many UK pilots accepting a full time job on half the money they're used to.
Champagne anyone...?
WS - AAR and many other disciplines the RAF trains its pilots in aren't rocket science and most intelligent, able pilots can be taught them. The problem comes with maintaining the individual in the particular skillset and also with the organisation retaining the expertise they've invested in.
With a military pilot you have someone who hasn't signed a "contract" per se and who can be retained for a period as dictated by the RAF should he wish to resign. A civilian or reservist will be employed under contractual terms; if the RAF is going to invest in training him up then they want a guarantee that he won't up sticks and go at the first signing of a blossoming civilian market. It would have to be a fairly restrictive contract and I suspect many civilian pilots wouldn't want to be so tied down.
One could employ civvy pilots as reservists, initially as strat pilots, onto the sqn with the offer of training and qualification as an AAR operator further down the line. This would enable the RAF to assess the motivation & abilities of the individuals whilst in service prior to offer them further training (along with a change in contract terms).
I don't see why there should be any resentment within a sqn towards a civilian/reservist doing the same job on higher pay. There are plenty of existing situations in the RAF where that happens already. Problems might arise however if the reservists weren't required to properly "integrate" into the sqn. Many civilian pilots without prior RAF experience might not be that interested in coming into work to do secondary duties or other, peripheral duties. You run the risk of having a two tier unit where the reservists just roll into work as per their roster whilst the RAF personnel are in work doing all the usual sqn triv between trips.
These are generally just management issues but I suspect that if a reservist without previous AAR experience wants to get involved in that side of the business he'll find himself tied into a more restrictive contract than he might be used to in the civilian world. As I said earlier, there's no reason why a competent, motivated individual, regardless of background, can't be taught most of the stuff we do. Don't assume, however, that a million hours of A330 time is an indicator of ability to absorb new skills well outside of their previous experience. The same goes for the military of course - I've taught highly experienced military operators (in terms of hours) who have struggled to get to grips with new, more esoteric skillsets. The RAF and/or ATr are going to want to sure their investments go to the right people and that that investment can be retained.
Notwithstanding all of the above and as already mentioned by another poster, I suspect that someone somewhere has already thought of all this stuff already
With a military pilot you have someone who hasn't signed a "contract" per se and who can be retained for a period as dictated by the RAF should he wish to resign. A civilian or reservist will be employed under contractual terms; if the RAF is going to invest in training him up then they want a guarantee that he won't up sticks and go at the first signing of a blossoming civilian market. It would have to be a fairly restrictive contract and I suspect many civilian pilots wouldn't want to be so tied down.
One could employ civvy pilots as reservists, initially as strat pilots, onto the sqn with the offer of training and qualification as an AAR operator further down the line. This would enable the RAF to assess the motivation & abilities of the individuals whilst in service prior to offer them further training (along with a change in contract terms).
I don't see why there should be any resentment within a sqn towards a civilian/reservist doing the same job on higher pay. There are plenty of existing situations in the RAF where that happens already. Problems might arise however if the reservists weren't required to properly "integrate" into the sqn. Many civilian pilots without prior RAF experience might not be that interested in coming into work to do secondary duties or other, peripheral duties. You run the risk of having a two tier unit where the reservists just roll into work as per their roster whilst the RAF personnel are in work doing all the usual sqn triv between trips.
These are generally just management issues but I suspect that if a reservist without previous AAR experience wants to get involved in that side of the business he'll find himself tied into a more restrictive contract than he might be used to in the civilian world. As I said earlier, there's no reason why a competent, motivated individual, regardless of background, can't be taught most of the stuff we do. Don't assume, however, that a million hours of A330 time is an indicator of ability to absorb new skills well outside of their previous experience. The same goes for the military of course - I've taught highly experienced military operators (in terms of hours) who have struggled to get to grips with new, more esoteric skillsets. The RAF and/or ATr are going to want to sure their investments go to the right people and that that investment can be retained.
Notwithstanding all of the above and as already mentioned by another poster, I suspect that someone somewhere has already thought of all this stuff already
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"BA looking for 300"? BA has hinted that it may look for 20 - 30 pilots in 2011. But 300? Where did that figure come from? That seems very unlikely.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the typical Pprunistic approach of pontificating about things we don't really understand I thought a bit of research might enlighten us all - so look at:
http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/tac...onrese_cps.pdf
Seems to me that the contractor has to provide a percentage of his work-force as SR as stipulated in the contract. The RAF will provide a percentage of the whole as GFX (government supplied personnel) also, in this case, stipulated in the contract. The SR remain throughout employees of the contractor on whatever terms the contractor offers/agrees. They are mobilised as necessary to give them the protection of crown servants while undertaking certain tasks but they are still paid for by the contractor. The RAF stipulates the hoops that have to be jumped through to make the personnel SR - this includes some purely military training.
