CAA Military Accreditation
Yes BEagle, you're right, text below for clarification:
For the holder of a JAR-FCL CPL(A) or (H) with ATPL theory credit issue prior to 8 Apr 12 under the terms of the former Qualified Service Pilots (QSP) Scheme the ATPL theory credits are recognised by the CAA and will remain valid for 36 months (from the date of successful completion of the Theory Exams under the former QSP Scheme) the for the addition of an instrument rating (IR).
For the holder of a JAR-FCL CPL(A) or (H) with ATPL theory credit issue prior to 8 Apr 12 under the terms of the former Qualified Service Pilots (QSP) Scheme the ATPL theory credits are recognised by the CAA and will remain valid for 36 months (from the date of successful completion of the Theory Exams under the former QSP Scheme) the for the addition of an instrument rating (IR).
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validity of ATPL(H) Theory Credit
Hi all,
I'm a QMP(H) but back in 2008 when I was thinking of leaving the military I had insufficient hours for the bridging package. As a result, I completed all 13 exams and was issued a JAA CPL(H) with ATPL(H) Theory Credit aka a frozen ATPL(H). At that time, as a QSP in current flying practice, I had 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter in which to get an IR(H) and bank the ATPL(H) theory.
Does this now mean that overnight with the publication of CAP 804, I have gone from having 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter, to being over a year 'out of date'?
Will it make a difference that I didn't "bridge" but instead did all the exams?
Surely there must be some form of transition period to give those with ATPL(H) Theory Credit based on exams taken over 36 months ago the chance to add an IR(H) and bank that theory credit?
I don't really fancy having to take half the exams again (not to mention the cost of doing so) just because the rules have arbitrarily been changed...
Any thoughts?
I'm a QMP(H) but back in 2008 when I was thinking of leaving the military I had insufficient hours for the bridging package. As a result, I completed all 13 exams and was issued a JAA CPL(H) with ATPL(H) Theory Credit aka a frozen ATPL(H). At that time, as a QSP in current flying practice, I had 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter in which to get an IR(H) and bank the ATPL(H) theory.
Does this now mean that overnight with the publication of CAP 804, I have gone from having 36 months from my last flight in a military helicopter, to being over a year 'out of date'?
Will it make a difference that I didn't "bridge" but instead did all the exams?
Surely there must be some form of transition period to give those with ATPL(H) Theory Credit based on exams taken over 36 months ago the chance to add an IR(H) and bank that theory credit?
I don't really fancy having to take half the exams again (not to mention the cost of doing so) just because the rules have arbitrarily been changed...
Any thoughts?
Last edited by CatAmongstThePigeons; 7th Aug 2012 at 21:56.
I appreciate why they have a validity period. You can hardly have someone pass all the exams and then not set foot anywhere near a cockpit for years and have all that information disappear. But surely in our case where we are flying on a regular basis as professional pilots the validity period should run from when we last fly?
Makes sense to me anyway... 22 Gp, make it so!
Makes sense to me anyway... 22 Gp, make it so!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK, sometimes
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you will find is once EU-OPS is implemented, then no changes can be made until the next sitting by the powers that be at EASA/ EU law makers HQ. So, if something does not appear in the first draft, there might be quite a wait until any requested changes appear, as long as the CAA submit a request for that change.
There are already glaring differences between rotary and fixed wing requirements for TRIs and TREs. But no change until requests are submitted.
The other issue we have in the UK is that our primary language is English, so we have to take EASA as it is written, which plainly isn't English. More a bas***dised translation of German/French. What other EU countries are doing is managing to translate EASA into their own language with 'their' translation, and making the meaning of their translation what they want it to be. Another sample of European togetherness....
Maybe we should translate it into correct English, we may get what we want!
There are already glaring differences between rotary and fixed wing requirements for TRIs and TREs. But no change until requests are submitted.
The other issue we have in the UK is that our primary language is English, so we have to take EASA as it is written, which plainly isn't English. More a bas***dised translation of German/French. What other EU countries are doing is managing to translate EASA into their own language with 'their' translation, and making the meaning of their translation what they want it to be. Another sample of European togetherness....
Maybe we should translate it into correct English, we may get what we want!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate why they have a validity period. You can hardly have someone pass all the exams and then not set foot anywhere near a cockpit for years and have all that information disappear. But surely in our case where we are flying on a regular basis as professional pilots the validity period should run from when we last fly?
