Phenom
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
I hope that 22Gp have ensured that none of the students will get a commercial licence out of this training - imagine what might happen if they did?! Pilots might stay to the end of their service rather than working in their own time & jumping ship as soon as they have the license in their hand.
Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.
Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was already an established practice, that Easy Jet Captains should go to the Royal Air Force for part of their training.
I hope that 22Gp have ensured that none of the students will get a commercial licence out of this training - imagine what might happen if they did?! Pilots might stay to the end of their service rather than working in their own time & jumping ship as soon as they have the license in their hand.
Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.
Maintaining the current system of obstructing the attainment of professional licences has certainly proved to be a winning policy for retention.
Will they get a CPL? Nope, as to complete a modular EASA CPL you need a PPL, 150hrs and have completed the CPL or ATPL exams. The baby pilots may have a PPL but are unlikely to have the other - EFT is now around 50-60hrs. The ME lead in is between 15-20hrs. Only qualified service pilots are exempted the Theoretical Knowledge trg before they sit the sit the EASA exams and even then they normally attend a ‘crammer’ package to prep them for the exams to ensure success. The baby pilots would need to do the full part-time ~18 month learning groundschool or the 4-5 month taught EASA ground school.
So I hope you can now understand why this is not a 22Gp blame issue?
PS. Military ground school is now about 2 months overall with EFT, MELIN and MEPT, so someway short of the civvy one.
Lima Juliet wrote:
Wrong! It is everything to do with 22Gp! During a pre-EASA roadshow at CAA Gatwick, I asked whether the hard-won credit policy secured for QSPs under JAR-FCL would be maintained under EASA. The spokeswoman confimed that they could - and the CAA Head of Licensing nodded in agreement.
It has to be remembered that the original credit for those with 2000TT of which 1500 as PIC recognised not just knowledge and skill, but also experience. Hence any gaps in military theoretical knowledge training would certainly have been resolved by the time pilots had achieved the 2000TT minimum.
But 22 Gp totally failed to understand this; they were more interested in gaining some credit, miniscule as it was, for those poor folk who were booted out of the training system after passing the courses, because yet another panic reduction in pilot numbers couldn't accommodate them.... Hence the JAR-FCL credits were binned and the present day situation is the result.
So instead of staying in until they've gained 2000TT / 1500 PIC, many QMPs are now thinking "What's the point" and are studying for ATPL exams, gaining a CPL with ATPL theory credit and banging out as soon as they can. For which you can certainly blame 22 Gp!
So I hope you can now understand why this is not a 22Gp blame issue?
It has to be remembered that the original credit for those with 2000TT of which 1500 as PIC recognised not just knowledge and skill, but also experience. Hence any gaps in military theoretical knowledge training would certainly have been resolved by the time pilots had achieved the 2000TT minimum.
But 22 Gp totally failed to understand this; they were more interested in gaining some credit, miniscule as it was, for those poor folk who were booted out of the training system after passing the courses, because yet another panic reduction in pilot numbers couldn't accommodate them.... Hence the JAR-FCL credits were binned and the present day situation is the result.
So instead of staying in until they've gained 2000TT / 1500 PIC, many QMPs are now thinking "What's the point" and are studying for ATPL exams, gaining a CPL with ATPL theory credit and banging out as soon as they can. For which you can certainly blame 22 Gp!
All be irrelevant next March when we are out of the EU, and EASA, and for a while out of the skies....rant over, f
Last edited by Wander00; 8th Aug 2018 at 13:23. Reason: This ridicvulous upgrade that takes 2 minutes to load one page also scrambles text
So instead of staying in until they've gained 2000TT / 1500 PIC, many QMPs are now thinking "What's the point" and are studying for ATPL exams, gaining a CPL with ATPL theory credit and banging out as soon as they can. For which you can certainly blame 22 Gp!
