Perhaps you should make that point to 22 Gp?

BEagle,

You make a very valid point about retention - from a purely Army perspective not only is there no Bridging light at the end of the tunnel now but most young pilots (particularly NCOs) also have the prospect of the impeding change to pensions. I know of quite a few on the AH Force who have already said there's no point going beyond 12-14 years but they would stay to build up their hours for bridging. There'll be quite a few doing the 7 clicks to freedom on JPA in the next couple of years I'd wager.


Thank god I bridged when I did.

I agree. I can see people doing the time it takes them to enjoy an early career in the RAF, then leaving at their 1st exit option, in order to pursue a second career in the Civvy market. Have a quality of job experience first, then a quality of life experience second! It will undoubtably lead to an erosion of experience in an already eroded Service. This, as previously mentioned, coupled with changes to the pension scheme - with no choice of joining this new scheme or not, could result in a pretty bleak outlook for some.

That said, the quality of flying wil still keep a lot of people in beyond options, although the lure of PAS seems to be retreating with, I suspect, very few offers to transfer to PAS over the next few years.....

With 22 Gp itself expressing such low confidence in our training and experience - we even have to do a PPL skills test now FFS - shouldn't EASA be concerned that British military pilots are allowed to share controlled airspace with civil traffic?

I believe that a number of European air forces make their basic pilot qualifications compliant with civil licensing rules (groundschool exams, etc), which presumably makes their transition somewhat easier. I don't know how we justify the current dumbed-down situation, especially in the dreaded "risk to life" registers.

I've read through the CAP804 and just wanted to clarify what I need to do please!!! Its very confusing!

I'm a current green rated C130J operator with about 3500hrs total and about 1500hrs Captain.

As I read it I need to do :
* Class 1 Med
* All 14 Exams - Do I need to do a crammer course or can I just take the exams without the course?
* Do a skills test with a TRE - can this be done on a C130J or will I need to do this at a civilian school?

Thanks in advance for your help
Wides

Wides,

The MAS completely fails to recognise that your experience and skill obviates the need for theoretical exams, unlike the previous scheme. In addition, you can only open a part-FCL pilot licence with an 'EASA' aeroplane type or class.

According to CAP 747, the Lockheed 'Hercules L382G' is an 'EASA aeroplane', whereas there is no listing for the L382J (C-130J).....:\

There will be precious few people able to 'benefit' from the terms of 3.5, although whoopy-doo, you won't need to do a crammer and can attempt all those expensive exams with self-study alone.

So I guess that if the C-130J is considered an 'EASA' aeroplane and if you can find a TRE qualified on type, you might be OK? Put the question to 22Gp!

There is some daft school of thought which thinks that, having passed all those exams, you could approach an airline and ask to open an ATPL after completing type rating training with them. But would any airline entertain that nonsense idea? If you can even convince them to do your Type Rating, would you be able to convince them to wait for the Belgrano to send you a licence?

Whilst the new MAS opens the door to a licence for those poor sods booted out after Cameron's defence cuts, it is of damn-all use to most squadron pilots. Once you've achieved 70hrs PIC (or PICU/S) and an Unrestricted Green Rating, there isn't much point in staying on once you've passed the ATPL exams as they have a time limit towards the IR(A).....

MoD's guilt of involuntary military redundancy at the bottom end might have been assuaged by part O; however, the new MAS is a kick in the teeth for long-serving, highly experienced military aircrew...

There are some throwaway lines about "BFJT graduates" taking their IRs in single-pilot single-engine aircraft. It uses the qualifier "shall," which worried me a section.

As a BFJT graduate and FJ-only pilot, is this expressly stopping me from taking a regular civil ME IR in a light twin as many colleagues have in the past?

The steps from an FJ job to an ATPL now appear to be same; sit all the exams (although you can self study and sit them yourself, rather than paying for a crammer course), then do a civilian IR?

I thought it was implied that the member states of EASA could come up with whatever accreditation they wanted, and therefore the poor state of this new MAS is purely down to 22Gp, and nothing to do with the CAA/EASA?

Or is it the case that 22Gp proposed more for us, but were beaten back by the CAA?

This is the crux of the matter I think. Does anyone know the truth? :mad:

Having read though it all, it appears, in plain language that you need:

- 70hrs PIC / PICUS / P1 non-Capt (Nimrod P1 / Copilot p1?) logged in your military logbook
- Class 1 medical
- Pass all 14 exams, no need for a formal cse
- Rock up at a FTO and complete whatever training they think you need, no need for a formal cse
- Pass skill test and IRT
- Apply for licence (assuming you meet the full requirements as laid down in part-FCL)

Effectively, as long as you have passed an OCU, and logged 70 hrs p1, the door is open?

Is that interpretation correct?

It matches mine. Ironically, as an FJ guy with no chance of qualifying via a military IRT and being short of the 2000hrs mark, I think it actually makes it easier for me....!

Seems to make it alot easier for me too - I have very low PIC hrs (on manned aircraft, at least!) so didn't qualify for ANY credit under the old scheme - now it appears that I don't have to do a formal CPL / IR course.

