Missapropriation of RAF Equipment
 

Does anyone else here feel that the recent use of RAF aircraft by pilots (with civvy IR authorisers on board) to gain thier instrument rating ticket for civialian aircraft AFTER they have PVR'd is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of RAF equipment and resources.

In this day and age where resources are at thier most scarce a recent station cmdr (at a northern air base) took an aircraft up for the sole reason of gaining his civy ticket before he swanned off to a nice cushy (civvy) job down south.

Wrong wrong wrong

John Prescott was a far bigger waste of time and money.

Noo...John Major was a bigger waste of space...Not literally of course becuase 2 Jags is a big chap...bigger that John Major...But Mjor was a bigger waste of space

No, I don't. What about people being given paid time off work to represent the RAF at FISHING?!

No. It is an entirely legitimate example of the Service taking it's committment to Resettlement Training (or whatever its called these days) seriously and professionally. Having qualified as aircrew, you have served the approriate and stated length of service required before PVR or natural retirement, so your debt is clear, it is the service that is now obligated to make every effort to train and qualify you for a second career, based on you primary employment while serving. This applies to everyone, whatever trade or branch they serve, it just seems more glamorous if it happens in a cockpit rather than warehouse, but the principle is the same.

What about fillingn the aircraft full of golf clubs and lads/lasses on a beano for a weekends golf...is that still allowed?

No (to the original question!).

Does anyone else here feel that the recent whining and moaning by some malcontent blunt tw@t is a disgrace and total misuse (and in fact theft) of our valuable time and attention?

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Sounds like a clear cut case of good old fashioned green-eyed envy to me.

Pops away ginger can't get an ATPL, IR etc, so why should anyone else.

A cruel person would say "should've worked harder at school". I am that cruel person :ok:

Presumably Ginge, you're a just jealous of these types going to get paid twice as much as you do because ou chose the wrong profession! Perfectly legitimate use. As previously stated, you have paid you debt and it is then the RAF's responsibility to re-train you as they kick you out at 38 if you can stand it that long (ageist).

It would be normal of me to jump in here and agree with whats'isname but I can't. This is one of the few perks that we have left. Trouble is, now its in the open that aircrew are using military aircraft to take their civilian exams in then it will be on page 4 of the MOS tomorrow...and then Joe Public, rather than supporting his Armed Forces, thinks that we are all a load of cocks and out to pull a fast one.

Pops Wahey of Moray

I hereby withdraw my previous advocacy for the rights of ginger Scotsmen (gay or otherwise!) :}

Ginger - your post smacks of jealously and the desire to create a scandal.
For a start, this practice cannot be "theft" if the sortie is correctly authorized. Secondly, what is demonstrated to a CAA examiner is a series of manoeuvres that service pilots have to perform regularly during routine training sorties, the only difference being that a CAA examiner has been invited onboard to watch. Sometimes the examiner will have to sit through hours of other training that is irrelevant to them, before watching the instrument flying portion of the sortie. If a sortie is generated for pilot currency then it comes from a pot of hours intended for exactly this type of training anyway.
You may ask why this type of training is not done in simulator and the answer is that, unlike the airlines, the MoD have not paid for simulators with the fidelity needed to dispense with the requirement for routine pilot training in the aircraft. When we get new aircraft and Level D simulators then it will all be done synthetically.
As to pilots that have PVR'd - if the service wishes to employ them on flying duties up to their exit date then they must continue to meet all the training requirements. It would be churlish (and probably illegal) to single-out those that have PVR'd by prohibiting only them from taking an examiner along on such sorties. Personlly, I would have got the licence before PVRing, but I'm cautious like that.
Now that I have explained how the flying is generated, all that is left of your case is an objection to allowing external examiners to watch servicemen at work. This surely cannot be the crux of your argument; do you also object to NVQ assessors etc?

Well, all that happens is that some IRE mate from the CAA watches from the jump seat whilst you do a bit of routine MCT. Which you have to do anyway for military currency basic training requirements - the difference being that you organise things so that the MCT meets the CAA IR requirements. In my case it was SID, MALBY-BCN and off at NITON, radar vectored ILS at Lyneham, SEFATO then once round the Brize NDB hold and a 3-e NDB at BZN, 3-e go-around and 3-e vis circuit to land. Everything except the airways leg was without autopilot.

And then a cheque for several hundred quid to the nice CAA chap.

