Military pilots to require ATPL?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: DAVER
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military pilots to require ATPL?
Can anyone confirm or deny the current rumour doing the crewroom rounds? Apparently there are some military instructors currently being spun up to teach the ATPL groundschool, so that those of us operating in European airspace can retrospectively complete exams at Gatwick, all courtesy of Her Majesty.
I was, of course, incredulous, but after a little digging said rumour appears to have some merit....any further nuggets of info kicking around?
I was, of course, incredulous, but after a little digging said rumour appears to have some merit....any further nuggets of info kicking around?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military pilkots and CAA exams
You may be incredulous but the current state of play is a very low point
When I left, early 80's, I "borrowed" an aircraft to do my instrument rating, had leave for a brush up at Oxford and a service grant for my exams.
Times have changed I know but it was seen than as a good idea for people know, and tell others, that the leaving package was good and worth serving to your normal retirement point to get rather than PVR
In addition to the morale issue I was amazed at how much I learnt when studying for the exams even with a procedural IR, the subjects for the exams were far more detailed than I had experienced in my 20 years of service flying. It also helps to ensure you have no gaps. I recall an ex RAF pilot of considerable experience admitting that weeks before on his swan song trip to GIB he had been offered an NDB approach to a pit stop airfieLd in Portugal, he refused because he only had ADF
When I left, early 80's, I "borrowed" an aircraft to do my instrument rating, had leave for a brush up at Oxford and a service grant for my exams.
Times have changed I know but it was seen than as a good idea for people know, and tell others, that the leaving package was good and worth serving to your normal retirement point to get rather than PVR
In addition to the morale issue I was amazed at how much I learnt when studying for the exams even with a procedural IR, the subjects for the exams were far more detailed than I had experienced in my 20 years of service flying. It also helps to ensure you have no gaps. I recall an ex RAF pilot of considerable experience admitting that weeks before on his swan song trip to GIB he had been offered an NDB approach to a pit stop airfieLd in Portugal, he refused because he only had ADF
Last edited by Tinribs; 27th Jul 2015 at 14:40. Reason: IR
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military pilots to require ATPL?
When staring down the barrel of the impending retention crisis should all RAF guys be given an ATPL I'm sure they'll find a way to get an exception. Say for instance you do all the exams and all the study but then get issued with a special EASA Military Licence that isn't transferable. There you go 22Gp you can have that one for free ;-)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
My thoughts exactly - an RAF-provided ATPL is just giving folks a key to the exit door.
Is this deemed a 'good thing'?
Is this deemed a 'good thing'?
...an RAF-provided ATPL is just giving folks a key to the exit door...
But the utter pratts at Learning Command decided not to continue the system when Part-FCL came in. They were more interested in providing a comfort blanket for all the U/T pilots the RAF was about to declare redundant due to defence cuts...and failed to grasp the bigger picture.
So most U/T ME pilots since then have taken their civilian exams and obtained CPLs, meaning that once they've obtained something like an A330/A350 TR, they will do the minimum time, then bail out.
WE TOLD YOU THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU MESSED WITH IT, YOU IDIOTS!
The loss of civil accreditation was taken so badly that the 22Gp idiots even put out a DIN telling people not to complain via social media. Oh yes, that was going to work, wasn't it just....
Parallel Part-FCL accreditation should be gained from EFT through to OCU. The RAF is now a minority airspace user, so its pilots should be required to meet the same basic standards as civil pilots (as was once the case before cost-cutting dumbed down theoretical knowledge training). Plus the extra stuff needed for military flying.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sat explaining this to a German pilot who was utterly incredulous that we didn't hold civilian licences. " you wouldn't let a lorry driver on our roads without a licence, why is our airspace any different?"
I had no comeback of course....
I had no comeback of course....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
So, hypothesising, there will be nobody driving in the ME fleet aged over 38/16?
An interesting dilemma, but then i guess it was ever thus.
An interesting dilemma, but then i guess it was ever thus.
Here in France the Armée de l'Air, Aeronavale, and Aviation légère de l'Armée de Terre are all EASA accredited FTOs and during the equivalent of UK BFT provide training up to EASA frozen ATPL standards. Advanced training obviously goes beyond.
http://www.developpement-durable.gou...ion_080715.pdf
http://www.developpement-durable.gou...ion_080715.pdf
Rotate
Know what you mean.....
late 80's, there's me, ex Fast Jet, then ex CFS QFI...ex CFS Water front QFI
, bailing out ..off to do the CAA R/T licence at some civilian field near Binbrook....as I'm half way through the exam - civilian may day call PASHATNIE or something.....- when the examiner turns to his mate who had walked into the room and says "...this f... lot are flashing around just over our heads and they haven't got a fooking licence between the... lot of them" now I know we were much better trained than they were but, as you say:,
I sat explaining this to a German pilot who was utterly incredulous that we didn't hold civilian licences. "
late 80's, there's me, ex Fast Jet, then ex CFS QFI...ex CFS Water front QFI
, bailing out ..off to do the CAA R/T licence at some civilian field near Binbrook....as I'm half way through the exam - civilian may day call PASHATNIE or something.....- when the examiner turns to his mate who had walked into the room and says "...this f... lot are flashing around just over our heads and they haven't got a fooking licence between the... lot of them" now I know we were much better trained than they were but, as you say:,
I had no comeback of course....