Also, as you know, the difference between EASA Part-FCL and the previous JAR regs are significant. The comment on being treated as a “3rd county” came from the person in the Authority that looks after this stuff - that is just not in 22 Gp’s gift and the CAA are only allowed to apply the rules within the spirit of the EASA regs. Hence the accreditation for UAS pilots to credit towards a NPPL was also recently lost - not a fault of 22Gp but because EASA no longer allow the training for NPPL in EASA aircraft and you can’t train on an Annex II aircraft for your LAPL/PPL. There is a case put forward for some accreditation for UAS pilots towards a LAPL with the Authority right now. You can’t blame that on 22 Gp either
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
LJ: the mil students will be attending an approved training school that trains non-mil students from zero to CPL/ frozen ATPL, so it would be possible to make the RAF abbreviated course compliant to achieve a licence. Yes, it would probably be longer than the 'special', non-licence Course that L3 have been contracted for but in the longer term the graduates will likely give more service in return as they won't have to self-fund & work for their licences - when they've got it the strong temptation is to leave & use it. Far better to give them a licence out of training & bond them for the cost if they leave early, everyone accepts that type of contract when they join an airline so why should the RAF be any different?
I don't think I've ever come across anyone whose stated aim was to join the RAF as a 'quick way to get to the airlines', everyone joins because they want to do military flying and time/ experience convinces them that leaving is a better option than staying in. This is only exacerbated by the graft of ATPL studies & having done it why waste it? The current situation of making it difficult to obtain civil qualifications is clearly not putting off many people from leaving, time perhaps for a carrot rather than the well used stick?
I don't think I've ever come across anyone whose stated aim was to join the RAF as a 'quick way to get to the airlines', everyone joins because they want to do military flying and time/ experience convinces them that leaving is a better option than staying in. This is only exacerbated by the graft of ATPL studies & having done it why waste it? The current situation of making it difficult to obtain civil qualifications is clearly not putting off many people from leaving, time perhaps for a carrot rather than the well used stick?
Lima Juliet wrote:
Wrong on both counts. UAS credit towards an NPPL remains in place and training on Annex II aircraft is acceptable towards the LAPL / PPL in the UK.
The Conversion Report for military accreditation could have remained in place under Part-FCL as it was under JAR/FCL. Sadly 22Gp chose not to argue the case - so you're stuffed with the present system.
Hence the accreditation for UAS pilots to credit towards a NPPL was also recently lost - not a fault of 22Gp but because EASA no longer allow the training for NPPL in EASA aircraft and you can’t train on an Annex II aircraft for your LAPL/PPL.
The Conversion Report for military accreditation could have remained in place under Part-FCL as it was under JAR/FCL. Sadly 22Gp chose not to argue the case - so you're stuffed with the present system.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not looking for a fight, I am just asking, if, and I know it's by no means certain... the UK leaves EASA, would the CAA be responsible for deciding which courses & exams are suitable for the issue of an ATPL?
Wrong on both counts. UAS credit towards an NPPL remains in place and training on Annex II aircraft is acceptable towards the LAPL / PPL in the UK.
The “3rd country” description came straight from the Authority; this is the person who deals with this and his initials are JO. He is the lead on military credits at the Belgrano and he said that it was the fact that the military needed to be treated as a 3rd Country meant that any accreditation would need to meet Part-TCO requirements. So again, 22Gp don’t write these regs - EASA do!
@Ken Scott, getting the studes an EASA PPL(A), 150hrs TT, TK and the exams to do a modular CPL is just too lengthy and expensive to bear. We want our pilots to flow EFT through MELIN/MEEC to MEPT or Outsourced as quickly as possible. Granted it’s a bit messed up at present but when it runs smoothly it should be a better route to a military OCU entry standard. I do agree with you about the professional recognition piece though.
Lima Juliet, I work with the chap to whom you refer on a regular basis and we also attend certain EASA licensing meetings. Which are pretty tedious events!
The recent amendment to Opinion 08/2017 may well prove of significant benefit with regard to the future of the NPPL; the only problem now is that the amended Basic Regulation is forcing an editorial review of all recent Opinions due to changes in cross-referencing. EASA's lawyers have no interest in expeditious work, hence many details agreed several years ago have still to be progressed into EU law.