CATP - are you saying that you passed all the ATPL(H) exams, but didn't then obtain a CPL(H) or IR(H) within 36 months of having completed the exams?
The old LASORS 2010 requirement for the CPL(H) and IR(H) was:
The exam acceptance periods under part-FCL can be found in FCL.025 para (c) in CAP 804 Section 4 Part A Page 3 (.pdf page 119 / 794).
The old LASORS 2010 requirement for the CPL(H) and IR(H) was:
D6.6 INSTRUMENT RATING REQUIREMENTS
It is not mandatory for a QSP(H) to complete an Instrument Rating before being issued with a CPL(H).
An applicant for an IR(H) is required to complete the requirements in accordance with Section E2.
QSPs should note that JAR-FCL 2 requires both a CPL(H) and IR(H) to be obtained within the 36 month Acceptance Period of the ATPL(H) examinations to maintain ATPL(H) theory credit for the subsequent issue of an ATPL(H).
However, it has been agreed that a QSP(H) will not be subject to this requirement. Whilst the 36 months Acceptance Period will still apply to the issue of a CPL(H), an IR(H) can be obtained at any time up to 3 years from the date of the last flight in a military helicopter, and still retain ATPL(H) theory credit.
It is not mandatory for a QSP(H) to complete an Instrument Rating before being issued with a CPL(H).
An applicant for an IR(H) is required to complete the requirements in accordance with Section E2.
QSPs should note that JAR-FCL 2 requires both a CPL(H) and IR(H) to be obtained within the 36 month Acceptance Period of the ATPL(H) examinations to maintain ATPL(H) theory credit for the subsequent issue of an ATPL(H).
However, it has been agreed that a QSP(H) will not be subject to this requirement. Whilst the 36 months Acceptance Period will still apply to the issue of a CPL(H), an IR(H) can be obtained at any time up to 3 years from the date of the last flight in a military helicopter, and still retain ATPL(H) theory credit.
I have been informed that the chaps at 22Gp have been rather upset by the tone of some posts on this thread, considering them to be of 'an abusive nature and totally unacceptable'.
Which is understandable. However, equally understandable is the anger and frustration of many caused by the loss of the previous levels of accreditation, particularly for experienced pilots with years of loyal service, now seeking a career change. Hardly surprising that one or two may have made rather intemperate remarks on the board as a result, I would venture to suggest.
In my own case, although I have been out of the RAF for many years, I feel particularly peeved at the loss of 'experience QSP' accreditation, having written the original paper which sparked off the MCWG work of others, leading to the excellent pre-Apr 2012 system we once enjoyed.
But I also recall, as will Alex W, the 17 Nov 2008 FCL WG meeting with EASA at CAA Gatwick when, in a response to the direct question I posed, EASA's Michaela Verissimo assured me that the system in place at that time could continue under national arrangements - to which the CAA's Ben Alcott nodded his approval. It then came as something of a bombshell to learn that EASA's former assurance had not been upheld.
So, Rich, if you're reading this I'm sorry if I've ruffled your feathers at all - or those of anyone at the CAA. But the plain fact is that Part O in its present form is markedly inferior to the previous scheme; a scheme which stood the test of time and was never a safety issue. In my opinion it is vital to the Service Interest that all the previous JAR-FCL credits, particularly those for Skill Tests and Theoretical Knowledge Examinations, are fully restored. Otherwise you will risk losing a lot of front-line experience, particularly if the alleged airline expansion ever becomes reality.
Which is understandable. However, equally understandable is the anger and frustration of many caused by the loss of the previous levels of accreditation, particularly for experienced pilots with years of loyal service, now seeking a career change. Hardly surprising that one or two may have made rather intemperate remarks on the board as a result, I would venture to suggest.
In my own case, although I have been out of the RAF for many years, I feel particularly peeved at the loss of 'experience QSP' accreditation, having written the original paper which sparked off the MCWG work of others, leading to the excellent pre-Apr 2012 system we once enjoyed.
But I also recall, as will Alex W, the 17 Nov 2008 FCL WG meeting with EASA at CAA Gatwick when, in a response to the direct question I posed, EASA's Michaela Verissimo assured me that the system in place at that time could continue under national arrangements - to which the CAA's Ben Alcott nodded his approval. It then came as something of a bombshell to learn that EASA's former assurance had not been upheld.