At the Towers at the weekend and a picked up a strong rumour this was on the way. From a (considerable) distance there seems to be not much of a case against it (standing by for incoming)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: DAVER
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, for one, can't really explain how we can fly civilian equivalent aircraft in civilian airspace having not done the civilian quals....if the RAF want to pay for us to do it in duty time then I'm all for it!
In addition to the morale issue I was amazed at how much I learnt when studying for the exams even with a procedural IR, the subjects for the exams were far more detailed than I had experienced in my 20 years of service flying
But you have to appreciate I was trained by BEagle!
The Luftwaffe ME pilots are trained by Lufthansa, so they probably view the ATPL as essential, but I don't see how a piece of paper makes you a better pilot. It just satisfies a regulation.
However, if it happens, it is a step in the right direction.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been out for a few years but I imagine things are the same. We tended to bimble about the world not really knowing a lot of the rules. I know that when I did my ATPL in my last year of service I learnt a heap, particularly in law and met, that was very useful. Looking back now I really should have done the licence much earlier.
Of course I was multi so these things have great relevance. Is it meaningful for fj and helo types? Don't know, but would it be that hard to include all of the ATPL into flying training and have everyone sit the exams at some point? Seems pretty sensible to me.
Of course I was multi so these things have great relevance. Is it meaningful for fj and helo types? Don't know, but would it be that hard to include all of the ATPL into flying training and have everyone sit the exams at some point? Seems pretty sensible to me.
I agree with Dan - most of the civil professional pilot licence exams are simply hoops through which people have to jump. Why on earth should a Ryanair pilot need to know the likely weather in Tokyo in December? I only had to take one for my R/BCPL/FI needs - ATPL Air Law back in the days when it was 2 papers, one of which required 100% for a pass, plus negative marks for incorrect answers... Fascinating irrelevant stuff about the system of streamers to be flown beneath a tethered kite and the lights to be displayed by a tethered airship apart, some of the Air Law topics were actually pretty useful.
Back when I was a UAS student, we had 2 hrs of chalk 'n talk groundschool every Thursday night, delivered by the QFIs. Then 'CEB' written exams which weren't multi-guess - principles of flight included such questions as 'explain autorotation' (at the stall, not as applicable to helicopters) and the exams required essay-type answers, apart from calculations in the nav exam.
At RAFC and Valley our groundschool was also comprehensive and mostly relevant, although quite why we had to know about monsoons when the Gnat could barely make the south coast of the UK on one tank was a bit of a mystery.
At the Bucc OCU, we had an exam on the weapon system, but had to study the topic ourselves from the Aircrew Manual. Again a reasonable exam. The Vulcan OCU was very thorough, but was 'trade-specific' and as pilots we weren't taught about the NBS, which I found surprising. But on the F-4 OCU, we weren't taught anything about the AIM-9 / MCS and the groundschool instructors didn't much like their work. By the time I reached the VC10 OCU, we still had comprehensive groundschool and a very intense 2 weeks of Scheduled Performance...
, although exams were multi-guess.
So, 'back in the day', theoretical knowledge training in the RAF was both relevant and well-taught. But virtually nothing on Air Law after UAS and a (very little) at RAFC.
Then someone invented 'SAFT' and 'Learning by Objectives' and the multi-guess exam dominated. But the depth of knowledge was far less; 'Janet and John Learn to Fly' books came in at UAS level and QFIs no longer taught groundschool. Which meant that their own knowledge soon faded, so it wasn't surprising that they found Bulldog Standards and the pre-A2 hard going....
Back at the VC10 OCU for a refresher, I was surprised at how much had been cut out of the groundschool - it seemed some Stn Cdr had decided "It is too long, reduce it!"
. For example, our so-called training on HF radio was little more than "Switch it on, dial the frequency, blip tune the antenna" - whereas with 'Joe-the-AEO' we'd had a lot more about day/night propagation, worldwide HF networks etc. Over the following years, students arrived with less and less knowledge from EFT/BFT/AFT (one assured me that he'd never been taught about turbojet engines...) and I once told the ME Steering Committee that the average PPL student knew more about Air law and the sub-division of UK airspace than did most of the VC10 students - or instructors, for that matter! At about the same time there was an experiment with some ME students being taught at Prestwick rather than at METS and we were asked to comment on their ability. I told the chairman that in some subjects they were as good as METS graduates - which caused OC METS to smirk in a self-satisfied way - then I continued, saying that in all other subjects they were vastly better than METS graduates and could we have more please? Which wiped the grin off his face.
