CAA Military Accreditation
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VigilantPilot,
Firstly, I did not mean to suggest that British military pilots are any less able than civilian pilots, but it's sadly true that outside observers might now perceive that to be the case. I actually believe that the vast majority of military pilots bring with them a wealth of experience when they move to the civilian world.
I'm not in a position to know, but I suspect that the HQ22Gp team didn't achieve accreditation for a number of reasons. Poor resourcing probably played it's part, as did late acceptance of the task because they didn't have their finger on the pulse. However, did they have ready access to the OCU training systems (not under HQ 22 Gp control) so that they could give a complete picture to EASA? Since many of the subjects included in the civilian ATPL theory exams are taught much later in the military (when they are considered more relevant), unless the 22 Gp team were able to gather the correct information from other Gp HQs, they would fail to tell the whole story.
In the civilian world, the CAA regulate the training provided by flying training schools and operators, so it is easy for them to provide a complete picture to EASA. Arguably, only the MAA would be able to present such a complete picture to EASA on behalf of the military. So this whole debacle just screams out to me that regulation of military flying training is systemically flawed.
Firstly, I did not mean to suggest that British military pilots are any less able than civilian pilots, but it's sadly true that outside observers might now perceive that to be the case. I actually believe that the vast majority of military pilots bring with them a wealth of experience when they move to the civilian world.
I'm not in a position to know, but I suspect that the HQ22Gp team didn't achieve accreditation for a number of reasons. Poor resourcing probably played it's part, as did late acceptance of the task because they didn't have their finger on the pulse. However, did they have ready access to the OCU training systems (not under HQ 22 Gp control) so that they could give a complete picture to EASA? Since many of the subjects included in the civilian ATPL theory exams are taught much later in the military (when they are considered more relevant), unless the 22 Gp team were able to gather the correct information from other Gp HQs, they would fail to tell the whole story.
In the civilian world, the CAA regulate the training provided by flying training schools and operators, so it is easy for them to provide a complete picture to EASA. Arguably, only the MAA would be able to present such a complete picture to EASA on behalf of the military. So this whole debacle just screams out to me that regulation of military flying training is systemically flawed.
Last edited by LFFC; 28th Jul 2012 at 13:40.
Poor resourcing probably played it's part, as did late acceptance of the task because they didn't have their finger on the pulse.
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 spending a fortune in CAA Examiner fees via enhanced learning credits, for very short term gain.
Come Monday morning at Abbey Wood, with the pleasant task of re-arranging paper clips and lining up their 4 coloured dri-markers ahead of them, as they begin their traditional morning chant of "L00kout, Attitude, Instruments, what about a FOEHL check?", Little and Large are somewhat surprised when the phone rings at 0831....
"ring.....ring"
"Hello, 22 Trai.....ah, good morning, Sir!"
"You two, your hats, my office...NOW!"
........
"Right. Sort this shambles out and come back when you've fixed it. Saxa Vord and Machrihanish have now closed, so whilst you're unbuggering this chaos, I will be looking for somewhere which might need an OC GD Flt, or whatever the latest stupid name is, should you fail in your task......
Understand? Right, why am I still looking at you?"
If only.....
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Jul 2012 at 14:16.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disappointing. Long wait for nothing. Tried to digest it and in summary we are exempt from the training requirements but have to do all the same tests (except MCC for ME guys). Am I massively off the mark?
Basically no accreditation for years of experience, hard work and commitment.
Chances of being allowed to do a skills test/IR on military aircraft? Probably as high as finding a IRE or TRE qualified on type!
Basically no accreditation for years of experience, hard work and commitment.
Chances of being allowed to do a skills test/IR on military aircraft? Probably as high as finding a IRE or TRE qualified on type!
Agreed, I don't mind doing the ATPL ground theory and will happily admit I will even learn a thing or two. But having do to do a skills test and IR as an IRE training captain with thousands of hours is, quite frankly, a joke.
They are basically saying that any experience I gain post 70 hours PIC is worthless. I know a few experienced people will be hitting the PVR button on Monday and heading off down the civvy multis route now
They are basically saying that any experience I gain post 70 hours PIC is worthless. I know a few experienced people will be hitting the PVR button on Monday and heading off down the civvy multis route now
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In essence there is no military accreditation any more. This surely is contrary to the 'military covenant' in that the military has provided all of us with NO transferable skills or qualifications.
If we'd joined as squaddies rather than the highest trained members of the military at least we'd leave with an HGV licence.
What a waste of thousands of hours of flying and literally hundreds of check rides and years of study and application!
