Airtanker reservist pilots
I am wondering what the general feeling is from RAF aircrew towards the Airtanker plan of having a mix of serving military aircrew and civilian reservists alongside.
I was previously (and relatively briefly) the holder of a "proper" commission, but have worked in the airlines for the last decade. While I don't like the principle of the Armed Forces being reliant on contractors and PFIs, and believe that the budget (and its distribution) should allow the three Services to be able to conduct their operations without external civilian support of this nature, it does interest me as I think it could be a far more satisfying job than taking drunk benefits claimants on holiday. I have no idea what the remuneration packages would be as Airtanker haven't published any indications, but if they want to attract experienced jet airliner pilots, it'll be quite different from what the RAF crews are on, which I suspect would be a major source of friction. I also wonder about the impression that people like me would be encouraging more cuts and mis-spending of the budget, undermining the RAF from within, and that as a reservist on a "plastic" commission (despite having previously held a real one), could be considered as an outsider with nothing useful to contribute. Does anyone have a view? |
What type of previous military service did you have?
If an 'experienced jet airliner pilot' turned out to be from some bottom-feeding loco airline then, unless he/she held already held an A330 Type Rating, I can't see him/her being greatly welcomed. For example, most 'proper' airlines won't even look at a CV which includes the word 'Ryanair' - it's the kiss of death....'If you lie down with the Devil, you will wake up in hell'. Perhaps AirTanker are equally prescient? I don't know. Certainly when this was discussed many years ago, the opinion amongst tanker aircrew at the time was that the simple A-to-B trash-hauling requirements might be no problem for some civvy pilot. AAR operations, however, would be a totally different matter. |
You've asked a question that I too have been pondering for a while!
I'm a former army officer (and UAS pilot), who seriously got the flying bug only after I had passed the maximum age for aircrew in any of the services, so left the regular army for the TA and then qualified as a civ pilot. I'm hoping to join Air Tanker - but like you I wonder whether there is really any possibility for non QSPs like myself. Even if I were able to join, would QSPs just sneer (which most do at civ pilots) or would I just be regarded as an equal (which my army peers regard me, despite my now TA status)? Incidentally, I am not the slightested bit interested in how the pay compares to the airlines - I want to do it for the right reasons. I guess the only way to find out is by applying - but interested too to canvass views here. Beags - why would AAR be a problem for a civ pilot? I bow to your superior knowledge - but is it really that difficult to learn? |
Basically, because most civil pilots have never been subjected to the rigorous aptitude testing essential for military flying. How would anyone know whether a plain vanilla civvy had the additional levels of capacity required for effective formation management and the frequent in-flight mission re-planning demands essential in the AAR environment?
Many ex-truckies found AAR quite difficult to start with - and they were all experienced military aircrew who had demonstrated the required aptitude before being selected. And at least they knew how to l00kout of the flight deck windows when turning in close formation! Of course there are many very capable civilian pilots. But someone whose has never been 'selected' and who has just self-funded their right hand seat postion with a LoCo could well be a considerable risk. In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr. |
BEagle
As you have asked the question ...can i ask what your previous experience is..? you seem to hold civi pilots in low regard?
|
Why? It's a fact that aptitude testing is rare these days in any airline. Virtually no airline selects using the same criteria as are required for military pilots - that is a well-known fact.
Opinion amongst my very senior ex-airline colleagues is the same. Different horses for different courses. |
SF lights blue touch paper............