As Dan implies, 'On the Job Training'(OJT) provides a better way of giving airline pilots the relevant knowledge they need. By the time an RAF ME pilot had gained 2000 hours total time, any worthwhile knowledge would have been amassed by OJT. So when JAR-FCL came in and at about he same time Bliar announced that members of the Armed Forces would be able to gain civil qualifications in the Service, which they could then use in a second career, I wrote a proposal for civil licence accreditation. The first version received some stuffy response about 'correct staffing processes' from a chairborne warrior at Command, which I ignored, but then I obtained 4-star backing from Sir John Allison (and a nice letter). The Stn Cdr supported my proposal, wheels began to turn, the MCSWG formed and a few years later we had an excellent scheme in place which gave full recognition for the 'knowledge, experience and skill' gained in military service and which not only retained people for a reasonable RoS, but also equipped them for a second career in civil aviation.
When EASA appeared, I attended a briefing session at CAA Gatwick and asked the EASA speaker whether there would be any changes to existing military accreditation when Part-FCL would replace JAR-FCL. "No", she said, "you've got a system in place and it's not our position to change it". Head of Licensing nodded sagely, so all seemed secure..... If a ME pilot had 2000TT, including 1500 PIC (of which 500 could be as PIC U/S) and had graduated from an OCU on a representative aeroplane type, all he/she had to do was pass Air Law at ATPL level, fly an IR with a CAA Staff Examiner on the jump seat, fill out the form and pay the money - and an ATPL would arrive in the post a few weeks later.
....until 22Gp destroyed it all. The CAA told me that it wasn't up to them to write the case, but they would approve anything reasonable from the MoD as they had done previously. Despite the CAA and EASA assurances of only a short time beforehand, it was the MoD itself through 22Gp who ruined the whole system. I even found that they weren't going to support accreditation for the Aerobatic Rating for EFT graduates because they hadn't studied the requirements properly and didn't realise that advanced stalling, spinning, max rate turns etc. could be credited - which has at least now been accepted...
To summarise, the RAF should conduct a 'training gap analysis' between its own theoretical knowledge training and that required for an ATPL. Missing items should be identified and added to appropriate groundschool courses, credit should then be secured for the 'knowledge, experience and skill' obtained through OJT in military service and the JAR-FCL accreditation system reintroduced. Otherwise, most ME students will simply sit their ATPL exams as soon as they can, obtain a CPL and add a TR for their ME type where that can be achieved - e.g. for King Air, Sentinel, Voyager or Atlas. Whether the RAF will subsequently be able to retain them for a reasonable period is something I frankly doubt - without draconian PVR lock-in policies.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.......
Back when I was a UAS student, we had 2 hrs of chalk 'n talk groundschool every Thursday night, delivered by the QFIs. Then 'CEB' written exams which weren't multi-guess - principles of flight included such questions as 'explain autorotation' (at the stall, not as applicable to helicopters) and the exams required essay-type answers, apart from calculations in the nav exam.
At RAFC and Valley our groundschool was also comprehensive and mostly relevant, although quite why we had to know about monsoons when the Gnat could barely make the south coast of the UK on one tank was a bit of a mystery.
At the Bucc OCU, we had an exam on the weapon system, but had to study the topic ourselves from the Aircrew Manual. Again a reasonable exam. The Vulcan OCU was very thorough, but was 'trade-specific' and as pilots we weren't taught about the NBS, which I found surprising. But on the F-4 OCU, we weren't taught anything about the AIM-9 / MCS and the groundschool instructors didn't much like their work. By the time I reached the VC10 OCU, we still had comprehensive groundschool and a very intense 2 weeks of Scheduled Performance...
, although exams were multi-guess.So, 'back in the day', theoretical knowledge training in the RAF was both relevant and well-taught. But virtually nothing on Air Law after UAS and a (very little) at RAFC.
Then someone invented 'SAFT' and 'Learning by Objectives' and the multi-guess exam dominated. But the depth of knowledge was far less; 'Janet and John Learn to Fly' books came in at UAS level and QFIs no longer taught groundschool. Which meant that their own knowledge soon faded, so it wasn't surprising that they found Bulldog Standards and the pre-A2 hard going....
Back at the VC10 OCU for a refresher, I was surprised at how much had been cut out of the groundschool - it seemed some Stn Cdr had decided "It is too long, reduce it!"
