Civilians and RAF Brevets
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the six months, if one had attended all the Church Parades and not made unwelcome passes at the female instructors, one was to be commissioned and given a brevit.
Then the whole process reversed. One would travel back to Canada and from there back to Liverpool on the voyage, as a newly commissioned pilot, one was to be invited to dine with the Captain.
Then the whole process reversed. One would travel back to Canada and from there back to Liverpool on the voyage, as a newly commissioned pilot, one was to be invited to dine with the Captain.
Notwithstanding all the irrelevant drift on this thread, the simple fact remains that merely giving the RAF Flying Badge to a civilian pilot (assuming that the pilot is not a military reservist) does NOT mean that ANO Art. 145 may be applied.
I gather that this pieced of MFTS nonsense has now attracted the attention of the Regulator...
I gather that this pieced of MFTS nonsense has now attracted the attention of the Regulator...
BEags
You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”
However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!
You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”
However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags
You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”
However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!
You are correct on the “Another legal requirement which has probably gone unnoticed is that, from 8th April 2018, if a civil pilot flies aerobatics in an EASA aeroplane (e.g. Grob 120TP), he/she will also need a Part-FCL Aerobatic Rating.”
However, the TPs are military registered as far as I am aware? They were only delivered with G or D registrations.
PS. Looks a bit cramped in the cockpit with the lid down!!
Beagle,
Good point and well made. Conversely, if it is thought permissible to award an RAF flying badge to allow circumvention of the ANO, should the award of an RAF flying badge circumvent the need for RAF pilots to follow CAA requirements to fly as civil pilots?
Good point and well made. Conversely, if it is thought permissible to award an RAF flying badge to allow circumvention of the ANO, should the award of an RAF flying badge circumvent the need for RAF pilots to follow CAA requirements to fly as civil pilots?
Lima Juliet, the Ford Prefects are still 'aircraft registered in the United Kingdom' nonetheless.
Thus to fly them for ab initio flight instruction, a civilian pilot will need a Part-FCL pilot licence, valid Part-MED medical certificate, SET Class Rating, IR to fly other than in VMC, Aerobatic Rating to fly aeros and (presumably) an FI certificate. The SET Class Rating, IR and FI certificate will need to be revalidated by civil Examiners, as will the Part-MED medical certificate.
Of course if the RAF still had its own aeroplanes and QFIs, things would be much simpler....
No matter what the calibre of the civil pilots employed by an MFTS contractor might be, the issue is that the legal requirements of Part-FCL cannot be ignored for commercial convenience and the contractor's bottom line.
Thus to fly them for ab initio flight instruction, a civilian pilot will need a Part-FCL pilot licence, valid Part-MED medical certificate, SET Class Rating, IR to fly other than in VMC, Aerobatic Rating to fly aeros and (presumably) an FI certificate. The SET Class Rating, IR and FI certificate will need to be revalidated by civil Examiners, as will the Part-MED medical certificate.
Of course if the RAF still had its own aeroplanes and QFIs, things would be much simpler....
No matter what the calibre of the civil pilots employed by an MFTS contractor might be, the issue is that the legal requirements of Part-FCL cannot be ignored for commercial convenience and the contractor's bottom line.
BEags
Just to clarify my thoughts, I don’t believe that an aerobatic rating would be needed though as the Grob TPs are NOT operated under EASA but under national provisions within the ANO as a Mil reg aircraft. As you probably know there is no requirement for an aerobatic rating in Annex II aircraft on Permit to Fly, the Mil airworthiness system it is operated under would be deemed the same. Further, I don’t believe the TPs are subject to any EASA Part regulations at all with respect to maintenance, licensing, operations or medicals? So actually a nationally accredited licence would suffice for the non-mil pilots rather than the more stringent EASA regs that you have pointed out.
Just to clarify my thoughts, I don’t believe that an aerobatic rating would be needed though as the Grob TPs are NOT operated under EASA but under national provisions within the ANO as a Mil reg aircraft. As you probably know there is no requirement for an aerobatic rating in Annex II aircraft on Permit to Fly, the Mil airworthiness system it is operated under would be deemed the same. Further, I don’t believe the TPs are subject to any EASA Part regulations at all with respect to maintenance, licensing, operations or medicals? So actually a nationally accredited licence would suffice for the non-mil pilots rather than the more stringent EASA regs that you have pointed out.
'Nationally accredited licences' will not be valid for flying EASA aircraft after 8th April 2018.....
The G120TP is not an Annex II aeroplane, so a civil pilot must meet EASA regulatory requirements. Which means the relevant Part-FCL pilot licence, Type / Class Rating, Instrument Rating if flying under IFR, Aerobatic Rating if flying aerobatics etc etc.....
These 'stringent EASA regs' are no more than are required for civil flight instructors at somewhere like Kidlington or Jerez, so why should a civilian flight instructor flying for an MFTS contractor be considered exempt?
Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?
Turning to another MFTS aircraft type, have any of the Cranwell-based Phenom 100s flown yet, apart from their delivery flights?
The G120TP is not an Annex II aeroplane, so a civil pilot must meet EASA regulatory requirements. Which means the relevant Part-FCL pilot licence, Type / Class Rating, Instrument Rating if flying under IFR, Aerobatic Rating if flying aerobatics etc etc.....
These 'stringent EASA regs' are no more than are required for civil flight instructors at somewhere like Kidlington or Jerez, so why should a civilian flight instructor flying for an MFTS contractor be considered exempt?
Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?
Turning to another MFTS aircraft type, have any of the Cranwell-based Phenom 100s flown yet, apart from their delivery flights?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Perhaps abiding by relevant EASA regulations might actually reduce risk?"
Indeed - but more likely it's about cost - possibly the contract doesn't specify EASA requirements and so (in the wonderful world of Govt outsourcing) it's now an additional extra????
Indeed - but more likely it's about cost - possibly the contract doesn't specify EASA requirements and so (in the wonderful world of Govt outsourcing) it's now an additional extra????
Pilots of HM Forces flying civil aircraft may do so in accordance with ANO Art.145 - which does NOT apply to civil pilots.
Regarding EASA, the likelihood is that the UK will remain an EASA MS after the stupidity of the plebiscite, just as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein now are.
Regarding EASA, the likelihood is that the UK will remain an EASA MS after the stupidity of the plebiscite, just as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein now are.
MOD does not operate a licence scheme and all flying ops are conducted under a SofS derogation from the ANO. This means it is OK for a civilian without a licence to operate an MOD (military registered) aircraft provided the activity is managed and approved by MOD (via the Services or a contractor) and takes place under the derogation (iaw the MAA Regulatory Publications). However, you would expect the risk management process to require that instructors had an appropriate licence.
What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.
What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.
Slightly off topic but some years ago there was a scheme to recruit civilian instructors to become RAFVR QFIs in the university air squadrons. A rather nice design of wings was produced, similar to the RAF pattern but with blue feathers and the letters 'VR' in the centre. In the event the course was so tough that only a handful made it through and got to wear the wings. I bought a load from government surplus supplies and sold them in my shop - wish I had kept a pair.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD does not operate a licence scheme and all flying ops are conducted under a SofS derogation from the ANO. This means it is OK for a civilian without a licence to operate an MOD (military registered) aircraft provided the activity is managed and approved by MOD (via the Services or a contractor) and takes place under the derogation (iaw the MAA Regulatory Publications). However, you would expect the risk management process to require that instructors had an appropriate licence.
What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.
What is not OK is for a civilian to wear a flying badge indicating the attainment of certain standards and skills when they have not actually attained them.
See post #9 above. They do require an 'appropriate' licence.