What a shameful betrayal....
If we'd joined as squaddies rather than the highest trained members of the military at least we'd leave with an HGV licence.
What a waste of thousands of hours of flying and literally hundreds of check rides and years of study and application!
What a shameful betrayal....
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The principle behind the Covenant is that the Armed Forces Community should not face disadvantage because of its military experience. In some cases, such as the sick, injured or bereaved, this means giving special consideration to enable access to public or commercial services that civilians wouldn’t receive. The Covenant covers issues from housing and education to support after Service, and in it veterans have great importance. It is crucial to the Government that it, and the nation, recognises the unique and immense sacrifices you have made for your country.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start date for credits
Having waited approx one month for a reply from the CAA wrt additional theory requirements to add an IR to an existing CPL I got a reply yesterday approx 10mins before the CAA shut up shop for the weekend, which was very good of them.
The news was not welcome; if you want an IR you must sit all 7 of IR exams, or all 14 for an ATPL. They also closed the email with the following statement:
"Please refer to CAP 804 for any credits towards the exams and
theoretical instruction which will be effective from 17 September 2012."
I infer from this that if I/you intend to gain an IR or ATPL before that date I/we have still got to go through an accredited trg provider which is another kick in the proverbials and a further dent in the ever-shrinking wallet. Disappointed doesn't even come close.
Anyone thinking of completing exams in August will also be pleased to hear that the deadline for exam applications was.......yesterday!!!
The only aviators that I see benefitting from the MAS are the newbies, recently CR, green rated, that want to get out of the service as soon as they complete their return of service.
So glad I'm not out of the service in the next 2 months and that I haven't been waiting since April to find out this info
and
The news was not welcome; if you want an IR you must sit all 7 of IR exams, or all 14 for an ATPL. They also closed the email with the following statement:
"Please refer to CAP 804 for any credits towards the exams and
theoretical instruction which will be effective from 17 September 2012."
I infer from this that if I/you intend to gain an IR or ATPL before that date I/we have still got to go through an accredited trg provider which is another kick in the proverbials and a further dent in the ever-shrinking wallet. Disappointed doesn't even come close.
Anyone thinking of completing exams in August will also be pleased to hear that the deadline for exam applications was.......yesterday!!!
The only aviators that I see benefitting from the MAS are the newbies, recently CR, green rated, that want to get out of the service as soon as they complete their return of service.
So glad I'm not out of the service in the next 2 months and that I haven't been waiting since April to find out this info
and
Whirling Wizardry,
Did you have your CPL issued through the bridging scheme? I've just asked the CAA the same question and am awaiting an answer. The CAA wording was previously ambiguous and said that you would lose your theory credits if you hadn't had your licence issued before the deadline. I took this to infer that you would keep your theory credits as long as you had your licence issued (which I have but with no IR).
If they are making everyone do all 7 exams for the IR again then I will have to repeat exams that I have already obtained full credit for.
Did you have your CPL issued through the bridging scheme? I've just asked the CAA the same question and am awaiting an answer. The CAA wording was previously ambiguous and said that you would lose your theory credits if you hadn't had your licence issued before the deadline. I took this to infer that you would keep your theory credits as long as you had your licence issued (which I have but with no IR).
If they are making everyone do all 7 exams for the IR again then I will have to repeat exams that I have already obtained full credit for
.
Last edited by SAR Bloke; 28th Jul 2012 at 17:51.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARBloke,
Got mine through the bridging scheme; to carry ATPL theory credit over (after 8 Apr 12) you needed to have had an IR issued and you must then upgrade to an ATPL within 7 years. It sounds like you are in the same position as me, i.e. 7 exams for IR or 14 for ATPL
The next available exams for IR are in Oct. I have been informed that you can start any necessry aircraft fg trg before completing all of the requisite theory exams but you would have to take your IRT/ATPL skills test after you have passed all of the necessary exams.
I was previously told by the CAA that any exams previously taken at ATPL level, i.e. Air Law and Ops Procedures would be credited beyond 8 Apr and you wouldn't have to sit them again (as long as you complete all exams within 18 months), however, the latest email the CAA sent me doesn't say that. I tend to get a different answer from the CAA every time I speak to them so I'd like to hear what anyone else has been told. It all adds to the frustration caused by the Campaign Against Aviation when simple answers are all that is needed so that you can simply organise what trg needs doing.