Plus, the credits appear to be 'lifetime' - the old scheme gave you up to a year after leaving the service, but no mention of time-limits in the new scheme? More good news for me...

Emphatically NOT the case......

After a kangaroo court, I was summoned for an Axminster shuffle "For telling the truth" about this, as one of our ex-Air Engineers described it..... I'd suggested to some colleagues that external regulation of standards, as is the case in civil aviation, meant that there was no option for training to be cut back to the level that a company could afford to pay for - unlike what was continually happening in the RAF at the time.

The loss of the 'Experienced QSP' accreditation reminds me of the old Roger Bacon story about an RAF VC10 captain applying for an ATPL. Thus spoke the Belgranist: "Good, now that you've passed all our exams, we just need you to pop over to do an 1179. Next week OK?"

"Sorry, I can't do it then. I'm flying the Queen back from Australia", came the reply....:rolleyes:

I seem to remember you posting, BEagle, that it would be almost entirely up to each country's agency to decide what credits should be given for military experience, and in our case, the CAA had devolved it entirely to 22Gp.

So we can assume that 22Gp could have written almost anything for the MAS, and therefore the loss of experienced QSP accreditation is entirely down to them?

5F6B, the main issue with accreditation for experienced QSPs would seem to be that anything less than passing all the exams and flying a Skill Test might require recognition of assimilation of 'need to know' knowledge by practical experience and acceptance of test standards / qualifications of tests conducted by military instructors / examiners....... Something hard to do - allegedly.

Gone are the days when A2 / Master Green / IRE was considered God-like, it would appear.

You will have to ask 22Gp why they didn't insist on the retention of the 'experienced QSP' accreditation. However, should this now lead to a rush of experienced people PVR'ing, then perhaps the question will come from on high within the Service?

Although it is not possible to include a non-EASA aircraft Type Rating in a part-FCL licence, I do not know whether anyone actually put the suggestion to EASA that 'appropriate military aircraft which do not have civil equivalents' could be used for the initial issue of a part-FCL pilot licence, as was the situation under JAR-FCL. My guess is that they probably did not.

Culpability
 

I really don't see how any of us can legally operate in any kind of controlled airspace or even utilise air traffic services. We're just not trained or qualified ...it certainly begs the question of who would be culpable in the event of an incident.

A1, Master Green, IRE on Das Teutor and you would have to fly a Skill Test just for a PPL??

Quite ludicrous.

I'd like to know the answer to this too. I already have a CPL(A) with a MEP class rating but no IR. It will be a right pain if I need to add a SEP class rating and SEP IR (neither of which I want) just to allow me to conduct another IRT on twin that I am already qualified to fly.

If you already hold CPL(A) with MEP Class Rating, then you should be able to include an IR(A) in your licence under the same terms which apply to any other civil pilot licence holder.

Nevertheless, please forward your question to 22Gp!

... anyone have any contact details for the team at 22Gp who put this together...?

Time to stop doing it then maybe! Either we are suitable trained and qualified (in which case we receive credit for that when it comes to licences) or we are not - and in which case we should not be flying in anything other than open FIR!

I think, legally, 22 Gp might have just shot the RAF in the foot, big style. Potentially a huge loss in not just face, but capability too.....:ugh:

True, but as far as I see it, that requires a modular course with a significant number of flying hours and expense. The other alternative is to use the Military exemptions to get a SEP IR and then convert it, but that also requires lots of hours, 2 IRTs and lots of money.


The contact details for 22Gp are on the first page of the Part O exemptions under the 'Applicability' heading.

Contact address as above.

It doesn't state that these are purely 'military' hours to be logged in a military log book - whereas the previous experienced QSP scheme gave recognition purely for military flight time.

So, as the RAF gives you sod-all solo time during training these days, you can still obtain an NPPL using exactly the same exam and test exemptions as applied hitherto, then top up your PIC time on a RAF FCA puddlejumper.....

Back in more enlightened times, I note that I already had 70 hrs PIC after my RAF Scholarship and UAS flying before I went solo on the JP3...:hmm:

Well, I'm not one to revel in other's misery, but what has happened now is just the same that happened to Navs when CAA Licences went to JAR Licences around the turn of the millenium. No accreditation of training anymore, no carry over of mil hours to civ hours and no transfer of captaincy hours.

Welcome to the Club, my 2-winged master race buddies - it sucks the dog of death doesn't it? :(

iRaven

PS I got more exam exemptions as a 2nd tourist Nav in 1999 compared to a very experienced QSP under these new regulations. :ugh:

Sorry chaps, you will have to stay out of civvy controlled airspace, as we are just not sure if you are up to scratch.

Stay away from clouds whilst you're at it.

What a crock of Sh1t!

The other problem will be with lapsed atpl(a)for those already possessing an atpl(a)? As I understand, if your type isn't recognised, your license could expire in as little as three years as the green rating will no longer count as a renewal unless it's on a specific type?

Time for the mil to adopt to some extent the atpl syllabus? Any chance of further amendment to this doc if 22gp can provide the evidence for experienced pilots the CAA require?

