Civilians and RAF Brevets
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: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It puts me in mind of children who ask “What if....?” they had broken a window, flushed the goldfish down the trap, eaten all the cake before deciding whether or not to confess their sins.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I have been away for a few days so only just catching up.
I am a referring to civilian pilots working for MFTS. The discuss comment really was just that, to raise discussion and opinion on it. I already know what I think.
I am a referring to civilian pilots working for MFTS. The discuss comment really was just that, to raise discussion and opinion on it. I already know what I think.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Call me old-fashioned, (wings parade May'66), but as far as I'm concerned you ONLY get a set of RAF * pilot's wings when you have PASSED the appropriate RAF training course. (*Insert RN, AAC, USAF, RAAF etc.)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree - otherwise it's what m' legal friends call "passing off"
There are plenty of other winged badges you could wear
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point of Order: the WWII "Arnold Scheme" trainees, having completed the "Aviation Cadets" course in the US Army Air Corps, were awarded an Air Corps Pilot's Badge (in the form of a silver brooch), identical, I think to the current USAF wing. I still have mine, but it was not permitted to wear it with RAF uniform (although foreign decorations can, with permission, be worn).
On our return to Canada, we were issued (without ceremony) a pair of RAF Wings from Stores (the only issue pair), after that you had to buy your own - and at 5/6 a pair (£11 in today's money), it wasn't funny. How did we fit in the system ?
Some of the earlier Posts here may give the impression that all our pilots were then commissioned at "Wings" stage . Not so, some 4/5 were promoted to Sergeant (at 13/6 a day, better off than many newly commissioned Pilot Officers). Many of these would be commissioned "in the field" later in the war.
I believe that qualified RAF "drone" operators are awarded a flying badge almost indistinguishable from the Pilot's, except that the laurel wreath is green rather than brown. Likely to deceive, I would say, even if not calculated to do so.
On our return to Canada, we were issued (without ceremony) a pair of RAF Wings from Stores (the only issue pair), after that you had to buy your own - and at 5/6 a pair (£11 in today's money), it wasn't funny. How did we fit in the system ?
Some of the earlier Posts here may give the impression that all our pilots were then commissioned at "Wings" stage . Not so, some 4/5 were promoted to Sergeant (at 13/6 a day, better off than many newly commissioned Pilot Officers). Many of these would be commissioned "in the field" later in the war.
I believe that qualified RAF "drone" operators are awarded a flying badge almost indistinguishable from the Pilot's, except that the laurel wreath is green rather than brown. Likely to deceive, I would say, even if not calculated to do so.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings Danny,
You trained in 1941. After the US declared war at the end of that year, the existence of Royal Air Force pilots u/t in the USA was no longer a "secret" and even the US flying instructors wore brevets. The year book for my dad's course shows a number of them wearing their brevets.
You trained in 1941. After the US declared war at the end of that year, the existence of Royal Air Force pilots u/t in the USA was no longer a "secret" and even the US flying instructors wore brevets. The year book for my dad's course shows a number of them wearing their brevets.
Awesome, I'd love to have done something like that, where is your shop TTN?
'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?
These Grob TPs are on the MILITARY REGISTER and have nothing to do with EASA. Just because the TP is able to be operated under EASA rules does not mean that it has to be. Think about it, there are plenty of aircraft that can fly in the UK, could be operated under EASA rules and regs but do not - like a Russian registered Cessna, a FAA registered Piper, a US military registered King Air or a RNZAF 757. None of these aircraft need Part-FCL licences even though they could all be operated under EASA rules if they wanted.
The Phenom 100s are military registered as well...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what licence would a civilian fly then under? They can’t fly them under a military brevet as they are not in the military. Who would prosecute in the event of error? The military have no authority over a civilian so they can’t in the same way the CAA would not prosecute a military pilot.
Does this mean that MFTS pilots get a magic get out of jail free card if they are flying a military registered aircraft without a licence?