So, Rich, if you're reading this I'm sorry if I've ruffled your feathers at all - or those of anyone at the CAA. But the plain fact is that Part O in its present form is markedly inferior to the previous scheme; a scheme which stood the test of time and was never a safety issue. In my opinion it is vital to the Service Interest that all the previous JAR-FCL credits, particularly those for Skill Tests and Theoretical Knowledge Examinations, are fully restored. Otherwise you will risk losing a lot of front-line experience, particularly if the alleged airline expansion ever becomes reality.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle, fully agree. Indeed, I don't think there has been any malice shown on here at all, just frustration that some of us who hold equivalence with most of the civilian aviation industry, are not getting any credit for it. Thats an issue and one that needs rectification IMHO. If we need to come up with a stronger evidence base for experienced QSPs there will be PLENTY of people willing to assist with the extensive staff work required (and has already been put in). There are a cynical few who feel this is being used as a gash attempt at retention, I can't believe that is possible. Please however give us the opportunity to demonstrate our equivalence,as many other European military aircrew are able to do.
Out of interest, do you still do 'Ground Cats' in today's RAF?
They used to be annual for C Cats, 18 monthly for B Cats and 24 monthly for A Cats (or the 'Combat Ready' equivalents).
This periodic requirement to demonstrate adequate relevant knowledge was something of a pain (particularly for those of us who had to keep finding new questions to ask), but I'm sure were of more benefit than 14 exams sat once and promptly forgotten.
Apart from during Type Conversion, are civil airline pilots ever re-tested on theoretical knowledge? I know FIs have orals as part of their revalidation requirements, but does the average airliner driver have anything equivalent to satisfy?
They used to be annual for C Cats, 18 monthly for B Cats and 24 monthly for A Cats (or the 'Combat Ready' equivalents).
This periodic requirement to demonstrate adequate relevant knowledge was something of a pain (particularly for those of us who had to keep finding new questions to ask), but I'm sure were of more benefit than 14 exams sat once and promptly forgotten.
Apart from during Type Conversion, are civil airline pilots ever re-tested on theoretical knowledge? I know FIs have orals as part of their revalidation requirements, but does the average airliner driver have anything equivalent to satisfy?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK, sometimes
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoretical knowledge should be tested as part of your annual LPC, and definitely as part of your 6 monthly OPC in accordance with JAR Ops.
Of course, it is company dependant as to how strictly these regulations are stuck to, and in how much detail a pilot is assessed.
Not too dissimilar to a basic ground trap.
Of course, it is company dependant as to how strictly these regulations are stuck to, and in how much detail a pilot is assessed.
Not too dissimilar to a basic ground trap.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAC six monthly checks have a groundshool element in the serial. Standards check rides with a CFS agent occur every two years....that's got to go some way towards the argument of continual assessment and demonstration of knowledge.
However, it must be noted that amongst the generally inexperienced aircrew (in comparison to ten years ago) the standard is not by any means high. Given the multitude of commitments and other duties, and with on average less than three years front line....it isnt going to be anything more than satisfactory without considerable resource and command support.
However, it must be noted that amongst the generally inexperienced aircrew (in comparison to ten years ago) the standard is not by any means high. Given the multitude of commitments and other duties, and with on average less than three years front line....it isnt going to be anything more than satisfactory without considerable resource and command support.
Nevertheless, the average standard will be undoubtedly be considerably higher than that of some CPL trainng school graduate, I would venture....
In the last 3 days I've received messages from 3 totally different RAF flying units, saying how totally dissatisfied they are with the frankly woeful accreditation of Part O..... "Why the hell do we bother?", is typical of peoples' comments.
In the last 3 days I've received messages from 3 totally different RAF flying units, saying how totally dissatisfied they are with the frankly woeful accreditation of Part O..... "Why the hell do we bother?", is typical of peoples' comments.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
You are right, it's no longer pays to stay in the MOD flying. Get 70 hours and leave. Why bother becoming an IRE, QHI,QHTI, QWI.....you don't get anything for it....best just leave at the earliest point feasible.