Indeed. Theoretical training and examinations for the equivalent civil licences should have been introduced years ago, instead of such training being progressively dumbed down at the whim of some senior officer or other.

Not so much the CAA as that wretched €urobolleaux of EASA. 22Gp should have ensured that a way was found to continue this highly worthwhile recruiting and retention incentive....:mad:

Hands up all those who think that the new MAS is A Good Thing.... "You, pratt at the back, what's your name?".

Thanks beags for the translations. It's not good news for most of us, but at least we know where we stand. Time to knuckle own,ditch pointless secondary duties and get our licenses sorted!

Please note that your anger should be directed to 22Gp and EASA, not the CAA!

:ugh:

Sadly, the world has moved on and as usual the British military hasn't moved with it.

Forget HQ 22 Gp, the real holders of the risk of operating military aircraft are the politicians that sign off a system. Once they realise what has just happened, and sadly that will probably come as a result of an enquiry following an incident of some kind, they will see that the obvious regulator for military aviation should be the Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA), not the training provider.

The new order of things is that the CAA regulate British civilian Flying Training Organisations and ensure that their product meets agreed European safety standards; the MAA should provide the same function for peacetime military flying training.

If that was the case right now, perhaps the MAA would be asking itself if British military flying training was an airworthy system.

For a start, does theoretical knowledge training in RAF flying training cover all the EASA learning objectives? If not, which ones doesn't it cover - and why?

Or was it the case that only EFT/BFT/AFT theoretical knowledge training was looked at?

You are probably quite right, Just This Once.

But if this accreditation process was delegated to a 2-person team at 22Gp, did they actually float it past the MAA's regulatory department before it went to the CAA?

Military and Civil aircraft share the same airspace; to my simple mind military training should encompass everything which civil traning covers, PLUS military-specific items.

Perhaps the MAA should now take governance of this whole matter and assess whether any missing EASA learning objectives in military training pose a risk. Which may take a while.... They should also require that full recognition is made of the testing standards conducted by all military flight examiners as having full equivalence to civil flight examining.

The CAA used to consider that the RAF had a competency-based training system which obviated the 'hours' requirements of civil training. However, now that not even a PPL Skill Test may be credited, just what faith does the CAA have in the RAF's testing standards?

Specifically which items have been omitted as far as training to Op Standard on ME aircraft is concerned? And WHY??

Just This Once - thanks!

In the grand scheme of things, how expensive and time-consuming would it be to put all pilots through full-time ATPL groundschool on completion of EFT? I guess the volume of students would be such that it would be worth employing a couple of dedicated civilian instructors. It's my strong belief that this would do the world of good professionally - and FJ guys should do the Perf A and Op Procedures exams, ask any Tornado pilot who has grappled with unbalanced takeoff figures, flown an unsupported Oceanic leg or a long GAT deployment through Europe!

CAA Military Accreditation
 

Cranwell have a full time team of ground instructors or the MEAFT students. I wonder if it anyone has considered getting them registered as a training organisation for the delivery of the ATPL syllabus. The EFT groundschool syllabus, in theory at least, could easily be tailored to cover the EASA PPL syllabus as well as covering the the points unique to military pilots. This can only improve standards in the eyes of the regulators.

I guess the next obvious question is:

Are the exams still exactly the same or are there a new set of questions?

If so,

Is the Answer bank still extant or is there now a requirement for a new answer bank (which I am assuming will take time to pull together?)

Just wondering.....:hmm:

And if they are the same (or similar) then the question has to be asked as to who has it right and who has it wrong?

For instance, rotary licence exams asking questions about pressurisation systems on airliners and aircraft exam questions about type specific components such as 737 autopilots and FMS. Why on earth do you need that for licence issue? Surely that is type specific and should be in the type rating course?

Maybe it is EASA that needs to re-write their syllabus and not the RAF. The exams were a complete hoop jumping exercise with very little learning actually required.

VigilantPilot, the tone of your post does you no credit.

There is no reason why the ATPL syallabus could not be included in military training. Although you might have passed through question spotting, that does not mean that others should do so.

In fact many airlines are, it seems, finally waking up to the fact that the current EASA CQB-spotting technique means that pilots have not properly assimilated basic knowledge, they've just memorised the exam answers without any clue as to the underlying theory.

The CQB is being re-written, I gather.

Perhaps thou should first remove the beam from thine own eye?

It's not the groudschool that's got my goat, it's the bloody skills test. I get a distinct feeling that the team put together by 22Gp had very little recency with respect of the front line.

How can pilots who fly in afghan class e airspace, regularly operating vfr, operating to natural and semi prepared strips, to significantly reduced safety factors, be still required to do a skills test? I did double asymmetric for 3 hours in the sim the other day stalling, operating to MOS, something the civvies don't do which requires far more skill than flying a procedural join and a procedure for an ndb. It seems that there wasnt enough input sought from the front line. At a time when we are flush with fl pilots looking for a job as there are not enough cockpits, quite frankly there was no excuse.

Vp, all it will mean is that people will start their grounschool on day one after the OCU, secondary duties will not get done and the mod Will be sending a fortune in caa examiner fees via enhanced learning credits, for very short term gain.

Lunacy.