Incidentally, these trips also serve to keep the CAA well informed about how the military operates big aircraft - so are of mutual benefit.

What's recent?

I did a couple of IRT practice, land Bedford, pick up IRE, do test, lunch, fly second test, RTB to Bedford and home.

Met Sqn Boss, said just done some more resettlement training. No No he bristled they are not PVRing.

He got back to his office to find the papers on his desk. And that was 17 years go.

I would agree with the indignant obvious aircrew chaps up there about the resettlement aspect - if I thought for one moment that the troops got an equal chance to bite that cherry. Your crappy point is poorly made and emphasises the disparity rather than validate the actions.

So does that mean that no-one should be allowed to attain any civil quals using Military kit, drivers, tech's etc? Aircrew pay a lot of cash to get a civil license, doubling up a check ride doesn't seem a lot to ask.

Meaning what, Mr Chinecap?

If you can find a similar parallel for the non-pilot world, then I suggest you push ahead with seeking civilian recognition of your military qualifications - good luck!

The pilot accreditation was sparked by a statement in JAR-FCL, followed by a Statement in the House concerning recognition of military skills.

Something similar was also supposed to be achieved for ATC and FC branch - but it requires effort to staff any proposal.

Which particular 'bite' of the 'cherry' are you advocating for the 'troops'?

NEBOSH is one such civilian qualification and several other H&S courses have a final exam that is acceptable to a civilian qualification. You pays your money, you get the qualification, and then you get your money back.:)

PN, IOSH!

"Pops away" is obviously a blunty who can't afford the resettlement course that will teach him to spell ;)

If there's a perk to a job, then you use it. There's enough crap flying peoples way in service life these days that why shouldn't some benefit come out of it too. As has been pointed out it costs the military nothing as the sortie would already have taken place, and the individual is still paying the examiner for the test.

I wasn't fortunate enough to be in that position and had to bite the bullet and pay (£10K+) to get a meaningful civil qualification. You play the cards you're dealt.

Get a life.

As has been said here already this is not a new thing, this has happened for several years where I have served.

Some points on here are valid but I would point out that NVQ assessors are actually there as part and parcel of the young guys gaining their promotion as this is now a pre-requisite, are you advocating that they do not do this NVQ part so they cant get promoted/trained to become technicians?
Also there are a lot of courses such as QA, H&S that are mandatory requirements in posts to comply with civilian regulations whilst still actually serving in the RAF.

Standing by for the inevitable flack here but these guys aren't using the system for their own benefit i.e. feathering their nests for future employment out with the RAF.

Now if you are not happy with that statement then you obviously only want a perspective that comes from the flying side of the fence.

As always there are the 'you should have stuck in at school' brigade. Why is it you automatically assume that no-one but yourselves are either a. educationally qualified b. capable of being a pilot and c. actually want to fly an aircraft.
Plenty of folk I work with have no desire to fly aircraft but instead have a desire to provide and fix airworthy aircraft and enjoy the challenge of solving malfunctions on new and often complex systems on aircraft.

The above is not a dig in any way and please don't take it as such but there are always two sides to any story and as usual the flying part are the ones who are shouting the loudest........

Hello Pontius.
Quote : #15. >What's recent?
I did a couple of IRT practice, land Bedford, pick up IRE, do test, lunch, fly second test, RTB to Bedford and home.
Met Sqn Boss, said just done some more resettlement training. No No he bristled they are not PVRing.
He got back to his office to find the papers on his desk. And that was 17 years ago.< unquote.

Actually a bit longer even than that, P me old ! - 1963 in fact.
FAA mates on 32 Sqn.Comms unit at Northolt used to borrow the Devon, take it up to Stansted etc etc etc. ---SOP. As you say, normal resettlement practice even then.
Rgds, Sleeve.
PS. Just thought of another example, ...... 1972, BZ, '103', (complete with CAA), Park Corner, BHD, St.M. RTB.

Pops Away Ginger,

Nobber .............:rolleyes:

By recent, you may mean me. And no, I don't think it was a waste. MCT hours have to be taken; what difference does it make if I get my ATPL rating out of it??

It's legal, not particularly uncommon and above all, the very least we can do for one of our own!

This sort of thing is as said 'not uncommon' and is not even a new concept. Back in 85 I completed the best part of my licensing with the assistance of military resources with the full knowledge of the system. It's simply training.

