Minimum hours requirements
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum hours requirements
Hi there
In a time where all of us are struggling to make our on they ours and maintain basic currencies due to lack of flying in the military I was wondering.
What do the civilian airlines do to ensure that their pilots maintain currency and competency in flying?
Is the current RAF system overkill (the Hercules has around 50+ Basic Training Requirements to keep current) or is it a good way to ensure competency is maintained?
Wides
In a time where all of us are struggling to make our on they ours and maintain basic currencies due to lack of flying in the military I was wondering.
What do the civilian airlines do to ensure that their pilots maintain currency and competency in flying?
Is the current RAF system overkill (the Hercules has around 50+ Basic Training Requirements to keep current) or is it a good way to ensure competency is maintained?
Wides
The only time there's any chance of running out of currency in the airlines is when you're off long-term sick otherwise most of us, certainly on long haul, are getting close to 900 hrs. Even on short haul I was running at 750 hrs most years.
A landing every 28 days on the 744!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Is the current RAF system overkill (the Hercules has around 50+ Basic Training Requirements to keep current) or is it a good way to ensure competency is maintained?
That there are so many BCRs for the C130 reflect the fact that the crews are trained for many more roles than their counterparts in the civil world - all the various airdrop, low-level, NVG, NSO etc roles. For non-tac crews there are substantially fewer BCRs although even the strat crews will cover extra skills such as NVG TALT.
As crews are getting relatively few hours these days (although not uniformly, some are getting in excess of 400 per annum) then the BCRs ensure that they remain current in all the skills, so it's not over-kill.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the herc world so well aware of the many jobs that are done.
I do believe that the current system is overkill.
Just curious as to what other people think and what the civilian world do and whether there's anything we can change for the future which will stop what is currently an endless tick chase!
I do believe that the current system is overkill.
Just curious as to what other people think and what the civilian world do and whether there's anything we can change for the future which will stop what is currently an endless tick chase!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
In which case then what do you think we practice too often & could get away with doing less? Most BCRs are at least every 3 months, is that really too often to practice a skill?
My night currency for carrying passengers is 3 take offs and landings in 90 days. In the unlikely event that I go un-current, then I just have to go and do three solo night circuits.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest comparing the 2 worlds is a bit of a misnomer. In the civvy world cost is the driving factor, and as long as you meet the min requirement laid down by the CAA ie competence, everyone is happy. That's not to say excellence isn't encouraged, just that a learning curve over a few years is anticipated. Even I got quite good after a fair few years on mil heavies.
My last year in the mil saw me in the sim 15 times including checks. My last civvy year I've been in the sim twice. Competence vs excellence is a topic which would run and run, but I'm not convinced a move towards a civvy approach would benefit you guys. 800+ hrs and 2 sims compared with 3-400 hrs and 10+ sims seems comparable. Adopting a pragmatic attitude of any trg being good trg helped me considerably - even if you consider it merely a tick chase.
My last year in the mil saw me in the sim 15 times including checks. My last civvy year I've been in the sim twice. Competence vs excellence is a topic which would run and run, but I'm not convinced a move towards a civvy approach would benefit you guys. 800+ hrs and 2 sims compared with 3-400 hrs and 10+ sims seems comparable. Adopting a pragmatic attitude of any trg being good trg helped me considerably - even if you consider it merely a tick chase.
Role-related currency requirements are a simple method for higher command to set their 'red lines' with respect to training priorities. They ensure that no aspect of the task is neglected at the expense of the quicker / easier / cheaper / more fun events that would eventually come to dominate the programme in the absence of the "big stick" that is currency.
Champagne anyone...?
Given the scarcity of hours (certainly in the Herc world) these days, I think you shouldn't be grumbling about the number of sims you're having to do. Civvy flying "currencies" aren't really an issue as they fly us as often as they can; if we're not flying we're just an expense.
Whilst the sim has its limitations it's still a valuable tool to keep you on top of your game, especially when the system is too broken to give you actual flying. The problem comes when people can't interpret the BCRs or apply a modicum of common sense to them. They become the basis of all subsequent boards of enquiry to the extent that folk get returned from Det (where they are more "current" than a current thing) to do a 6 monthly Windshear Go-around. That's just crass and serves only to highlight a system that's scared of itself rather than one that supports itself.
Some of the BCRs are fair enough, especially some of the procedure based Tac ones. Others are far too frequent and just become yet more self created obstacles with which the system cripples itself.
Whilst the sim has its limitations it's still a valuable tool to keep you on top of your game, especially when the system is too broken to give you actual flying. The problem comes when people can't interpret the BCRs or apply a modicum of common sense to them. They become the basis of all subsequent boards of enquiry to the extent that folk get returned from Det (where they are more "current" than a current thing) to do a 6 monthly Windshear Go-around. That's just crass and serves only to highlight a system that's scared of itself rather than one that supports itself.
Some of the BCRs are fair enough, especially some of the procedure based Tac ones. Others are far too frequent and just become yet more self created obstacles with which the system cripples itself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not grumbling about the sim fella. I think it's really valuable and I'll take any opportunity.
I like you believe though that there's smarter ways of doing business than we are right now, especially given the lack of hours.
We could look at potentially having a smaller amount of airdrop currencies perhaps - just gravity and extracted perhaps and then a sim for the individual load emergencies as part of quart? Perhaps use the sim more for pilot airdrop?
Do we really need a night airdrop currency on a HUD aircraft?
Why do we need separate currencies for each different type of instrument approach?
