CAA Military Accreditation
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to stop doing it then maybe! Either we are suitable trained and qualified (in which case we receive credit for that when it comes to licences) or we are not - and in which case we should not be flying in anything other than open FIR!
I think, legally, 22 Gp might have just shot the RAF in the foot, big style. Potentially a huge loss in not just face, but capability too.....
I think, legally, 22 Gp might have just shot the RAF in the foot, big style. Potentially a huge loss in not just face, but capability too.....
If you already hold CPL(A) with MEP Class Rating, then you should be able to include an IR(A) in your licence under the same terms which apply to any other civil pilot licence holder.
The contact details for 22Gp are on the first page of the Part O exemptions under the 'Applicability' heading.
Questions regarding eligibility criteria and/or the accreditation scheme should be directed in writing to: FT FJ SO2, Directorate of Flying Training, Building 1300, MoD Abbey Wood, BRISTOL, BS34 8JH or by e-mail to 22TrgGp-FT FJ1 [email protected].
- 70hrs PIC / PICUS / P1 non-Capt (Nimrod P1 / Copilot p1?) logged in your military logbook
So, as the RAF gives you sod-all solo time during training these days, you can still obtain an NPPL using exactly the same exam and test exemptions as applied hitherto, then top up your PIC time on a RAF FCA puddlejumper.....
Back in more enlightened times, I note that I already had 70 hrs PIC after my RAF Scholarship and UAS flying before I went solo on the JP3...
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Jul 2012 at 21:45.
Well, I'm not one to revel in other's misery, but what has happened now is just the same that happened to Navs when CAA Licences went to JAR Licences around the turn of the millenium. No accreditation of training anymore, no carry over of mil hours to civ hours and no transfer of captaincy hours.
Welcome to the Club, my 2-winged master race buddies - it sucks the dog of death doesn't it?
iRaven
PS I got more exam exemptions as a 2nd tourist Nav in 1999 compared to a very experienced QSP under these new regulations.
Welcome to the Club, my 2-winged master race buddies - it sucks the dog of death doesn't it?
iRaven
PS I got more exam exemptions as a 2nd tourist Nav in 1999 compared to a very experienced QSP under these new regulations.
Last edited by iRaven; 27th Jul 2012 at 19:17.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 53
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry chaps, you will have to stay out of civvy controlled airspace, as we are just not sure if you are up to scratch.
Stay away from clouds whilst you're at it.
What a crock of Sh1t!
Stay away from clouds whilst you're at it.
What a crock of Sh1t!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other problem will be with lapsed atpl(a)for those already possessing an atpl(a)? As I understand, if your type isn't recognised, your license could expire in as little as three years as the green rating will no longer count as a renewal unless it's on a specific type?
Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the atpl syllabus? Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?
Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the atpl syllabus? Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?
Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the ATPL syllabus?
Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22Gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?
Hands up all those who think that the new MAS is A Good Thing.... "You, pratt at the back, what's your name?".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks beags for the translations. It's not good news for most of us, but at least we know where we stand. Time to knuckle own,ditch pointless secondary duties and get our licenses sorted!
A letter from SWMBO to your MP expressing her worry that her husband's RAF pilot training is so poor that the CAA will not grant a license, may be in order.
Being rejected from another countries airspace on safety grounds (quoting the CAA's refusal to recognise UK military experience) would be a more diplomatically expedient way of preventing us from delivering operational capability
Being rejected from another countries airspace on safety grounds (quoting the CAA's refusal to recognise UK military experience) would be a more diplomatically expedient way of preventing us from delivering operational capability
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, the world has moved on and as usual the British military hasn't moved with it.
Forget HQ 22 Gp, the real holders of the risk of operating military aircraft are the politicians that sign off a system. Once they realise what has just happened, and sadly that will probably come as a result of an enquiry following an incident of some kind, they will see that the obvious regulator for military aviation should be the Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA), not the training provider.
The new order of things is that the CAA regulate British civilian Flying Training Organisations and ensure that their product meets agreed European safety standards; the MAA should provide the same function for peacetime military flying training.
If that was the case right now, perhaps the MAA would be asking itself if British military flying training was an airworthy system.
Last edited by LFFC; 27th Jul 2012 at 22:21.
If that was the case right now, perhaps the MAA would be asking itself if British military flying training was an airworthy system.
Or was it the case that only EFT/BFT/AFT theoretical knowledge training was looked at?
You are probably quite right, Just This Once.
But if this accreditation process was delegated to a 2-person team at 22Gp, did they actually float it past the MAA's regulatory department before it went to the CAA?
Military and Civil aircraft share the same airspace; to my simple mind military training should encompass everything which civil traning covers, PLUS military-specific items.
Perhaps the MAA should now take governance of this whole matter and assess whether any missing EASA learning objectives in military training pose a risk. Which may take a while.... They should also require that full recognition is made of the testing standards conducted by all military flight examiners as having full equivalence to civil flight examining.
The CAA used to consider that the RAF had a competency-based training system which obviated the 'hours' requirements of civil training. However, now that not even a PPL Skill Test may be credited, just what faith does the CAA have in the RAF's testing standards?
But if this accreditation process was delegated to a 2-person team at 22Gp, did they actually float it past the MAA's regulatory department before it went to the CAA?
Military and Civil aircraft share the same airspace; to my simple mind military training should encompass everything which civil traning covers, PLUS military-specific items.