. For example, our so-called training on HF radio was little more than "Switch it on, dial the frequency, blip tune the antenna" - whereas with 'Joe-the-AEO' we'd had a lot more about day/night propagation, worldwide HF networks etc. Over the following years, students arrived with less and less knowledge from EFT/BFT/AFT (one assured me that he'd never been taught about turbojet engines...) and I once told the ME Steering Committee that the average PPL student knew more about Air law and the sub-division of UK airspace than did most of the VC10 students - or instructors, for that matter! At about the same time there was an experiment with some ME students being taught at Prestwick rather than at METS and we were asked to comment on their ability. I told the chairman that in some subjects they were as good as METS graduates - which caused OC METS to smirk in a self-satisfied way - then I continued, saying that in all other subjects they were vastly better than METS graduates and could we have more please? Which wiped the grin off his face.As Dan implies, 'On the Job Training'(OJT) provides a better way of giving airline pilots the relevant knowledge they need. By the time an RAF ME pilot had gained 2000 hours total time, any worthwhile knowledge would have been amassed by OJT. So when JAR-FCL came in and at about he same time Bliar announced that members of the Armed Forces would be able to gain civil qualifications in the Service, which they could then use in a second career, I wrote a proposal for civil licence accreditation. The first version received some stuffy response about 'correct staffing processes' from a chairborne warrior at Command, which I ignored, but then I obtained 4-star backing from Sir John Allison (and a nice letter). The Stn Cdr supported my proposal, wheels began to turn, the MCSWG formed and a few years later we had an excellent scheme in place which gave full recognition for the 'knowledge, experience and skill' gained in military service and which not only retained people for a reasonable RoS, but also equipped them for a second career in civil aviation.
When EASA appeared, I attended a briefing session at CAA Gatwick and asked the EASA speaker whether there would be any changes to existing military accreditation when Part-FCL would replace JAR-FCL. "No", she said, "you've got a system in place and it's not our position to change it". Head of Licensing nodded sagely, so all seemed secure..... If a ME pilot had 2000TT, including 1500 PIC (of which 500 could be as PIC U/S) and had graduated from an OCU on a representative aeroplane type, all he/she had to do was pass Air Law at ATPL level, fly an IR with a CAA Staff Examiner on the jump seat, fill out the form and pay the money - and an ATPL would arrive in the post a few weeks later.
....until 22Gp destroyed it all. The CAA told me that it wasn't up to them to write the case, but they would approve anything reasonable from the MoD as they had done previously. Despite the CAA and EASA assurances of only a short time beforehand, it was the MoD itself through 22Gp who ruined the whole system. I even found that they weren't going to support accreditation for the Aerobatic Rating for EFT graduates because they hadn't studied the requirements properly and didn't realise that advanced stalling, spinning, max rate turns etc. could be credited - which has at least now been accepted...
To summarise, the RAF should conduct a 'training gap analysis' between its own theoretical knowledge training and that required for an ATPL. Missing items should be identified and added to appropriate groundschool courses, credit should then be secured for the 'knowledge, experience and skill' obtained through OJT in military service and the JAR-FCL accreditation system reintroduced. Otherwise, most ME students will simply sit their ATPL exams as soon as they can, obtain a CPL and add a TR for their ME type where that can be achieved - e.g. for King Air, Sentinel, Voyager or Atlas. Whether the RAF will subsequently be able to retain them for a reasonable period is something I frankly doubt - without draconian PVR lock-in policies.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.......
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Jul 2015 at 08:40.
The Voyager conversion course with AirTanker already provides an ATPL for those RAF pilots who have completed the ATPL ground exams, and have the necessary prior flying experience.
AirTanker is an approved ATO, the course being the EASA A330 conversion, the RAF differences tacked on at the end. On completion you can go to Gatwick get a shiny new EASA ATPL rated A330/A350.
AirTanker is an approved ATO, the course being the EASA A330 conversion, the RAF differences tacked on at the end. On completion you can go to Gatwick get a shiny new EASA ATPL rated A330/A350.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should they ?
Not issuing service pilots with a civil license is a powerful retention tool for a very expensive asset.
If you owned the bussiness would could you make a business case for enabeling these assets to walk out of the door to a better paid job that demands much less of the individual ?
Or maybe I'm just too cynical !
If you owned the bussiness would could you make a business case for enabeling these assets to walk out of the door to a better paid job that demands much less of the individual ?
Or maybe I'm just too cynical !
Not issuing service pilots with a civil license is a powerful retention tool for a very expensive asset.
All stick, no carrot. Whereas before it was a very well-balanced accreditation policy.
But even under the previous system, many pilots were so fed up with the way things were going in the RAF that they did their exams before they'd reached the accreditation threshold, then legged it...