from what little I know of Beags, he is more than qualified to comment |
Basically, because most civil pilots have never been subjected to the rigorous aptitude testing essential for military flying. How would anyone know whether a plain vanilla civvy had the additional levels of capacity required for effective formation management and the frequent in-flight mission re-planning demands essential in the AAR environment? Many ex-truckies found AAR quite difficult to start with - and they were all experienced military aircrew who had demonstrated the required aptitude before being selected. And at least they knew how to l00kout of the flight deck windows when turning in close formation! Of course there are many very capable civilian pilots. But someone whose has never been 'selected' and who has just self-funded their right hand seat postion with a LoCo could well be a considerable risk. In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr. Omega don't require ex-mil pilots and they do a fine job. In Australia we have civilian contracted aircraft providing tanker support (no choice), parachute training/display support, aircrew training (Yes, civilian instructors!) and admin transport to areas of operation (and tactical in the past!). There are civilian pilots out there who are as good or better than the majority of military pilots; who are formation rated, aerobatic rated down to the ground, posess helicopter and fixed wing licences and fly airliners, freighters or air ambulances for a living. Just put the applicants through aptitude testing and flight screening before posting them to a squadron, simple.:ok: |
it does interest me as I think it could be a far more satisfying job than taking drunk benefits claimants on holiday. previously (and relatively briefly) the holder of a "proper" commission. |
Tanking is not difficult-it is another aviation evolution that one deals with. It is not a master art-otherwise it would be given to guys other than VC10 drivers...... And in fairness to Beags, IMHO he is well qualified to have an infiormed opinion on the subject. |
In any case, with shrinking RAF force levels, there would probably be plenty of well-qualified QSPs with AAR experience available to fill the 'reservist' slots with ATr. |
That's like asking the pope what his experience he has in the Catholic church. |
Aptitude testing .. ISTR the pass-mark was 65% .. hardly two-winged master-race stuff..
|
polite question
Sorry which book is that?
|
Tyro, you are near enough correct. Remember though that is days of yore maks over 90% were practically impossible. A typical superb score might be 80%. It is only in today's grade inflated exam results that we are used to regarding as mediocre anything less than 90%.
The BM university exams are marked out of 100 and traditionally a mark over 80 is never awarded as an undergraduate is never that good. Once in the training system however an exam pass of 60%, while a pass, actually shows that you didn'y get 40% of the questions correct. So taking today's youth and telling them that the pass mark is 65% doesn't tell them the truth as they see it. |
Trimstab - They might, they would have the full salary for the job and their pension as well. I met a pilot the other day who had retired with a full Grp Capt pension and then did 5 more years as a Flt Lt reservist, on full salary, flying Tonkas. Nice deal if you can get it!
|
With less emphasis on basic stick and rudder skills these days, the focus is now more on 'spare capacity' than in the days of yore. Sure, basic military pilot aptitude is assessed at OASC, but it is only with progress through the system that an individual's spare capacity can be fairly assessed.
As far as I'm aware, the crew operating concept for the FSTA hasn't yet been finally established. The basic A330 normally spends its life in protected airspace under positive radar control on a flight plan which rarely includes significant changes en-route. The odd 'direct' or minor re-route for sure, but rarely complete mission changes. The routine Airbus workload has been optimised for PF/PNF duties in such controlled circumstances and most pilots can cope with it pretty easily. But if you now add additional tasks necessary for AAR, particularly if, by virtue of non-optimal flight deck design, those include tasks which would be better allocated to the mission specialist, the need for additional mental capacity and flexibility for the safe management of large formations in unprotected airspace becomes significant. In particular, it's no longer a question of simply doing what you were told pre-flight. As a wise old Victor person once said "The only thing certain in the AAR game is the time you came to work". And yes, I have 'written a book'. More than one in fact. But nothing which you could buy in a shop - they were military AAR manuals. The RAF has a good reputation for the standard of its AAR force. The aim being to offer the most flexible and efficient service possible to receivers, but without fuss or drama. I sincerely hope that such standards will not be eroded in the forthcoming PFI era. |
Agreed they would have the right skills and experience - but would RAF aircrew necessarily want to leave the RAF, obtain civilian licences, then effectively rejoin? The job market in civvie-street is not exactly 'inviting' at the moment, due to the global recession. Some folk may be coming up to the end of their commission engagements, will not have an opportunity to be assimilated past their engagement (think of the savings the MoD are being asked to make), but such people may be attracted to the AAR contract because of their experience ..... and they may be able to get employment as such. Because of their experience, they are likely to be relatively cheap to 'train'/re-employ in the role. With the dearth of other aviation jobs going, I would say they might consider that a fortunate opportunity, don't you think? Beags, well said! (Was wondering when you would come back in on this thread - SF is obviously ****e-stirring. :ok:) |
Stepping aside for a moment from the comedy willy-waving.
