CAA Military Accreditation
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! These military QFIs must be very amateurish! I mean, teaching on a single engine propeller driven military plane must be vastly different to teaching on a civilian one! Enough crazy talk, how on earth can military pilots who fly 2 pilot aircraft be expected to survive flying in the civilian world! The airways would be filled with people who don't know what they're doing! They're not even worthy of the civilian qualifications! Stop the madness!
OK Beagle, I'll take that as a 'No', you cannot point me at any piece of legislation that prevents me teaching aerobatics, you merely think that it should be wrong. According to the ANO, I need to hold an FI rating only if I wish to give instruction to a person for the reason of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot's licence or for the inclusion of any rating or qualification in a pilot's licence (Article 80). If I wish to give instruction for any other purpose, therefore, I don't need an FI Rating.
The A2 and DA are far from irrelevant as they show that I am not, by seeking to teach aerobatics, guilty of 'reckless endangerment', the only possible provision of the ANO that you could have quoted to support your argument. Part-FCL is also irrelevant, at least for another month.
The privileges of my licence are to fly "as pilot in command of an aeroplane for any reason whatsoever", unless some other provision of the ANO restricts that privilege. If you can show me any provision (not opinion) that says that I cannot give instruction that is not for the purposes described in Article 80, I will accept that you are right and I am wrong.
You have control.
The A2 and DA are far from irrelevant as they show that I am not, by seeking to teach aerobatics, guilty of 'reckless endangerment', the only possible provision of the ANO that you could have quoted to support your argument. Part-FCL is also irrelevant, at least for another month.
The privileges of my licence are to fly "as pilot in command of an aeroplane for any reason whatsoever", unless some other provision of the ANO restricts that privilege. If you can show me any provision (not opinion) that says that I cannot give instruction that is not for the purposes described in Article 80, I will accept that you are right and I am wrong.
You have control.
Last edited by BillieBob; 17th Aug 2012 at 20:47.
There is a clear difference between competence and legality.....
No doubt the airline co-pilot, ex-A2 who is now a display pilot is entirely competent to have taught military students aerobatics, for example.
But it isn't legal for him to teach civilian pilots, of unknown aptitude, to fly aerobatics without having first gained the relevant civil qualifications.
It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.
The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.
The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.
Regrettably, the civil world is paved with road humps, all of which cost a lot of money to cross. Does it make you a better pilot or instructor? Does it hell....
BillieBob, your JAR-FCL licence is now deemed to be a part-FCL licence and is no longer regulates under the ANO. See CAP 804. FCL900 is reasonably all embracing with regard to Instructor privileges.
Anway, why not get yourself properly qualified in accordance with part-FCL, rather than operating under your barrack room lawyer 'where does it say I can't' nonsense?
No doubt the airline co-pilot, ex-A2 who is now a display pilot is entirely competent to have taught military students aerobatics, for example.
But it isn't legal for him to teach civilian pilots, of unknown aptitude, to fly aerobatics without having first gained the relevant civil qualifications.
It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.
The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.
The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.
Regrettably, the civil world is paved with road humps, all of which cost a lot of money to cross. Does it make you a better pilot or instructor? Does it hell....
BillieBob, your JAR-FCL licence is now deemed to be a part-FCL licence and is no longer regulates under the ANO. See CAP 804. FCL900 is reasonably all embracing with regard to Instructor privileges.
Anway, why not get yourself properly qualified in accordance with part-FCL, rather than operating under your barrack room lawyer 'where does it say I can't' nonsense?
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Aug 2012 at 21:06.
But it isn't legal for him to teach civilian pilots, of unknown aptitude, to fly aerobatics without having first gained the relevant civil qualifications.
Here's another question - JAR-FCL 1.330 lists the privileges of a JAA Flight Instructor. Can you point out where the privilege to teach aerobatics is included?
BillieBob, your JAR-FCL licence is now deemed to be a part-FCL licence and is no longer regulates under the ANO. See CAP 804.
Blagger - I will log PIC, the other pilot may enter in his logbook anything he wishes but will not be able to claim the time towards the issue of a licence or rating. Since there is (as yet) no aerobatic rating, this is not great issue.