Perhaps the MAA should now take governance of this whole matter and assess whether any missing EASA learning objectives in military training pose a risk. Which may take a while.... They should also require that full recognition is made of the testing standards conducted by all military flight examiners as having full equivalence to civil flight examining.
The CAA used to consider that the RAF had a competency-based training system which obviated the 'hours' requirements of civil training. However, now that not even a PPL Skill Test may be credited, just what faith does the CAA have in the RAF's testing standards?
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Jul 2012 at 09:09.
I heard that the 22Gp guys were not able to match the military syllabus with the ATPL, which is the reason why the freebie ATPL doesn't exist any more.
I'd say the military groundschools covered about 2/3 of what ATPL covered. Plus, if you went rotary or FJ, then you missed out on anything specific to heavies (perf A, M&B, op procedures, air law etc.).
Just This Once - thanks!
In the grand scheme of things, how expensive and time-consuming would it be to put all pilots through full-time ATPL groundschool on completion of EFT? I guess the volume of students would be such that it would be worth employing a couple of dedicated civilian instructors. It's my strong belief that this would do the world of good professionally - and FJ guys should do the Perf A and Op Procedures exams, ask any Tornado pilot who has grappled with unbalanced takeoff figures, flown an unsupported Oceanic leg or a long GAT deployment through Europe!
Last edited by Easy Street; 28th Jul 2012 at 09:46.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Military Accreditation
Cranwell have a full time team of ground instructors or the MEAFT students. I wonder if it anyone has considered getting them registered as a training organisation for the delivery of the ATPL syllabus. The EFT groundschool syllabus, in theory at least, could easily be tailored to cover the EASA PPL syllabus as well as covering the the points unique to military pilots. This can only improve standards in the eyes of the regulators.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the next obvious question is:
Are the exams still exactly the same or are there a new set of questions?
If so,
Is the Answer bank still extant or is there now a requirement for a new answer bank (which I am assuming will take time to pull together?)
Just wondering.....
Are the exams still exactly the same or are there a new set of questions?
If so,
Is the Answer bank still extant or is there now a requirement for a new answer bank (which I am assuming will take time to pull together?)
Just wondering.....
And if they are the same (or similar) then the question has to be asked as to who has it right and who has it wrong?
For instance, rotary licence exams asking questions about pressurisation systems on airliners and aircraft exam questions about type specific components such as 737 autopilots and FMS. Why on earth do you need that for licence issue? Surely that is type specific and should be in the type rating course?
Maybe it is EASA that needs to re-write their syllabus and not the RAF. The exams were a complete hoop jumping exercise with very little learning actually required.
For instance, rotary licence exams asking questions about pressurisation systems on airliners and aircraft exam questions about type specific components such as 737 autopilots and FMS. Why on earth do you need that for licence issue? Surely that is type specific and should be in the type rating course?
Maybe it is EASA that needs to re-write their syllabus and not the RAF. The exams were a complete hoop jumping exercise with very little learning actually required.
VigilantPilot, the tone of your post does you no credit.
There is no reason why the ATPL syallabus could not be included in military training. Although you might have passed through question spotting, that does not mean that others should do so.
In fact many airlines are, it seems, finally waking up to the fact that the current EASA CQB-spotting technique means that pilots have not properly assimilated basic knowledge, they've just memorised the exam answers without any clue as to the underlying theory.
The CQB is being re-written, I gather.
Perhaps thou should first remove the beam from thine own eye?
There is no reason why the ATPL syallabus could not be included in military training. Although you might have passed through question spotting, that does not mean that others should do so.
In fact many airlines are, it seems, finally waking up to the fact that the current EASA CQB-spotting technique means that pilots have not properly assimilated basic knowledge, they've just memorised the exam answers without any clue as to the underlying theory.
The CQB is being re-written, I gather.
As for the suggestions that this new CAP suggests that military aviators are not fit to fly in the same airspace as civilian ATPL holders: grow up, pull your finger out and study for the ATPL theory. Stop using this excuse to suggest you deserve a free ATPL!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the groudschool that's got my goat, it's the bloody skills test. I get a distinct feeling that the team put together by 22Gp had very little recency with respect of the front line.
How can pilots who fly in afghan class e airspace, regularly operating vfr, operating to natural and semi prepared strips, to significantly reduced safety factors, be still required to do a skills test? I did double asymmetric for 3 hours in the sim the other day stalling, operating to MOS, something the civvies don't do which requires far more skill than flying a procedural join and a procedure for an ndb. It seems that there wasnt enough input sought from the front line. At a time when we are flush with fl pilots looking for a job as there are not enough cockpits, quite frankly there was no excuse.
How can pilots who fly in afghan class e airspace, regularly operating vfr, operating to natural and semi prepared strips, to significantly reduced safety factors, be still required to do a skills test? I did double asymmetric for 3 hours in the sim the other day stalling, operating to MOS, something the civvies don't do which requires far more skill than flying a procedural join and a procedure for an ndb. It seems that there wasnt enough input sought from the front line. At a time when we are flush with fl pilots looking for a job as there are not enough cockpits, quite frankly there was no excuse.
Last edited by VinRouge; 28th Jul 2012 at 12:17.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vp, all it will mean is that people will start their grounschool on day one after the OCU, secondary duties will not get done and the mod Will be sending a fortune in caa examiner fees via enhanced learning credits, for very short term gain.
Lunacy.
Lunacy.