Once the work-force mix has been agreed and recruited the rest seems to be entirely a matter of local management and leadership.
http://www.aof.mod.uk/aofcontent/tac...onrese_cps.pdf
Seems to me that the contractor has to provide a percentage of his work-force as SR as stipulated in the contract. The RAF will provide a percentage of the whole as GFX (government supplied personnel) also, in this case, stipulated in the contract. The SR remain throughout employees of the contractor on whatever terms the contractor offers/agrees. They are mobilised as necessary to give them the protection of crown servants while undertaking certain tasks but they are still paid for by the contractor. The RAF stipulates the hoops that have to be jumped through to make the personnel SR - this includes some purely military training.
Once the work-force mix has been agreed and recruited the rest seems to be entirely a matter of local management and leadership.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart, your post is straight down the lines of my thinking. In terms of restrictive contracts to ensure an economic return on the training investment by the employer, it's normal in airlines for the pilots to be "bonded" to the airline for a three year period for the cost of the training course on a pro-rata basis. This usually applies only to type rating courses, which run at about £25k, but some companies (you can guess which ) have started bonding for command courses, instructor courses and anything else that can have cost implications. It may be possible to have civvy crews who have demonstrated suitable ability volunteer for AAR training and duties on such a basis, extending their bond beyond the original type rating bond. Bonds are seldom an issue in companies with fair terms and working conditions, though, as pilots don't tend to leave such companies in significant numbers. Bonds or self-sponsored type ratings suggest an airline whose pilots want to leave quickly, and that only happens where they are treated badly. Self sponsored training, especially where coupled with a pay to fly scheme, should be a significant warning flag to prospective applicants as to what to expect - these not only companies want to screw every penny out of staff, but also clearly expect them to leave very quickly and have concerns about resignees not paying off bonds.
Ultimately, it's the RAF's and ATr's decision, and if the RAF permit it and ATr believe the flexibility outweighs the initial costs, then there is no technical reason it can't be implemented.
) have started bonding for command courses, instructor courses and anything else that can have cost implications. It may be possible to have civvy crews who have demonstrated suitable ability volunteer for AAR training and duties on such a basis, extending their bond beyond the original type rating bond. Bonds are seldom an issue in companies with fair terms and working conditions, though, as pilots don't tend to leave such companies in significant numbers. Bonds or self-sponsored type ratings suggest an airline whose pilots want to leave quickly, and that only happens where they are treated badly. Self sponsored training, especially where coupled with a pay to fly scheme, should be a significant warning flag to prospective applicants as to what to expect - these not only companies want to screw every penny out of staff, but also clearly expect them to leave very quickly and have concerns about resignees not paying off bonds.Ultimately, it's the RAF's and ATr's decision, and if the RAF permit it and ATr believe the flexibility outweighs the initial costs, then there is no technical reason it can't be implemented.
They are mobilised as necessary to give them the protection of crown servants while undertaking certain tasks but they are still paid for by the contractor.
If someone would like to fund the experiment, I'd happily put a 'plain vanilla' airline pilot through a 3 week CBT and part-task-trainer AAR course to see how they would cope. The assets for such an experiment already exist.
Whippersnapper,
I tend to agree with most of your points. Having done the AAR job on 2 types and seeing the very low hours and experience of young pilots embarking on current wide body airliner training within the RAF ( yes trim stab, it can make for hard work in the LHS!) I see no reason why pilots without a military background could not get AAR qualified. After a few years, they could even become tanker captains!
However, I'm sure I'm not alone in objecting to purebred civilian pilots pitching up ready type rated and donning a RAF uniform to fly for this new company having passed an interview and sim check. I (like a lot of folk on this forum) have worked bloody hard over the years for the RAF. As an organisation we may be a bit dog eared after years of cost cutting and underfunded overwork, but all of the people I work with, regardless of their talent, are first and foremost, members of the military. I like working with them because we all seem to have a common outlook and sense of humour. I know plenty of civilian pilots, and would love to work along side them in their work environment, but for the large part, they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
There are some truly great pilots out in the airlines, I know. And when my time comes to join an airline, I look forward to learning from them. But for the moment, I like to see people wearing the uniform who have earned the right.
Arty out.
I tend to agree with most of your points. Having done the AAR job on 2 types and seeing the very low hours and experience of young pilots embarking on current wide body airliner training within the RAF ( yes trim stab, it can make for hard work in the LHS!) I see no reason why pilots without a military background could not get AAR qualified. After a few years, they could even become tanker captains!
However, I'm sure I'm not alone in objecting to purebred civilian pilots pitching up ready type rated and donning a RAF uniform to fly for this new company having passed an interview and sim check. I (like a lot of folk on this forum) have worked bloody hard over the years for the RAF. As an organisation we may be a bit dog eared after years of cost cutting and underfunded overwork, but all of the people I work with, regardless of their talent, are first and foremost, members of the military. I like working with them because we all seem to have a common outlook and sense of humour. I know plenty of civilian pilots, and would love to work along side them in their work environment, but for the large part, they decided against military careers so I would not want them on my squadron just because the pay is good and times are hard outside.
There are some truly great pilots out in the airlines, I know. And when my time comes to join an airline, I look forward to learning from them. But for the moment, I like to see people wearing the uniform who have earned the right.
Arty out.