Last edited by BillieBob; 17th Aug 2012 at 21:16.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a response to BW's posts 226 & 228. Things seem to have moved on since then.
Of course you could always turn the argument the other way around. How dare civilian flight instructors think it reasonable to instruct military pilots without being required to demonstrate their competence to the appropriate military authority............?
Unless I'm mistaken - that happens. HQ CFS examiners check all prospective civilian instructors before they're allowed to give instruction to military student pilots on civilian contracts at Shawbury, Barkston Heath, Middle Wallop etc and even to ATC cadets on flying scholarships at civilian flying schools.
Two-way street.
Also, as Beagle has stated on many occasions, military theoretical knowledge requirements and flight training has been "dumbed down" significantly in the last decade or so. Quote from a post by Beagle on 25 July 2012: "How right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later. For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive....."
Before suffering return friendly fire, I'm ex mil and profited from my mil qualifications to obtain an ATPL (A), SE and ME class ratings, IR and unrestricted FI rating in 1998. However, I was required to study for and pass all 14 ATPL (A) theory exams (including a practical demonstration of knowledge of Morse code), and a class rating skill test on a multi-engine aircraft, and a ME instrument rating, and an FI skill test (despite being an A2 QFI and IRE).
Granted mil pilots and especially mil QFIs are good (generally streets ahead of their civilian counterparts), but if the MOD is not prepared to accept civil qualifications on face value, why should the CAA be expected to do likewise for the grant of equivalent EASA pilot licences and ratings?
BJ
Of course you could always turn the argument the other way around. How dare civilian flight instructors think it reasonable to instruct military pilots without being required to demonstrate their competence to the appropriate military authority............?
Unless I'm mistaken - that happens. HQ CFS examiners check all prospective civilian instructors before they're allowed to give instruction to military student pilots on civilian contracts at Shawbury, Barkston Heath, Middle Wallop etc and even to ATC cadets on flying scholarships at civilian flying schools.
Two-way street.
Also, as Beagle has stated on many occasions, military theoretical knowledge requirements and flight training has been "dumbed down" significantly in the last decade or so. Quote from a post by Beagle on 25 July 2012: "How right you are about the progressive dumbing-down of military theoretical knowledge instruction! For example, I was taught (and examined in) PofF to a greater level for my PFB in 1971 than I was at CFS 20 years later. For example, OCU groundschool for the Vickers FunBus was significantly dumbed down after some Stn Cdr decided that he didn't like it being so comprehensive....."
Before suffering return friendly fire, I'm ex mil and profited from my mil qualifications to obtain an ATPL (A), SE and ME class ratings, IR and unrestricted FI rating in 1998. However, I was required to study for and pass all 14 ATPL (A) theory exams (including a practical demonstration of knowledge of Morse code), and a class rating skill test on a multi-engine aircraft, and a ME instrument rating, and an FI skill test (despite being an A2 QFI and IRE).
Granted mil pilots and especially mil QFIs are good (generally streets ahead of their civilian counterparts), but if the MOD is not prepared to accept civil qualifications on face value, why should the CAA be expected to do likewise for the grant of equivalent EASA pilot licences and ratings?
BJ
Last edited by Black Jake; 17th Aug 2012 at 22:25.
BillieBob, I suggest you study the revised ANO which came out a few days ago - from which all JAR-FCL stuff has been removed.
The CAA was empowered to restrict activities sanctioned by JAR-FCL (e.g. to impose restrictive PPL VFR minima), whereas it has no such powers under EASA.
Read the Basic Regulation to establish the definitions for aerobatic flight - and the qualifications which apply to aerobatic instruction.
If you'd prefer, I can put you in touch with the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement Branch and you can discuss it with them.
So does the 'pilot' (actually a passenger in the circumstances described) pay for your activity? Sounds pretty close to illegal public transport to me.....
The CAA was empowered to restrict activities sanctioned by JAR-FCL (e.g. to impose restrictive PPL VFR minima), whereas it has no such powers under EASA.