Just a few thoughts - with less hours perhaps we should think less about the epic tick chase that keeping current has become and think more sensibly about relevancy, breadth and quality of training.
I have a vested interest in the future as I'd like to ensure that a sensible balance is struck between risk averse tick chasing and valuable training on a future shiny toy!
Wides
I like you believe though that there's smarter ways of doing business than we are right now, especially given the lack of hours.
We could look at potentially having a smaller amount of airdrop currencies perhaps - just gravity and extracted perhaps and then a sim for the individual load emergencies as part of quart? Perhaps use the sim more for pilot airdrop?
Do we really need a night airdrop currency on a HUD aircraft?
Why do we need separate currencies for each different type of instrument approach?
Just a few thoughts - with less hours perhaps we should think less about the epic tick chase that keeping current has become and think more sensibly about relevancy, breadth and quality of training.
I have a vested interest in the future as I'd like to ensure that a sensible balance is struck between risk averse tick chasing and valuable training on a future shiny toy!
Wides
Three take-offs/landings in 90 days and a maximum 35 days between any two landings as a commander. Also, 2 LVO approaches every 6 months (one done in the sim as part of the revalidation) to maintain CAT IIIb.
Not a problem in my job!
But at the previous employer, mnostly Ultra Long Haul - I did a lot of trips as the relief commander and for a while I was only just staying current with one operating sector every month.
It's interesting that in the military, you try to do as much flying as possibe. Out of it, quality of life is measured by days not at work - so you try to do as little as possible!
Not a problem in my job!
But at the previous employer, mnostly Ultra Long Haul - I did a lot of trips as the relief commander and for a while I was only just staying current with one operating sector every month.
It's interesting that in the military, you try to do as much flying as possibe. Out of it, quality of life is measured by days not at work - so you try to do as little as possible!
Champagne anyone...?
Certainly for Tac training I think there should be realistic, scenario based training in the sim (and aircraft actually). This was something we tried to do but never really got to grips with but I'm pretty sure the present incumbents are.
I was firmly convinced that for those tac qualified, QuART should involve tac currencies, for example, the Norway night LL drop scenario that picked up cold weather ops, NVG LL and a bunch of drops. The difficulty comes in making it realistic and applicable. Compare what we do (did!) in training with what we actually do on ops. That said, the cold weather, hot and high etc sims should all have versions for the tac crews that sweep up many tac BCRs as possible.
Sadly with the process-bound and mind bogglingly risk averse nature of things nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to change much in terms of numbers of BCRs now. If however you were designing a new training package from scratch I would seize the opportunity to completely clear out the never ending list of ticks that get chased.
Ideally you'd just have one main, 3 monthly tick labelled "QUART", completion of which implied that you had been trained, observed and tested in a selection of procedures and drills over the course of three sim sessions. The training would still include all usual Windshear go-around, head down approach stuff but with the frequencies reduced and the procedures incorporated into sim scenarios. This would reduce the daft situations where someone has to jump in the sim for 15 mins to do a head-down approach because "he'll go out of date whilst on Det". Similarly it would remove the "what do you need?" opening gambit to any sim sortie.
Tac crews would maintain individual BCRs but again many of these could be swept up into a "TAC QUART" BCR which would ensure that the majority of procedures were covered over the year.
The emphasis needs to be on "what will provide the best training solution to ensure the crews are able to operate the aircraft competently and safely whilst at the same using their time and our training resources efficiently and effectively". As opposed to the current "what will provide the best audit trail with which to cover our arses should, god forbid, something go wrong".
I was firmly convinced that for those tac qualified, QuART should involve tac currencies, for example, the Norway night LL drop scenario that picked up cold weather ops, NVG LL and a bunch of drops. The difficulty comes in making it realistic and applicable. Compare what we do (did!) in training with what we actually do on ops. That said, the cold weather, hot and high etc sims should all have versions for the tac crews that sweep up many tac BCRs as possible.
Sadly with the process-bound and mind bogglingly risk averse nature of things nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to change much in terms of numbers of BCRs now. If however you were designing a new training package from scratch I would seize the opportunity to completely clear out the never ending list of ticks that get chased.
Ideally you'd just have one main, 3 monthly tick labelled "QUART", completion of which implied that you had been trained, observed and tested in a selection of procedures and drills over the course of three sim sessions. The training would still include all usual Windshear go-around, head down approach stuff but with the frequencies reduced and the procedures incorporated into sim scenarios. This would reduce the daft situations where someone has to jump in the sim for 15 mins to do a head-down approach because "he'll go out of date whilst on Det". Similarly it would remove the "what do you need?" opening gambit to any sim sortie.
Tac crews would maintain individual BCRs but again many of these could be swept up into a "TAC QUART" BCR which would ensure that the majority of procedures were covered over the year.
The emphasis needs to be on "what will provide the best training solution to ensure the crews are able to operate the aircraft competently and safely whilst at the same using their time and our training resources efficiently and effectively". As opposed to the current "what will provide the best audit trail with which to cover our arses should, god forbid, something go wrong".
My night currency for carrying passengers is 3 take offs and landings in 90 days. In the unlikely event that I go un-current, then I just have to go and do three solo night circuits.
ANO Section 1 Schedule 7 refers.
You're right(as usual 
) BEagle. I was thinking back to when we used to have a different type of aircraft as a spare, when ours was being serviced. I only ever flew it at night. 
) BEagle. I was thinking back to when we used to have a different type of aircraft as a spare, when ours was being serviced. I only ever flew it at night.