Well, I did it in 1963 so what's new?

When I said 'bite of the cherry' I was referring to equal availability to such 'perks' across all areas. I have no idea how much such a 'perk' as mentioned would cost if paid for outside as part of the licensing process. If the value of that was made available to the troops, I'd see it as more equal. I'm sure it is a couple of quid and possibly more than anyone else gets as part of their resettlement after 22 yrs service.

Well, that seems to have covered the topic. Any questions Ginge?

The resettlement people would not let me claim the IRT fee from my resettlement grant. The reason they gave - it is an exam not a course.

BP, odd, I was paid my IOSH.

I'm planing on doing my IRT in a Sea King. Can I claim an hour's flying time in a TriStar and pay for the hour in the SK?:ok:

The Airforce owes those hours to the crews as part of their MCT allowance, referred to directly in JSP550. So tough. Yes they are entitled, and I would say its the least that they could do bearing in mind the other option is we cost the air force even more by using ELC for Civy IRT schedules. Oh, and the other point that crews are getting yoyo'ed between the two theatres with scant regard to harmony guidelines.

You daft Blunty.

But After PVR and BEFORE termination, they are still in the RAF, and as such, still have their duties to perform, and if those duties include training and currency flights, then they are duty bound to perform them.

What would you prefer PA Ginger, people who have PVR'd just stopping work for the 12 months waiting time, drawing full normal pay, and sitting on their jacksies all day.

Get real.

(I can't believe I am defending aircrew)

To answer several questions and moans here goes:

I am a blunty so what?
Who do you think is in the chain of events that get you airborne, every trade has a part to play however small, you wouldn't get very far without food, fuel and imagine, god forbid, you didn't get paid so don't get on to me about being a 'blunty'

I am not 'green eyed' but am asking a valid point

So far I have seen no reasonable argument for this practice apart from 'we are owed it', isn't everyone owed the same financial equivalent then?

Are these civilians insured and authorized to fly in military aircraft and who actually auths it?

Do you really think that if it wasn't aircrew then this would actually be allowed?

As I have a PPL can I use an RAF aircraft to get my civ quals? No didn't think so....(yes I know i'm not an RAF pilot but I suppose technically I am more qualified actually having a PPL)

Me me me is all I have heard so far and some on here need to grow up.

PAG

Pops Wahey Ginger

Hello Kettle, this is pot ... Message, over!

I'm a former blunty. Why do you begrudge the aircrew proper resettlement training in their own trade? While this forum welcomes all people associated with military aviation, I'd suggest that if you want sympathy for your wee greet, you either post elsewhere than the Professional Pilot's Rumour Network, or look for it in the dictionary somewhere between sh1t and syphillis.

BTW, Ginger: Did your Mammy never tell you? Red and Green should never be seen.

PAG

I'm sorry? Are you implying that having a PPL makes you more qualified than a pilot in the RAF? To quote J McEnroe Esq: 'You cannot be serious!'

I had a PPL before I joined the RAF, & I currently have an ATPL - I believe that outranks your 'qualification'. I doubt I'm alone in the RAF either. Incidently, I did my IRT in a service aircraft, as part of my MCT allowance. I looked at doing it through a civvy flying training school, but that would have involved a couple of weeks away from work and approx £6000 under the Linkup scheme which would have been paid for by the MOD - doing it on my MCT alocation therefore represented good value for the MOD, and I even paid the test fee myself.

I really think you should stop worrying about this, it's a perfectly reasonable thing for people to do with their training time - they're going to burn holes in the sky anyway so who cares if a CAA examiner comes along for the ride?

So by that move then we should stop GE's doing their ground civvie engineering exams in theatre and get them back down the line, where they can make themselves useful right? I called you blunt not because you are not aircrew, but because your loaded question is one of the dumbest I have heard in a long while, especially whilst many are going far above and beyond to get the job done in the sandpit. Surely we are all entitled to a little flex to further ourselves, especially when it costs the Air Force bugger all!

Could this possibly be Toddbabe finding a new subject to moan and bleat about the commisioned cadre? :rolleyes:

So you don't do any civilian recognised accounting qualifications or a supply and logisitics degree or an MDA etc etc?

yes and yes and the auth. In the case I am aware of it was the sqn cdr.

Of course not. You need to be qualified to use any kit, even JPA, so just because you are a wiz at PPL does not entitle you to get your hands on Betty's toybox.