Read the Basic Regulation to establish the definitions for aerobatic flight - and the qualifications which apply to aerobatic instruction.
If you'd prefer, I can put you in touch with the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement Branch and you can discuss it with them.
Blagger - I will log PIC, the other pilot may enter in his logbook anything he wishes but will not be able to claim the time towards the issue of a licence or rating. Since there is (as yet) no aerobatic rating, this is not great issue.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Aug 2012 at 21:19.
Beagle, This exchange does not concern the EASA implementing rules but your contention that, under JAR-FCL, it was illegal for a pilot without an FI rating (or with an FI rating that included a 'No aerobatics' restriction) to give instruction for purposes other than those described in Article 80 of the ANO. That contention is entirely wrong and you have been signally unable to cite any legal instrument to support it. It is also clear that you do not understand the distinction between public transport and aerial work, nor the provisions of Article 50. If a licensed pilot hires an aeroplane and chooses to pay me (as the holder of a professional licence) for my time and expertise, that is entirely within the law. If the other pilot feels he needs to log the flight then SNY should do the trick.
I have, on various occasions in the past, discussed this particular issue with both PLD Approvals (as it then was), the then CFE and Head of Policy. All agreed (off the record) that the 'No aerobatics' restriction was entirely unsupportable in law but, in the knowledge that EASA was on the way, were disinclined to do anything about it. Hence my original contention that removing the restriction ahead of 17 Sep was pointless.
Oh, and I attended the last ARE thrash in London - it was awesome, those ex-coppers can really put it away!
I have, on various occasions in the past, discussed this particular issue with both PLD Approvals (as it then was), the then CFE and Head of Policy. All agreed (off the record) that the 'No aerobatics' restriction was entirely unsupportable in law but, in the knowledge that EASA was on the way, were disinclined to do anything about it. Hence my original contention that removing the restriction ahead of 17 Sep was pointless.
Oh, and I attended the last ARE thrash in London - it was awesome, those ex-coppers can really put it away!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone confirm that military pilots still teach aerobatics, fly in controlled airspace, at night or even in cloud? Do they fly big jets, like passenger airliners or even piston aircraft, like at a flying club?
How can this still be allowed if they are not up to the standard of all the other civilian users? According to the CAA, their training and skills are not worthy of being recognised and their knowledge is far from adequate - surely this cannot be safe! Somebody should do something about it!
How can this still be allowed if they are not up to the standard of all the other civilian users? According to the CAA, their training and skills are not worthy of being recognised and their knowledge is far from adequate - surely this cannot be safe! Somebody should do something about it!
Last edited by BlindWingy; 17th Aug 2012 at 21:53.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BillieBob,
You asked the question:
and then answered it:
To be exact, it's in Part 1, Section 4, Part J, Subpart 1,
By my understanding, you will in future need an Aerobatics Rating on your EASA licence if you wish to turn yourself upside down. It also seems quite clear to me that, under EASA, only FIs with privilages to conduct aerobatics training will be legally entitled to provide training for the award of an Aerobatics Rating. So, you can provide as much aerobatics training as you like, but your clients won't be able to use any of it towards the award of their Aerobatics Rating if you're not an FI with the "no aerobatics" restriction removed.
You asked the question:
Here's another question - JAR-FCL 1.330 lists the privileges of a JAA Flight Instructor. Can you point out where the privilege to teach aerobatics is included?
This will be the CAP 804 that takes effect from 17 September 2012, will it?
The privileges of an FI are to conduct flight instruction for the issue, revalidation or renewal of:
(f) a towing or aerobatic rating, provided that such privileges are held and the FI has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below;
(f) a towing or aerobatic rating, provided that such privileges are held and the FI has demonstrated the ability to instruct for that rating to an FI qualified in accordance with (i) below;
Last edited by LFFC; 17th Aug 2012 at 22:10.
BJ,
Your analogy is wrong. CFS checking out prospective civilian FIs is no different to BA conducting simulator checks on prospective pilots. It's nothing to do with licensing - it's everything to do with ensuring the individuals being given the jobs are the best candidates in the field.