I have a question which I am sure has been debated before somewhere but I have never seen. Does the Airbus intend to be able to AAR from others as well as AAR to others, and if so will the Airbus sidestick control system make this tricky? |
Mr B - you're probably correct. I'm just wistfully weighing up my own chances of getting into ATr. I guess very low, given likely competition from ex-RAF tanker pilots, and my own experience only on civilian light jets.
It'll be interesting to see how they pitch the Ts and Cs. Although the general civ market is abysmal at the moment, there is ironically a shortage of A330 pilots, and so pay for A330 drivers is as good as it gets. I suspect that they will not need to match those rates though. Tourist: Does the Airbus intend to be able to AAR from others as well as AAR to others, and if so will the Airbus sidestick control system make this tricky? |
Tourist, I have been out of the AAR game, and the RAF, for a handful of years now, but I don't believe that the RAF Airbus tanker will be capable of onloading fuel from another tanker.
|
Puts paid to Black Buck type missions then.
|
Mr B,
I don't believe that the RAF Airbus tanker will be capable of onloading fuel from another tanker. More interestingly, buying the whole PFI nonsense contract out should be on the table for the SDSR on the basis that FSTA PFI is cr*p value for money, and that we should buy the bl**dy jets. If this (entirely sensible) decision is made, then the reservist crew issues could go away in a hurry. S41 |
What's the betting that in a couple of years time they'll be scurrying around the museums robbing IFR probes from grounded Nimrods for the new tanker fleet !
:hmm::mad: |
Squirrel 41,
As sensible as it might be to actually buy the jets, it just ain't going to happen. Until the stupid system* by which the Treasury runs the country's finances is utterly overhauled, there won't be money to buy the jets. *A system that forces departments to spend what remains in a pot of cash, before financial year's-end, in order to prevent it being clawed back by the Treasury. If 'excess' cash could be saved, and wisely used on another project, in other than a current financial year, this country might make massive savings. But the civil service mandarins wouldn't like that loss of control, would they? Chimps. |
More interestingly, buying the whole PFI nonsense contract out should be on the table for the SDSR on the basis that FSTA PFI is cr*p value for money, and that we should buy the bl**dy jets. |
Squirrel 41, you can bet that there would be fairly punitive financial terms attached if that happened.
FSTA will not equipped to operate in the receiver role. The KC-30A is fitted with a boom system and UARRSI receptacle; the RAAF intends to operate in both tanker and receiver role. Does the FCS cope? Yes - and there is an option to modify the control laws in the receiver role. Or at least there was planned to be - I don't know if it ultimately proved necessary: Gallery |
A refuelling probe was in the original spec but was subsequently deemed un-necessary by the powers that be.
I think that another Black Buck would be quite possible. In a deployment mission, the A330 MRTT enables four Eurofighters, to fly 3,600 nm by refuelling them en-route, or, when carrying 20 tonnes of payload, to fly these four fighters a distance of 2,800 nm. The A330 MRTT can also be used on towline mission, whereby it can be on station at about 1,000 nm from its base for some 4 hours 30 minutes, with the capability to provide 50 tonnes of fuel for needing receivers. Or to provide 60 tonnes of fuel while remaining on station for 5 hours at 500 nm from base. This exceeds by far what any other current tanker can offer |
Beagle, I agree with your points about a lack of aptitude testing and a lack of standardized testing for airline entry wholheartedly:
For example, most 'proper' airlines won't even look at a CV which includes the word 'Ryanair' - it's the kiss of death....'If you lie down with the Devil, you will wake up in hell'. Perhaps AirTanker are equally prescient? I don't know. You've posted at length about your dislike of the airline in terms of the passenger experience and of your dislike of the CEO, fair enough. Just try not to let your bias and what I suspect is also a xenophobic/racist leaning get in the way of the truth. |
How hard can it be to fly along straight and level with the autopilot on?