Got mine through the bridging scheme; to carry ATPL theory credit over (after 8 Apr 12) you needed to have had an IR issued and you must then upgrade to an ATPL within 7 years. It sounds like you are in the same position as me, i.e. 7 exams for IR or 14 for ATPL
The next available exams for IR are in Oct. I have been informed that you can start any necessry aircraft fg trg before completing all of the requisite theory exams but you would have to take your IRT/ATPL skills test after you have passed all of the necessary exams.
I was previously told by the CAA that any exams previously taken at ATPL level, i.e. Air Law and Ops Procedures would be credited beyond 8 Apr and you wouldn't have to sit them again (as long as you complete all exams within 18 months), however, the latest email the CAA sent me doesn't say that. I tend to get a different answer from the CAA every time I speak to them so I'd like to hear what anyone else has been told. It all adds to the frustration caused by the Campaign Against Aviation when simple answers are all that is needed so that you can simply organise what trg needs doing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service shall be given credit for the purposes of the relevant requirements of Annex I in accordance with the elements of a credit report established by the Member State in consultation with the Agency.
Last edited by VinRouge; 28th Jul 2012 at 18:50.
Whirling wizardry,
The more I hear, the more I find more questions that need answering. You mention that you will need to do the ATPL exams before a skills test but I thought the CPL and ATPL skills test were the same (and therefore there is no need to do it again). Does that mean you (and I) will also need to do another skills test before an ATPL can be issued? I assume not, and if I am right, then we don't fit within the current rules and someone will have to make the decision as to what we do next.
Who makes the decisions as to what is required in these sorts of cases? The CAA clearly state in CAP804 that they have washed their hands of it. Do 22Gp have the authority to make common-sense decisions in these cases (as the CAA have done with me previously)?
The more I hear, the more I find more questions that need answering. You mention that you will need to do the ATPL exams before a skills test but I thought the CPL and ATPL skills test were the same (and therefore there is no need to do it again). Does that mean you (and I) will also need to do another skills test before an ATPL can be issued? I assume not, and if I am right, then we don't fit within the current rules and someone will have to make the decision as to what we do next.
Who makes the decisions as to what is required in these sorts of cases? The CAA clearly state in CAP804 that they have washed their hands of it. Do 22Gp have the authority to make common-sense decisions in these cases (as the CAA have done with me previously)?
I'm in the same boat as a few here with just a bone Cpl issued under mil bridging. I also asked the same question wrt converting a JAR Cpl to an EASA Cpl/IR, but am still waiting for a reply, I'll post if I hear anything different.
So essentially, unless I misread things, my cpl is absolutely worthless unless I wish to remain a cpl for the foreseeable future? If I wish to gain an IR I need to pass the 7 IR exams, a skills test and IRT and if I want an ATPL (why stay a CPL?) then I need to do all 14? So essentially the cpl, exams, hassle and expense was a massive waste of time and money?!
So essentially, unless I misread things, my cpl is absolutely worthless unless I wish to remain a cpl for the foreseeable future? If I wish to gain an IR I need to pass the 7 IR exams, a skills test and IRT and if I want an ATPL (why stay a CPL?) then I need to do all 14? So essentially the cpl, exams, hassle and expense was a massive waste of time and money?!
Champagne anyone...?
VR,
As a newly created civvy aviator I can say we deal with this sort of thing far more frequently than I ever did during my time as the RAF's Most Awesome C130 Pilot.
I completely agree however that the failure to credit QSPs for the hours and experience accumulated during their career in the military is a slap in the face from the CAA. It also doesn't say much for the RAF for whom a well managed accreditation system would serve more as retention and morale booster than as an exit valve. As with most things however, the RAF would rather deal with the minor leak in the boat than with the huge waterfall they are slowly drifting towards. Hey ho.
How many times does a civvie captain have to pick up cargo handlers and their ops setups for incorrect and often dangerous assumptions?
I completely agree however that the failure to credit QSPs for the hours and experience accumulated during their career in the military is a slap in the face from the CAA. It also doesn't say much for the RAF for whom a well managed accreditation system would serve more as retention and morale booster than as an exit valve. As with most things however, the RAF would rather deal with the minor leak in the boat than with the huge waterfall they are slowly drifting towards. Hey ho.
Stoppers, you are absolutely correct - and a number of other posters have made much the same point.
Before the wholly unnecessary and thoroughly unwanted leaden hand of EASA's €urocracy descended upon us all, the Military/Civil Working Group had worked together to achieve a far more reasonable system. As stated in LASORS 2010:
That must now be restored, if the MAS is to enjoy any credibility.