Giving military pilots credit towards civilian licenses is not the same thing as giving them credit towards jobs, which is what the thrust of your (narrow) argument is about.
Your analogy is wrong. CFS checking out prospective civilian FIs is no different to BA conducting simulator checks on prospective pilots. It's nothing to do with licensing - it's everything to do with ensuring the individuals being given the jobs are the best candidates in the field.
Giving military pilots credit towards civilian licenses is not the same thing as giving them credit towards jobs, which is what the thrust of your (narrow) argument is about.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy S:
The basic argument is this: "I have been trained by the military to do X, I have been assessed (by military assessment criteria) as competent to do X and I have been doing X for a certain period of time. Much of what I do is similar to what civilian pilots do. Therefore, I am entitled to claim credit for my (military) training for an equivalent civilian pilot licence, rating or certificate; whatever."
On most occasions this is probably true. The recently published conversion report quite rightly allows for military training and experience but requires that an applicant for an EASA licence, rating or certificate demonstrates that he/she is competent to exercise the privileges of that EASA licence, rating or certificate.
The MOD requires the same of civilian pilots on MOD contracts. I fail to see the difference.
BJ
The basic argument is this: "I have been trained by the military to do X, I have been assessed (by military assessment criteria) as competent to do X and I have been doing X for a certain period of time. Much of what I do is similar to what civilian pilots do. Therefore, I am entitled to claim credit for my (military) training for an equivalent civilian pilot licence, rating or certificate; whatever."
On most occasions this is probably true. The recently published conversion report quite rightly allows for military training and experience but requires that an applicant for an EASA licence, rating or certificate demonstrates that he/she is competent to exercise the privileges of that EASA licence, rating or certificate.
The MOD requires the same of civilian pilots on MOD contracts. I fail to see the difference.
BJ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frozen South
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similair? But I thought military pilots fly aeroplanes in the same sky as the civilians? In the airways, with passengers. Surely that's pretty much the same? How can they be allowed to do so if they aren't qualified to the appropriate level?
It was much easier for me years ago when I decided to become a civil FI. First I had to regain my PPL, apply for IMC and Night Ratings, then pass ATPL Air Law for my R/BCPL. Then fly with the CFS trapper who was visiting the other UAS at the time, to meet both 1179 and FI test requirements. Then send off for my FI Rating and R/BCPL at the same time....with a significant cheque after first arranging the civil medical. Later I added a BX examiner authorisation and eventually converted to ATPL (after flying 1 trip with a CAA IRE observing an MCT trip in the VC10), with SEP Class Rating, IMC Rating, Night Rating, FI Rating and FE authorisation.
The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.
The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.
The cost of keeping all this valid, coupled with a downturn in student demand and my availability, eventually forced me to pack it all in. JAR-FCL had forced me out of the market.
The instructing and examining I did in the PA28, plus the odd aeros session in other aircraft, was nothing like as demanding as UAS Bulldog instructing - and my A2 on the Bulldog was vastly harder than any civil FI test.
There is a very simple solution - get an FI rating to prove that you can instruct (let's say it is equivalent to PGCE - which it is in France). That should allow an instructor to teach any advanced subject that he has demonstrable competence in - whether as a CRI, IRI, aerobatics, night
It would allow instructors with genuine experience (whether civilian or military) to work in FTOs - without having to pay a small fortune for silly add-on "advanced" courses taught by novices in the subject.
It would also stop all this nonsense whereby FTOs are filled with hours-building instructors who only have a hundred hours or so more experience than their students.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 18th Aug 2012 at 22:10.
I've had another read through the document, and I'm still unsure precisely how it all affects me. It doesn't help because I don't have a legacy copy of LASORS to plough through.
FJ background so no ME/multi-pilot time at all (unless QFIing counts!
). Slightly sub-2000hrs TT, 1500PIC.
From what I can understand, I sit all 14 exams, I do an appropriate amount of training with a FTO to pass an ME skills test, then I do a ME IR and an MCC.
Isn't that what I would have had to do beforehand if I wasn't due any 2000+ exemptions? Has anything changed for someone in my shoes?
