I well remember in RAFG prior to GW1 only 3 crews per Squadron were AAR qualified for the Goose Bay deployment Jets, too difficult apparently! Once the proverbial hit the fan, it was easy enough for everyone! I remember the relatively easy non NVG flying was night line astern close formation. You could see the ’red’ jetpipes easily enough, mind you, no one was shooting at you!

Lease back some of the old king airs, give the qfi’s some new pens and magi-boards?

or maybe not.....

Each time I see one of these threads telling me the new aircraft is always tech and not fit for purpose I can’t help thinking about the introduction of the Airbus A320 into British airways service, the cynics told us that the aircraft just a French joke and so unreliable that they would never be more than the original ( B Cal order ) of ten aircraft in British airways service.......................... That prediction went well !

Indeed it’s not as if the principles of teaching anyone to fly a ME aircraft have changed significantly without an IT based underpinning overarching solution based paradigm changing solution that was contracted about 10 years ago and isn’t even slightly working for ME training

I find it quite incredible how a perfectly functioning system was dismantled without fully implemented replacement. That takes a level of serious ineptitude

As I understand it, the contract to run on King Air was expensive and it was cheaper and less risky to use a high-quality commercial training provider for multi-engine training. Especially the extra pilots needed now following the expansion of aircraft numbers under SDSR15. So a competitive was run and L3 won. The plan is to do EFT and then an enhanced lead in course doing more close formation and low level before going to the commercial school. Now seeing as L3 have Boeing and Airbus sims for MCC then the graduates of this program could actually be a better product for Voyager and P8 (and Wedgetail if we buy it). All announced here: https://www.pilotcareernews.com/l3-t...or-raf-pilots/

Oh, and I suspect it is a lot cheaper than running a small bespoke outfit of ex QFIs with some airframes at a MOD airfield as a top up to MEPT on UKMFTS as has been suggested above. Using the capacity in L3’s extant global training system is far better and likely much cheaper.

This course will run in parallel with current UKMFTS MEPT offering the extra numbers of pilots needed for the extra demand of SDSR15.

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.

Nothing to do with 22Gp and everything to do with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Military flying trg does not meet the EASA or ICAO standards required and so EASA deem any UK military trained pilot to be a “3rd Country” and so only small amounts of accreditation. The only way to fix this is for all military fg trg to be done iaw EASA syllabi, examination criteria and an approved trg organisation.

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?

:ok:

PS. Military ground school is now about 2 months overall with EFT, MELIN and MEPT, so someway short of the civvy one.

As long as you have done the civil exams the Airtanker Voyager conversion course gets you an EASA A330/ A350 Type Rating on your new ATPL. Useful for a future career!

Beags, that is not correct. The exit rate is no higher than it has been for some time. The problem that we have is that the training pipeline is now producing at such a slow rate that growth is S. L. O. W and hence we are short having undershot the numbers. But the exit rate is no different pre or post JAR at present, so I have no idea where your facts are coming from?

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 :rolleyes:

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?

Nope. According to the Aircrew Regulation, if you wish to fly any EASA registered aircraft then you must hold an EASA licence and relevant medical. The deadline for GA pilots converting to an EASA licence was 08 April 2018, which would have restricted National licence holders to 'Annex II' aircraft only. However, the UK CAA have issued an exemption delaying this deadline until 07 April 2019 for licences already in issue. NPPL (SSEA or SLMG) must have been issued by the UK CAA before 8 April 2018 to convert to an EASA LAPL(A) or PPL(A). So the UAS exemption is next to useless now as you cannot use it to convert to LAPL or PPL. Very few clubs have Annex II aircraft for hire and the NPPL will not get you on your way to professional licences as you will need to convert it to an EASA one and that window is now closed for new NPPLs.

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.

My point entirely. For longer than anyone can remember the RAF has been trying to put barriers in the way of people leaving, maybe they should try incentivising them to stay - an unfrozen licence at the end of their service for example.

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.