JAA exam exemptions for military pilots- is it fair??
Grandpa Aerotart
Guys,
if you look over on the African Forum you'll see Crash Barrier asking about the possibility of getting a job in the Congo with a PPL/500hrs 'cause 'he can't be bothered with all that JAA ATPL crap'.
Does this industry throw up more than it's fair share of tossers or are other professions similar??
CB do you have a death wish or are you the most overconfident wannabe I've ever heard of?
Chuck.
PS. And he asks for only sensible answers
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
if you look over on the African Forum you'll see Crash Barrier asking about the possibility of getting a job in the Congo with a PPL/500hrs 'cause 'he can't be bothered with all that JAA ATPL crap'.
Does this industry throw up more than it's fair share of tossers or are other professions similar??
CB do you have a death wish or are you the most overconfident wannabe I've ever heard of?
Chuck.
PS. And he asks for only sensible answers
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Chimbu chuckles ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoboAlbert,
The first paragraph of your post exactly summarises the point that I am trying to make. I do not have any problem at all with mil guys receiving accreditation for previous experience and qualifications. My problem is with those in the CAA/JAA who will give a fair creditation to some, but not to the others that also deserve it. (Flight engineers, other ICAO CPL/ATPL holders etc. etc.)
The process of determining who gets what exemptions can't be so difficult and time consuming can it?? If so then maybe this is a case of people in the authorities looking to make work for themselves!!
I also concur with Rocketboot's comments.
No, this thread is not a wind up, and I realise that nothing will change as a result, but if it opens peoples eyes to the fact that there are some very fundamental inequalities in our system of aviation regulation then thats nothing but good as far as I'm concerned.
The first paragraph of your post exactly summarises the point that I am trying to make. I do not have any problem at all with mil guys receiving accreditation for previous experience and qualifications. My problem is with those in the CAA/JAA who will give a fair creditation to some, but not to the others that also deserve it. (Flight engineers, other ICAO CPL/ATPL holders etc. etc.)
The process of determining who gets what exemptions can't be so difficult and time consuming can it?? If so then maybe this is a case of people in the authorities looking to make work for themselves!!
I also concur with Rocketboot's comments.
No, this thread is not a wind up, and I realise that nothing will change as a result, but if it opens peoples eyes to the fact that there are some very fundamental inequalities in our system of aviation regulation then thats nothing but good as far as I'm concerned.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Chimbu, maybe I was biting the line a bit(whoa here's goes another one) but CBs attitude was starting to stink and get right up my hooter.
Thanks for the back up Ark.
But to get back to the original theme yes I agree that all of Basil Fawlty's experience should be counted and maybe the military have pushed a thin, but hopefully long, wedge into the CAA for accreditation of ALL experience levels.
BF I wish you all the best with trying to get recognition, maybe you can quote the military as a precedent.
Edittedd fur spoolin mistaoks
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Brakin ]
Thanks for the back up Ark.
But to get back to the original theme yes I agree that all of Basil Fawlty's experience should be counted and maybe the military have pushed a thin, but hopefully long, wedge into the CAA for accreditation of ALL experience levels.
BF I wish you all the best with trying to get recognition, maybe you can quote the military as a precedent.
Edittedd fur spoolin mistaoks
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Max Brakin ]
Just a numbered other
Crash,
Thanks for your considered reply.
You cannot compare apples and oranges. The mil peeps have done all this crap already. Once in a lifetime is enough.
They are notexemptions, just a recognition that the knowledge has already been proved and credited.
You chopped ex-mil by any chance?
Thanks for your considered reply.
You cannot compare apples and oranges. The mil peeps have done all this crap already. Once in a lifetime is enough.
They are notexemptions, just a recognition that the knowledge has already been proved and credited.
You chopped ex-mil by any chance?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify,
this is not a thread which questions the training of a mil pilot. but I agree with the former that it should be equal all around. If a pilot shows up with time and proven experience in the logbook they should get a checkride and an airlaw exam. Correct me if I am wrong but does a high time captain on heavy jets really HAVE to go fly cessnas and senecas when he/she wants to convert from an FAA to ICAO ATP. And why should the mil pilot with the same exp. get pref. treatment?
It once again gets political..
this is not a thread which questions the training of a mil pilot. but I agree with the former that it should be equal all around. If a pilot shows up with time and proven experience in the logbook they should get a checkride and an airlaw exam. Correct me if I am wrong but does a high time captain on heavy jets really HAVE to go fly cessnas and senecas when he/she wants to convert from an FAA to ICAO ATP. And why should the mil pilot with the same exp. get pref. treatment?
It once again gets political..
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal
How do you reckon that the military pilot will be worse off financially over a career than the straight through civvy?
I don't object to relevant experience being recognised consistently.
How do you reckon that the military pilot will be worse off financially over a career than the straight through civvy?
I don't object to relevant experience being recognised consistently.
Where is all this nonsense about 'political' accreditation coming from? The CAA merely fulfilled its national responsibility for recognising military pilot experience.
It is up to those organisations acting on the behalf of their members who consider that they are entitled to formal recognition to do something about it, not just whine "Sir, sir, it isn't fair, sir" like some group of petulant children.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
It is up to those organisations acting on the behalf of their members who consider that they are entitled to formal recognition to do something about it, not just whine "Sir, sir, it isn't fair, sir" like some group of petulant children.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
As a complete luddite who doesn't know Jack, having now acquired my CAA ATPL (having done all the exams I hasten to add & just left the military) can I now get an FAA licence gratis by mere dint of my CAA licence or do I have to sit some (more) exams??
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can I now get an FAA licence gratis by mere dint of my CAA licence or do I have to sit some (more) exams??
As for the question of the thread:
I agree with Basil (great show, BTW) that the FE should be exempt from some of the JAA exams. With regard to the military, it seems to me that the CAA, being part of the government, has simply added a second method of compliance for ATP certification.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: What was the DH again????? ]
Just a numbered other
Flanker,
Haven't done any exact calculations, but my case is fairly typical.
16 years in military provides a pension of about £4500, rising to £10k at age55. Leave mil into recession, a bout of unemployment soaking up most of commuted pension, succession of civilian flying jobs netting fragmented pension funds and finally a proper job. Few years in RHS and finally a few years in LHS and no chance of topping pension up to the max without great impoverishment.
Compare that to 18 year old entering same airline, and progressing to LHS in late 20s. Hes already earning far more than any mil pilot can and will retire with max pension.
This is not a winge, just a statement of how it is. Still eminently glad I went the route I did. Could have done without those pointless exams though.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]
Haven't done any exact calculations, but my case is fairly typical.
16 years in military provides a pension of about £4500, rising to £10k at age55. Leave mil into recession, a bout of unemployment soaking up most of commuted pension, succession of civilian flying jobs netting fragmented pension funds and finally a proper job. Few years in RHS and finally a few years in LHS and no chance of topping pension up to the max without great impoverishment.
Compare that to 18 year old entering same airline, and progressing to LHS in late 20s. Hes already earning far more than any mil pilot can and will retire with max pension.
This is not a winge, just a statement of how it is. Still eminently glad I went the route I did. Could have done without those pointless exams though.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Arkroyal ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal
Thanks for the answer.I agree that the eighteen year old joining BA or similar should do well.
I am a typical self improver and have self financed all my licenses from age twenty, unfortunately daddy wasn't a millionaire!Earning very low salaries and spending it all on flying was the name of the game for around five years while working in South Africa.Then a further four getting some relevant UK experience after a UK license(exempt signals-the only thing I knew nothing about!)found me in the right seat with Britannia.Nearly five there and a further three hopping around got me a command at last.Thats when I started earning reasonable money (after sixteen years)which has improved with the market and is now pretty good.
My feeling is that financially most military people should be one up.The pension may not be stunning but its something.The fast jet guys suffer with low hours but all the other fixed wing military pilots should be doing well in charter companies or the low cost companies as there is a need for guys with experience and ability.
Luck/Timing can play a big part of course.
Rgds
Thanks for the answer.I agree that the eighteen year old joining BA or similar should do well.
I am a typical self improver and have self financed all my licenses from age twenty, unfortunately daddy wasn't a millionaire!Earning very low salaries and spending it all on flying was the name of the game for around five years while working in South Africa.Then a further four getting some relevant UK experience after a UK license(exempt signals-the only thing I knew nothing about!)found me in the right seat with Britannia.Nearly five there and a further three hopping around got me a command at last.Thats when I started earning reasonable money (after sixteen years)which has improved with the market and is now pretty good.
My feeling is that financially most military people should be one up.The pension may not be stunning but its something.The fast jet guys suffer with low hours but all the other fixed wing military pilots should be doing well in charter companies or the low cost companies as there is a need for guys with experience and ability.
Luck/Timing can play a big part of course.
Rgds
Luck/Timing indeed (or should that read ability?). Ark Royal's case in point was for a pilot joining the RAF at age 19 compared with one joining as a BA CEP at the same age. Pretty similar circumstances, except for the renumeration at age 38 when the RAF pilot leaves at the cessation of his contract.
Being in the first category, I know which would have been more rewarding financially.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]
Being in the first category, I know which would have been more rewarding financially.
[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Winterland
I agreed with your example in my first sentence.I am however also a straight through civvy am I not?
But of course the military guy would be much more able,especially you ,but actually I meant what I wrote.Very capable people are still in the right seat at Britannia through Luck/Timing,not ability.Arkroyal himself said he left the military during a recession,ability had toss all to do with that,did it?If you don't recognise this possibility you are indeed fortunate and/or inexperienced.
I agreed with your example in my first sentence.I am however also a straight through civvy am I not?
But of course the military guy would be much more able,especially you ,but actually I meant what I wrote.Very capable people are still in the right seat at Britannia through Luck/Timing,not ability.Arkroyal himself said he left the military during a recession,ability had toss all to do with that,did it?If you don't recognise this possibility you are indeed fortunate and/or inexperienced.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
I had no intention of contributing further to this thread, but after reading your post I feel compelled to reply!
You now seem to be showing your "true colours".
As I have stated before (and will now repeat for those that have difficulty READING and UNDERSTANDING at the same time, or are "HARD OF LEARNING") I think that exemptions for ex mil pilots are justified, but only if other obviously qualified personnel get relevent exemptions/accreditations also.
It seems that eliciting some understanding and sympathy from people like yourself is a lost cause. Your opinion is "to hell with what is FAIR and CORRECT as I've already got what I can out of the system"
Perhaps you could explain this "national responsibility" that you keep going on about, and why there is a "national responsibility" to ex mil pilots, but nobody else in the aviation world. (You can leave out all the "we could die for our country" c**p, you all have a choice- i.e don't join up.)
Why is STATING AN OPINION on the lack of consistency and fairness in the licensing system acting, as you put it, "like a petulent child"?? You are showing your modern military credentials splendidly by using such "put downs" when faced with the opinions of others outside your clique.
Unfortunately, you mil guys it seems are told from day one that your s**t doesn't smell, and some are foolish enough to believe it.
One final thought; remember "what goes around comes around"!
PS....Perhaps if anyone from the CAA/JAA is reading this thread, then perhaps they could comment (anonymously of course) in order to justify the situation as it stands. Although this in itself may be biased, given the sheer number of ex RAF bodies there building up a good pension......!!
I had no intention of contributing further to this thread, but after reading your post I feel compelled to reply!
You now seem to be showing your "true colours".
As I have stated before (and will now repeat for those that have difficulty READING and UNDERSTANDING at the same time, or are "HARD OF LEARNING") I think that exemptions for ex mil pilots are justified, but only if other obviously qualified personnel get relevent exemptions/accreditations also.
It seems that eliciting some understanding and sympathy from people like yourself is a lost cause. Your opinion is "to hell with what is FAIR and CORRECT as I've already got what I can out of the system"
Perhaps you could explain this "national responsibility" that you keep going on about, and why there is a "national responsibility" to ex mil pilots, but nobody else in the aviation world. (You can leave out all the "we could die for our country" c**p, you all have a choice- i.e don't join up.)
Why is STATING AN OPINION on the lack of consistency and fairness in the licensing system acting, as you put it, "like a petulent child"?? You are showing your modern military credentials splendidly by using such "put downs" when faced with the opinions of others outside your clique.
Unfortunately, you mil guys it seems are told from day one that your s**t doesn't smell, and some are foolish enough to believe it.
One final thought; remember "what goes around comes around"!
PS....Perhaps if anyone from the CAA/JAA is reading this thread, then perhaps they could comment (anonymously of course) in order to justify the situation as it stands. Although this in itself may be biased, given the sheer number of ex RAF bodies there building up a good pension......!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil,
You are right where you infer that BEagle has a thin skin when someone doesn`t quite agree with him and he does seem more than a little patronising,(see his little spat at me on the bottom of page 3 of this thread).
I too am not sure where this "national responsibility" comes from, but, just because only one class of applicant has some alleviation, it does not follow that they cannot profit because others do not get the same treatment. One step at a time and if it takes the hard work of someone like BEagle to sort one lot out, someone else can now take up Beagle`s mantle for the next in line.
The CAA will not necessarily think of everyone and if there ain`t a rule to cover it you will get bugger all. The next bunch in line will therefore have to sort their own exemptions out and the CAA will surely agree if there is a sustainable case as has been demonstrated.
You are right where you infer that BEagle has a thin skin when someone doesn`t quite agree with him and he does seem more than a little patronising,(see his little spat at me on the bottom of page 3 of this thread).
I too am not sure where this "national responsibility" comes from, but, just because only one class of applicant has some alleviation, it does not follow that they cannot profit because others do not get the same treatment. One step at a time and if it takes the hard work of someone like BEagle to sort one lot out, someone else can now take up Beagle`s mantle for the next in line.
The CAA will not necessarily think of everyone and if there ain`t a rule to cover it you will get bugger all. The next bunch in line will therefore have to sort their own exemptions out and the CAA will surely agree if there is a sustainable case as has been demonstrated.
Whoa there Basil - I quite agree with you! All I'm saying is that the CAA did what they were required to with regard to military accreditation because both they and the MoD were reminded that there is a JAR which specifically requires this - JAR-FCL 1.020. I agree that there should also be accreditation for other groups and you have a very valid point concerning accreditation for someone of your particular experience and background. But who is going to broker your case?
In contrast, others on this thread are not putting forward reasoned cases; rather they are just criticising military pilots with no justification apart from jealousy.
Noting one of the last posts, ALL military aircrew are now required to do the CRM foundation course; instructors are also required to do the CRM facilitator's course and examiners are obliged to comment on CRM on every military multi-pilot checkride!
boris - Yes, I admit I disagreed with your first post; however, the later one which clarified things I entirely accept.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
In contrast, others on this thread are not putting forward reasoned cases; rather they are just criticising military pilots with no justification apart from jealousy.
Noting one of the last posts, ALL military aircrew are now required to do the CRM foundation course; instructors are also required to do the CRM facilitator's course and examiners are obliged to comment on CRM on every military multi-pilot checkride!
boris - Yes, I admit I disagreed with your first post; however, the later one which clarified things I entirely accept.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Exactly. The reason why military pilots have these exemptions is that they took up the opportunity offered by JAR OPS. This was helped by the MoD who saw an opportunity to help retention by providing pilots with an ATPL when they leave after 16 years, hoping to keep them in that long rather than see them leave after eight. And the reason why Mil pilots were specifically included as a group deserving recognition. It's all part of the homogenised euro licence - some JAA countries have been offereing those exemptions for years.
Other groups, such as FAA ATPLS have the same opportunity. They just need to organise themselves. But going on the Military experience, it will take a long time and a lot of cash.
And Flanker, I apologise for the apparent arrogance of my post. My reference to 'ability' was regerding the original financial comparison after 16 years between the BA CEP cadet and the RAF Pilot, both of which require some ability to acheive. Luck and timing has something to do with it - there was no BA recruitment when I joined the RAF.
However, I feel I am qualified to comment, as I leave the RAF next week to take up a FO job with an airline. Even with my RAF pension, I will be worse off for the first year. How better off would I be had I joined an airline 16 years ago instead of the RAF - quite a bit!
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]
Other groups, such as FAA ATPLS have the same opportunity. They just need to organise themselves. But going on the Military experience, it will take a long time and a lot of cash.
And Flanker, I apologise for the apparent arrogance of my post. My reference to 'ability' was regerding the original financial comparison after 16 years between the BA CEP cadet and the RAF Pilot, both of which require some ability to acheive. Luck and timing has something to do with it - there was no BA recruitment when I joined the RAF.
However, I feel I am qualified to comment, as I leave the RAF next week to take up a FO job with an airline. Even with my RAF pension, I will be worse off for the first year. How better off would I be had I joined an airline 16 years ago instead of the RAF - quite a bit!
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: Dan Winterland ]
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a fresh angle to this debate, from a Yank who had to spend $1300 USDollars to get my ATP (FAA) in a piece of crap Seneca, while flying as a C-141 Flight Examiner! So the Bulls#@ts on both sides of the pond. However, how about looking at the excemption for the mil pilots as part of the THANKS OF A GRATEFUL NATION!!!! I see alot of jelousy and pettiness aimed at the mil pilots, they should get some kind of break. And at least in the States, when passengers learn that their Captain was an ex-mil pilot, it carries alot of respect and admiration, even among fellow flight-crew, You guys seem to miss the big picture, these guys are not some spoiled lot who are given free training, and great equipment, so as to further their future airline careers, No, they have taken an oath to die for your nation and defend your families!! so let them get credit for some tests!! some of them have had to take the ultimate test!