You are right, it's no longer pays to stay in the MOD flying. Get 70 hours and leave. Why bother becoming an IRE, QHI,QHTI, QWI.....you don't get anything for it....best just leave at the earliest point feasible.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cynic in me would say that was all part of the plan... Redundancy is expensive for SO3 / SO2 Aircrew... 
Last edited by TheInquisitor; 11th Aug 2012 at 09:02.
Seniority is everything in the airline world. The fact that you might have been a Wg Cdr and you joined after a Fg Off chopped under Cameron's cuts will gain you nothing....
Some might previously have been happy to put off a second career until they qualified for 'Experienced QSP' accreditation, happy to devote their efforts to the Service rather than studying for 14 exams, many of which have little relevance to day-to-day aircraft operation. If that meant sacrificing a few years of potential airline seniority, it was probably worth it for many.
But with that gone, the word I'm getting is that people consider there is absolutely no point in staying. If it's a choice between studying for ATPL exams, rather than doing the EWO course or WEC or ISSC (or whatever the present equivalents are), then the ATPL exams will now come first.
Unless, that is, greater efforts are devoted to restoring the immensely valuable 'experienced QSP' terms of JAR-FCL, which existed without any safety issue long before the insanity of EASA made its thoroughly unwelcome presence felt.
Some might previously have been happy to put off a second career until they qualified for 'Experienced QSP' accreditation, happy to devote their efforts to the Service rather than studying for 14 exams, many of which have little relevance to day-to-day aircraft operation. If that meant sacrificing a few years of potential airline seniority, it was probably worth it for many.
But with that gone, the word I'm getting is that people consider there is absolutely no point in staying. If it's a choice between studying for ATPL exams, rather than doing the EWO course or WEC or ISSC (or whatever the present equivalents are), then the ATPL exams will now come first.
Unless, that is, greater efforts are devoted to restoring the immensely valuable 'experienced QSP' terms of JAR-FCL, which existed without any safety issue long before the insanity of EASA made its thoroughly unwelcome presence felt.
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Aug 2012 at 09:42.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, is it EASA Beags? What do ze Germans and French Military do to get licences? Any comments from anyone in the know at the moment. Was any evidence of syllabi presented from the post aft qualification mark? Was there any mention of LCR, CR copilot qualifications and latterly LCR and CR captaincy, including standards required for green rating and recognition of CR(A) on a frontline type?
Was there any mention of some types being qualified for cat 2 and other highly equivalent skills such as low visibility procedures, NAT, MNPS, RVSM, dangerous goods, customs requirements, and advanced handling into large international airports? I can add lots more to this list, but you get the point. Lots of route craft essential to licenced operation, but is only covered at the theory level by an equivalent pilot with a frozen ATPL, whereas we practice it for real?
Has the CAA received a single complaint from an airline employer regarding the skill levels of a military pilot, having received their ATPL, subsequently not meeting the required standard or possessing insufficient knowledge to do the job?
Was there any mention of some types being qualified for cat 2 and other highly equivalent skills such as low visibility procedures, NAT, MNPS, RVSM, dangerous goods, customs requirements, and advanced handling into large international airports? I can add lots more to this list, but you get the point. Lots of route craft essential to licenced operation, but is only covered at the theory level by an equivalent pilot with a frozen ATPL, whereas we practice it for real?
Has the CAA received a single complaint from an airline employer regarding the skill levels of a military pilot, having received their ATPL, subsequently not meeting the required standard or possessing insufficient knowledge to do the job?
Last edited by VinRouge; 11th Aug 2012 at 10:46.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised we haven't seen headlines along the lines of:
"Under-qualified Military Pilots Flying In Civilian Airspace"
It's not too far a stretch from what the current military non-accreditation scheme is implying...
Hey ho. At least it's nice to know my old students, fresh out the OCU are held in the same regard as a third-tourist...
"Under-qualified Military Pilots Flying In Civilian Airspace"
It's not too far a stretch from what the current military non-accreditation scheme is implying...
Hey ho. At least it's nice to know my old students, fresh out the OCU are held in the same regard as a third-tourist...
It would also have to read ''Under qualified foreign pilots flying in UK airspace". Ther CAA refuse to acknowledge foreign IRs for revalidation of UK licences, yet Cathay Pacific and Emirates pilots fly thier B777s over the centre of London every day very safely.
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 11th Aug 2012 at 16:14.