Does this mean that MFTS pilots get a magic get out of jail free card if they are flying a military registered aircraft without a licence?
...an FAA registered Piper
Lima Juliet, perhaps you are unfamiliar with ORS4 No.1228? Or the Aircew Regulation?
Has that Phenom yet been flown by anyone at Cranwell? I wonder what the attitude of the insurers would be towards it being flown by people without TRs?
Guest
Posts: n/a
roving (#49),
Your Mr Rodreick has me speechless ! AFAIK (and I was there till March '42), the "Arnold" Primary Schools were staffed by civilian instructors in civilian clothes; their Basic and Advanced Schools with all US Army officers.
The "British Flying Training Schools" which were set up at the same time as the "Arnold" Scheme (mid-1941) had US civilian instructors in civilian clothes to begin with: the intention (after Pearl Harbor) was to replace them progressively with "creamies" (RAF Pilot officers) from their own or Arnold or Canada-trained graduates. However, although the Arnold Scheme ended in 1943, the BFTS operated to the bitter end, so what happened after I left I do not know (do you know your Dad's Class Number - or dates ?)
This character is just a joke, never seen anything like it, it's "fancy dress", I suspect ! (Wot, no "scrambled egg" ?)
Danny.
Your Mr Rodreick has me speechless ! AFAIK (and I was there till March '42), the "Arnold" Primary Schools were staffed by civilian instructors in civilian clothes; their Basic and Advanced Schools with all US Army officers.
The "British Flying Training Schools" which were set up at the same time as the "Arnold" Scheme (mid-1941) had US civilian instructors in civilian clothes to begin with: the intention (after Pearl Harbor) was to replace them progressively with "creamies" (RAF Pilot officers) from their own or Arnold or Canada-trained graduates. However, although the Arnold Scheme ended in 1943, the BFTS operated to the bitter end, so what happened after I left I do not know (do you know your Dad's Class Number - or dates ?)
This character is just a joke, never seen anything like it, it's "fancy dress", I suspect ! (Wot, no "scrambled egg" ?)
Danny.
BEagle
Elsewhere on this thread it states
That information is correct. RA2101 refers and it states an “appropriate licence” is required - that does not mean it has to be an EASA one, a national one or from another country will be fine if deemed sufficient by the Duty Holder. Indeed they will even accept those trained by another foreign military.
You make not like it old fruit, but dems da rules. It isn’t a SofS for Transport matter but a SofS for Defence one...he ultimately owns the risk.
Elsewhere on this thread it states
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.
You make not like it old fruit, but dems da rules. It isn’t a SofS for Transport matter but a SofS for Defence one...he ultimately owns the risk.
Lima Juliet, back in October you wrote:
So why have you now reversed this opinion?
Foreign licences? Quite how a 'Duty Holder' can assess whether some Parker pen licence allegedly issued by some '$hithole country', to use a Trumpism, is 'appropriate' is beyond me!
For civil pilots in the UK, the CAA is the only regulator which can confirm the definition of 'an appropriate licence' - and it will be very surprising if that means anything other than a CPL/ATPL, TR, IR and Class 1 medical for CPL/ATPL FIs flying the Phenom.
I agree, CPL/ATPL FIs should have a type rating if flying the Phenom. It would be a huge oversight and a matter for the CAA Enforcement Team if they didn’t!
Foreign licences? Quite how a 'Duty Holder' can assess whether some Parker pen licence allegedly issued by some '$hithole country', to use a Trumpism, is 'appropriate' is beyond me!
For civil pilots in the UK, the CAA is the only regulator which can confirm the definition of 'an appropriate licence' - and it will be very surprising if that means anything other than a CPL/ATPL, TR, IR and Class 1 medical for CPL/ATPL FIs flying the Phenom.
BEags
Because originally I thought they were going to be flown on the G-Reg!
But it appears they are going to be military registered and so that changes the position somewhat.
Because originally I thought they were going to be flown on the G-Reg!
But it appears they are going to be military registered and so that changes the position somewhat.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts