Military Accreditation for JAA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Accreditation for JAA
As Capt PPrune has had to shut down the thread at 'JAA exemptions.....' 'due to software problems over 100 posts' I've restarted the debate as it looks,likely there will be more opinions to come.
So here goes with my sixpeneth worth.
Javelin: Get real, as much as I admire your tenacity and zeal to get your licenses could you enlighten this poor mil pilot as to which part of the JAA exams will give the insight into pax handling to which you refer ???
I don't think that's a major player in the written exams but I do agree we do need to pick up that skill when ex-mil pilot's join the civil fraternity and I for one would not stroll into any job thinking I was 'God's gift'.
The accreditation that has at last been given to experienced military pilots recognises the years of training and operating aircraft in the same airspace as yourself. It does not mean we will be able to walk on water when or if we get a job in the airlines.
Standing by for the incoming flak.
So here goes with my sixpeneth worth.
Javelin: Get real, as much as I admire your tenacity and zeal to get your licenses could you enlighten this poor mil pilot as to which part of the JAA exams will give the insight into pax handling to which you refer ???
I don't think that's a major player in the written exams but I do agree we do need to pick up that skill when ex-mil pilot's join the civil fraternity and I for one would not stroll into any job thinking I was 'God's gift'.
The accreditation that has at last been given to experienced military pilots recognises the years of training and operating aircraft in the same airspace as yourself. It does not mean we will be able to walk on water when or if we get a job in the airlines.
Standing by for the incoming flak.
The 'national responsibility' comes from:
http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/jar/jar.fcl.1.020.htm
NB - In JARspeak, 'will' means something is going to happen no matter what, 'shall' means that something is a mandatory requirement and 'should' means that something is a recommendation only.
Experienced non-military pilots from other countries with appropriate qualifications who wish to apply for JAR-FCL ATPLs restricted to UK-registered aircraft may be rather interested in this latest little snippet from the CAA SRG: http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fcl_News_item_N o1.pdf
[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/jar/jar.fcl.1.020.htm
NB - In JARspeak, 'will' means something is going to happen no matter what, 'shall' means that something is a mandatory requirement and 'should' means that something is a recommendation only.
Experienced non-military pilots from other countries with appropriate qualifications who wish to apply for JAR-FCL ATPLs restricted to UK-registered aircraft may be rather interested in this latest little snippet from the CAA SRG: http://www.srg.caa.co.uk/documents/srg_fcl_News_item_N o1.pdf
[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jakarta
Age: 71
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Your SRA reference didn't cover anything for ex- US mil exemptions. Personally, I found the CAA ATPL exams at least a moderate challenge.
For an ex-USAF fast-jet-kinda guy, the FAA ATP exams were nothing but an exercise in memorization. At least, the CAA exams made you think, even though there was also a moderate emphasis on RTFQ/RTFA.
I've taken a lot of crap from other Yanks (for doing the CAA hoops) but by far the most from a few Australian "Buddies" who apparently didn't agree with my evaluation of the 'superiority' of the ticket.
All you Euro-patriots, don't get the wrong idea. Something is to be said for the American view of "if the minimum weren't good enough--it wouldn't be the minimum". From my view, most US carriers train well before entry to the cockpit...... and in THEIR own operations. One doesn't necessarily need to be able to re-build the mach meter to read or understand it.
[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Kato747 ]
Your SRA reference didn't cover anything for ex- US mil exemptions. Personally, I found the CAA ATPL exams at least a moderate challenge.
For an ex-USAF fast-jet-kinda guy, the FAA ATP exams were nothing but an exercise in memorization. At least, the CAA exams made you think, even though there was also a moderate emphasis on RTFQ/RTFA.
I've taken a lot of crap from other Yanks (for doing the CAA hoops) but by far the most from a few Australian "Buddies" who apparently didn't agree with my evaluation of the 'superiority' of the ticket.
All you Euro-patriots, don't get the wrong idea. Something is to be said for the American view of "if the minimum weren't good enough--it wouldn't be the minimum". From my view, most US carriers train well before entry to the cockpit...... and in THEIR own operations. One doesn't necessarily need to be able to re-build the mach meter to read or understand it.
[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: Kato747 ]
basil - as if your case wasn't deserving enough, I heard today that a military Flight Engineer who has taken and passed all commercial FE exams and who also had a letter from the CAA confirming exemption from PPL HPL and Aircraft (General) has now been told that he's got to sit these 2 exams after all! What utter nonsense!!