Before the wholly unnecessary and thoroughly unwanted leaden hand of EASA's €urocracy descended upon us all, the Military/Civil Working Group had worked together to achieve a far more reasonable system. As stated in LASORS 2010:
'...the MCWG determined a level of equivalence between theoretical knowledge training and subsequent operational experience and that required at JAR-ATPL(A) level. It should be recognised that the scope for accreditation was not the same for all military pilots and that role training and experience ultimately determined the level of equivalence achieved'.
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Jul 2012 at 06:09.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More confused than a big bag of confused things.
Help! I am now thoroughly confused about what I need to achieve in order to gain an IR.
I currently hold a JAR-FCL CPL(H) and AS350B TR gained via the Bridging system and issued in early 2008. As far as I can see this is worthless without an IR - so in order to get one I have to sit a further 7 exams (including resitting Air Law?) prior to even starting a course with an ATO?
I am a current QMP(H) with a Restricted Green rating. I currently have 3600hrs (not, it seems, that it counts for anything) - I am signing off next month so I have a year to get my house in order so I am employable. Sitting a further 7 exams will obviously delay things considerably (as well as deplete the bank account further).
I have already budgetted for the QSP IR conversion course with Bond Helicotpers and I'm currently awaiting an answer from them on any changes with the new Section O to the CAP might affect their course.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
I currently hold a JAR-FCL CPL(H) and AS350B TR gained via the Bridging system and issued in early 2008. As far as I can see this is worthless without an IR - so in order to get one I have to sit a further 7 exams (including resitting Air Law?) prior to even starting a course with an ATO?
I am a current QMP(H) with a Restricted Green rating. I currently have 3600hrs (not, it seems, that it counts for anything) - I am signing off next month so I have a year to get my house in order so I am employable. Sitting a further 7 exams will obviously delay things considerably (as well as deplete the bank account further).
I have already budgetted for the QSP IR conversion course with Bond Helicotpers and I'm currently awaiting an answer from them on any changes with the new Section O to the CAP might affect their course.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused...
The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service shall be given credit for the purposes of the relevant requirements of Annex I in accordance with the elements of a credit report established by the Member State in consultation with the Agency.
In which case, when can we expect AL1 - The 'Full' Military Accreditation Scheme?
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 29th Jul 2012 at 09:01.
JAR-FCL 1.020
Uncle G, you're not wrong!
This is what the previous system was based upon:
Several years ago, we were assured by the EASA presenter who came to Gatwick for a pre-EASA meeting which I attended, that the same principles would apply under EASA. Nothing would change; it would remain the National Authority's decision as to the level of such credit and the senior CAA person present nodded in agreement.
This is what the previous system was based upon:
JAR–FCL 1.020 Credit for military service
Application for credit: Military flight crew members applying for licences and ratings specified in JAR–FCL shall apply to the Authority of the State for which they serve(d). The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service will be credited towards the relevant requirements of JAR–FCL licences and ratings at the discretion of the Authority. The policy for the credit given shall be reported to the JAA. The privileges of such licences shall be restricted to aircraft registered in the State of licence issue until the requirements set out in the Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.005 are met.
Application for credit: Military flight crew members applying for licences and ratings specified in JAR–FCL shall apply to the Authority of the State for which they serve(d). The knowledge, experience and skill gained in military service will be credited towards the relevant requirements of JAR–FCL licences and ratings at the discretion of the Authority. The policy for the credit given shall be reported to the JAA. The privileges of such licences shall be restricted to aircraft registered in the State of licence issue until the requirements set out in the Appendix 1 to JAR–FCL 1.005 are met.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would stop a couple of determined individuals getting together and putting together an evidence base for more experienced mil operators or does it HAVE to be staffed at the Group level? Lots of frontline DSAT work going on at the mo, wouldnt be to difficult surely to translate these doc sets into something that could be used for compliance with EASA training requirements surely?
I would suggest that for front line, it could provide quite a useful TNA to bridge the knowledge gap for frontline operators between us and our civilian equivalents.
I would suggest that for front line, it could provide quite a useful TNA to bridge the knowledge gap for frontline operators between us and our civilian equivalents.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it incredible that there is no accreditation for military experience past 70hrs.
Even if the line is drawn higher than before e.g. 3000hr TT or A1 QFI etc etc.
Surely there must come a point as a mil operator where you are credited for being an experienced ME operator?!?
Even if the line is drawn higher than before e.g. 3000hr TT or A1 QFI etc etc.
Surely there must come a point as a mil operator where you are credited for being an experienced ME operator?!?