Also, has anyone got to the bottom of the "a BFJT graduate SHALL take all his tests in a single engine single pilot aircraft" bit?
FJ background so no ME/multi-pilot time at all (unless QFIing counts!
). Slightly sub-2000hrs TT, 1500PIC. From what I can understand, I sit all 14 exams, I do an appropriate amount of training with a FTO to pass an ME skills test, then I do a ME IR and an MCC.
Isn't that what I would have had to do beforehand if I wasn't due any 2000+ exemptions? Has anything changed for someone in my shoes?
Also, has anyone got to the bottom of the "a BFJT graduate SHALL take all his tests in a single engine single pilot aircraft" bit?
Unofficial summary of the old and new pathways to fATPL for qualified FJ pilots:
EXAMS - Old Scheme
That's my understanding at any rate, and I stand ready to be corrected! My impression is that FJ mates don't have too much to complain about with the new scheme, particularly as few outside of the QFI world would have made the hours threshold by their 38/40 point anyway given the paucity of flying hours in the modern air force. It's the lack of PPL credit in the new scheme that really grips my sh1t.
So the new feature for most FJ mates is the CPL skills test. I have not investigated this in detail yet, but I presume there is a way of making the process a bit cheaper by combining the CPL skills test with the IRT? Is this possible? This might be where the line about taking the CPL in a single engine aircraft causes a faff - because the IR obviously has to be taken in a ME aircraft....
EXAMS - Old Scheme
- 2000hrs total / 1500 PIC = Bridging course plus 4 exams
- Less experienced = Approved course of training plus 14 exams
- Any experience level = 14 exams, no formal training required (feeling brave / stupid / both?!)
- In current flying practice = CPL issued automatically
- Not in current flying practice = Abridged CPL course and skills test required*
- Experience level not relevant
- Any level of currency = CPL skills test required, but no training required (see my previous comment!)
- Experience level not relevant
- ME class rating course and skill test*
- Single pilot ME IR
- MCC
That's my understanding at any rate, and I stand ready to be corrected! My impression is that FJ mates don't have too much to complain about with the new scheme, particularly as few outside of the QFI world would have made the hours threshold by their 38/40 point anyway given the paucity of flying hours in the modern air force. It's the lack of PPL credit in the new scheme that really grips my sh1t.
So the new feature for most FJ mates is the CPL skills test. I have not investigated this in detail yet, but I presume there is a way of making the process a bit cheaper by combining the CPL skills test with the IRT? Is this possible? This might be where the line about taking the CPL in a single engine aircraft causes a faff - because the IR obviously has to be taken in a ME aircraft....
Last edited by Easy Street; 18th Aug 2012 at 21:51.
BEagle - so why are you are arguing so vociferously on this thread (and elsewhere on PPRuNe) in support of all this EASA euro-bollocks nonsense?
There is a very simple solution - get an FI rating to prove that you can instruct (let's say it is equivalent to PGCE - which it is in France). That should allow an instructor to teach any advanced subject that he has demonstrable competence in - whether as a CRI, IRI, aerobatics, night.
What I am disputing is the concept of any form of civil instruction without the 'instructor' holding an appropriate qualification.
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Aug 2012 at 07:34.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Anywhere I'm told
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street - From my reading, the new rules mean FJ mates "shall" fly their CPL Skiils Test and IR Skills Test in a Complex Single. They can then be issued a CPL/IR before having to get an MEPL Class Rating and then fly another IR Skills Test in a Multi. That's 3 lots of paying for the company of a CAA Examiner!
Last edited by R-A-F-Off; 19th Aug 2012 at 15:25.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJ mates shafted?
I still can't work out if this is a good or bad thing for FJ mates. Good - I can get a CPL/IR without having to do any multi time (cheaper) but then this licence would be useless for future employment in the airline world. Bad- to get a licence for flying airlines is more expensive for me as I have to do a Complex Single skills test and then a ME Skills Test and IR. Can I not just do the ME skills test and IR first time around? If this is possible why would anyone bother with the Complex Single bit? (unless you want to fly PC12 or the like) ??? Ps. If they wanted me to read the full EASA document they should have used 4 colours and a few pictures.