:E |
I would sugest HMgovt look very closley at the contracts and work out a stratagey to Bankrupt air tanker then nationalise it like the previous one did with railtrack.
|
Concur. Beags generally speaks a great deal of sense but in his earlier post my 'master twaddle caution' illuminated. Beags may be interested to know where Emirates have just headhunted about 100 new flight crew from (and it wasn't the shiny fleet, that's for sure).
His petty prejudice against the evil yellow and blue is his own prerogative but is an absolute irrelevance to this thread. I trust that Beags would have the professionalism, if he was in a position of influence in recruitment, to distinguish a pilot's merit and qualification from the customer service standards of an airline for which he previously worked. RYR isn't short of ex-mil pilots either, Britmil et al. |
BEagle
Squirrel 41, you can bet that there would be fairly punitive financial terms attached if that happened. And given that the NAO tellus that the self-protection suite will ensure that Timmy needs to keep flogging out to Afghanland for a while yet (2016? 2018?), the number of A330K and their delviery schedule should all be up for grabs - meaning that buying out the contract with ATr looks like better value as it increases flexibility. And for TS Maybe - but then the RAF would still be flying them sixty years later when completely clapped out and inefficient. At least with the PFI plan, at the end of the lease-term, they will replaced by new aircraft. S41 |
If the MOD were to buy out the ATr contract, would the MOD be able to charter out the aircraft commercially?
|
Originally Posted by Squirrel 41
(Post 5891446)
Do you have any evidence for this? IF . . . the contract runs through to termination . . . I suspect the MoD would probably buy the jets at that point.
Even if the contractor does own the assets the contract could contain a handover clause at the end of the contract. Unless you know the details then the permutations are legion. |
I think we ought to settle this one here and now - on one hand we have Beagle, old, a bit doddery, possibly getting a bit chubby and going mutton. On the other hand we have Mikey the ***** "evil empire".
Who would you rather fly you home??? Despite not having the pleasure of meeting him, Beags gets my vote every time. Even though he's an old fart. Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with - with an attitude like that how much do you want to bet maintenance is cost/benefitted out as thinly as possible. Wny do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now) |
Ryanair pushes the limit of every law they think they can get away with |
Originally Posted by cornish-stormrider
(Post 5891717)
Why do they buy new jets - less things to break and therefore less cost to maintain (for now)
Much better to buy outright and run for 40-50 years; corner the world market in spares as sole user and get them cheap. |
OK, your opinion I'll ignore. Ryanair and easyJet pilots are among the most sought after by the legacy airlines, as the targeting of both by Virgin, BA and Emirates has demonstrated for some time. The airlines may have a bad way of treating their staff, but that doesn't mean their pilots aren't good - they have very high quality experience in the airline world, given how many sectors they operate into postage stamp airports in mountainous regions, using non-precision approaches to contaminated runways. The legacy carriers don't do that.
With 10,000 hours flying for those two, I think I have more experience of multi-engine jet ops than a lot of service pilots, but if you can't do anything but slag of your civil colleagues then I hope you find yourself unemployed soon. I was in the RAF and got about half way through pilot training before being chopped, but times were tough in the mid 90s and only a few of the 50 pilots recruited that year made it to the end - too many defence cuts and a lot of front line guys extending their commissions because the recession meant there were few airline jobs (sounds familiar, doesn't it), meant that they had to chop students left right and centre because of the backlogs in the system. For what it's worth, I have flown with ex-RAF truckies, and their quality has been quite varied, just like within the airline world, and some of them have seemed to show pretty poor ability, so let's have less of the arrogance. |
a_a. Thats exactly my point - they haven't YET.
I would not to put money on when and how bad. Let me suffice to say there is my airline **** list - Ryanair might not be at the top but it's on there. Pontius - my point was that if they buy new and shiny so they can cut back the spanner monkeys then there are less spanner monkeys available to do any task. Add in some pressure and demands from some accountant shiny arse and people will start trimming the odd corner. one thing leads to another. Can you say the engineers at whoever does Mikeys maintenance will turn round and say, sorry skip - you can't have the jet we are not done with it on anything other than a blue moon?? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.