The recent amendment to Opinion 08/2017 may well prove of significant benefit with regard to the future of the NPPL; the only problem now is that the amended Basic Regulation is forcing an editorial review of all recent Opinions due to changes in cross-referencing. EASA's lawyers have no interest in expeditious work, hence many details agreed several years ago have still to be progressed into EU law.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
They would have to be as far as I can tell, same with my Engineering licences, my best guess is they will simply cross out EASA on my licence and add CAA, then work from there, I forsee a commonality between the two being retained, I already hold a CAA licence under Annex 11 as well as my EASA one that was converted over from my CAA one to an EASA one under Grandfather rights.
Remember the CAA issued Licences before we joined all of this, indeed a UK EASA licence by the CAA is looked upon in the rest of the world as the favoured ones for employing people, hence why a lot of other people tried to convert their EASA licence issued in XYZ country to a UK one... The CAA vetoed that though.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would have to be as far as I can tell, same with my Engineering licences, my best guess is they will simply cross out EASA on my licence and add CAA, then work from there, I forsee a commonality between the two being retained, I already hold a CAA licence under Annex 11 as well as my EASA one that was converted over from my CAA one to an EASA one under Grandfather rights.
Remember the CAA issued Licences before we joined all of this, indeed a UK EASA licence by the CAA is looked upon in the rest of the world as the favoured ones for employing people, hence why a lot of other people tried to convert their EASA licence issued in XYZ country to a UK one... The CAA vetoed that though.
Remember the CAA issued Licences before we joined all of this, indeed a UK EASA licence by the CAA is looked upon in the rest of the world as the favoured ones for employing people, hence why a lot of other people tried to convert their EASA licence issued in XYZ country to a UK one... The CAA vetoed that though.
Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.
This is what happens in the FAF & BAF as I understand. They don’t have a retention problem. There would need to be changes made to our training system to make it compliant but given that an increasing proportion of it is now being delivered by civilian organisations that ought not to be so very difficult. All that’s lacking is the will to reverse a policy that’s abjectly failed. The extra costs would more than be covered by the extra service of those retained for longer.
Ken Scott, that is precisely why the pre-2006 scheme was launched in more sensible times - as a recruiting and retention scheme.
If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.
All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.
If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.
All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Scott, that is precisely why the pre-2006 scheme was launched in more sensible times - as a recruiting and retention scheme.
If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.
All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.
If you were a pilot on something like a TriStar, VC10 or Hercules, if you had been in the RAF for long enough to amass 2000hrs TT, of which 1500 were as PIC, all you had to do was arrange for a CAA Examiner to observe an IRT, pass the ATPL Air Law exam, fill out the form and pay the dosh - and a few weeks later your ATPL appeared.
All lost now, thanks to 22Gp.
So... if Brexit can bring that back, would you still be a remainer?
If the utter stupidity of the EU referendum was extended to the UK no longer being an EASA MS, it is rather doubtful that there would be another MCWG prepared to reopen the question of military accreditation.
HMG has yet to deliver any concrete proposals for future EASA membership; however, Mother MayDay is on record as having stated that it is the government's intention to do so.
HMG has yet to deliver any concrete proposals for future EASA membership; however, Mother MayDay is on record as having stated that it is the government's intention to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
So, where I am going with this, is that if the UK leaves EASA and simply replicates (initially) EASA rules and requirements, they could then change it, bit by bit, to suit what they are told by Parliament to do.
Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.
Having the CAA change what recognition is given to the CFS approved output might be easier than getting Europeans to accept it.
That of course would just be the tip of the iceberg, and do wonders for retention, if say a time period for a return of service was a sure fire way to a civvy licence.
The US have also adopted / moved towards a version of Part 145 to bring standardisation between the EU and the US, this in turn has spread the world over and most countries like New Zealand and Australia have a similar version to Part 145, so like it or not I cannot see the UK going it alone and doing their own thing, Part 145 is here to stay in my eyes and we will probably adopt most if not all of EASA's dross.
The problem comes in that the CAA is now a shadow of it's former self having passed most of the tasks to the EASA and a lot of the skilled and qualified through industry engineers etc have left to be replaced by fewer college graduates and clerks, none of which have the skill set I believe they need.