RAF Boys - Easy Life !
Guest
Posts: n/a
RAF Boys - Easy Life !
Pilot this month has an article which says that not only do Squadron Chaps get flying time allowed, but from July will also be exempt written exams subject to them logging 2000 hrs PIC. Now call me a cynic but has this not just set things back 20 years ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
A somewhat simplistic summary. If you want to know the real accreditation rights, refer to www.tgda.gov.uk/ComSet/Comfs.htm
These accreditation rights are the CAA's response to the mandatory JAA requirement for 'due recognition of military pilot training, skill and experience'. If you think that this is an easy route, why not try it yourself.....
These accreditation rights are the CAA's response to the mandatory JAA requirement for 'due recognition of military pilot training, skill and experience'. If you think that this is an easy route, why not try it yourself.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having experienced both the military side and the civvie side and seen the difference in ability and attitude, how can anybody have any gripes about militry pilots getting exemptions from any exams? the training set up and follow up training is far better than any required by any airline!! try going in the sim every 2 months instead of every 6 and line checks are far tougher trust me! The guys with 2000 PIC dont get it without a lot of effort, so whats wrong with rewarding there abilities? Besides there are some out there who have done it the hard way!!! who leave a lot to be desired! one or two scared me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not twenty years, more like twelve. In 1989, all a commander on an aircraft like the VC10 or HS125 had to do to get an ATPL was air law and an IR. Common sense has again prevailed, and now the daft requirement to do everything has gone.
I did my ATPL the long way. All the Nav and Tech exams, perf A (despite being a commander on a perf A aeroplane and having done the RAF course twice), a daft test on a Seneca (an aeroplane I will never fly for a living), and paying £550 to allow a CAA examiner to sit on the jump seat while I did my RAF IR.
I did all this during a RAF posting where I was qualified as a commander to fly 4 engined heavy jets across the Atlantinc, in RVSM airspace, and into major civilian airports.
I refer to my first paragraph regarding common sense.
I did my ATPL the long way. All the Nav and Tech exams, perf A (despite being a commander on a perf A aeroplane and having done the RAF course twice), a daft test on a Seneca (an aeroplane I will never fly for a living), and paying £550 to allow a CAA examiner to sit on the jump seat while I did my RAF IR.
I did all this during a RAF posting where I was qualified as a commander to fly 4 engined heavy jets across the Atlantinc, in RVSM airspace, and into major civilian airports.
I refer to my first paragraph regarding common sense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The idea is to keep people in HMFC until they've acheived the qualifying total. At that point the choice will be theirs, but they should then be in range of the next retention inducement which would be financial.
It takes those who fly high performance aircraft quite a while to achieve 2000 hours; bear in mind that those hours are rather more busy than many airline hours! Hopefully HMFC can retain people until roughly their mid-30s, then it'll be their choice to stay or go. The individual will benefit from a second career option and the airlines will benefit from a source of experienced and competent aviators. The numbers will not be huge, so there shouldn't be any impact on the entirely self-funded youngsters. But I don't know of any military pilots with ATPLs who haven't been snapped up by the airlines when they left.
Interestingly, any company which asks for your age when you apply for a job with them will have to explain why they need to ask the question; age discrimination will soon be illegal, so companies with a concealed 'age limit' for applicants will have to revise their ideas.
In a few months' time, certain airlines may find themselves being asked whether they would be interested in employing an ex-military senior training captain A2 QFI/IRE with 4-5000 hours 4-jet command time on world-wide routes. Not that I'm considering leaving myself, but if age even enters the conversation, they'll be asked to explain themselves!
I understand that the usual method of applying age discrimination is to hide behind the facade of the 'human factors' selector's assessment and to come up with a spurious reason for rejecting the applicant on such grounds - which are never disclosed.
It takes those who fly high performance aircraft quite a while to achieve 2000 hours; bear in mind that those hours are rather more busy than many airline hours! Hopefully HMFC can retain people until roughly their mid-30s, then it'll be their choice to stay or go. The individual will benefit from a second career option and the airlines will benefit from a source of experienced and competent aviators. The numbers will not be huge, so there shouldn't be any impact on the entirely self-funded youngsters. But I don't know of any military pilots with ATPLs who haven't been snapped up by the airlines when they left.
Interestingly, any company which asks for your age when you apply for a job with them will have to explain why they need to ask the question; age discrimination will soon be illegal, so companies with a concealed 'age limit' for applicants will have to revise their ideas.
In a few months' time, certain airlines may find themselves being asked whether they would be interested in employing an ex-military senior training captain A2 QFI/IRE with 4-5000 hours 4-jet command time on world-wide routes. Not that I'm considering leaving myself, but if age even enters the conversation, they'll be asked to explain themselves!
I understand that the usual method of applying age discrimination is to hide behind the facade of the 'human factors' selector's assessment and to come up with a spurious reason for rejecting the applicant on such grounds - which are never disclosed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So why don't CAA qualified Air Traffic Controllers get some dispensation towards the ATPLs as well?
I did Aviation Law to a far higher degree than the ATPL requires, met theory, met practical and navigation subjects to at least ATPL standard and several other subjects to boot and got zilch in the way of exemptions when I came to do my professional pilot exams. These were CAA tested exams and were long hand as well, long before the days of 'the answer is somewhere on the paper'.
One rule for some and not for others.
I did Aviation Law to a far higher degree than the ATPL requires, met theory, met practical and navigation subjects to at least ATPL standard and several other subjects to boot and got zilch in the way of exemptions when I came to do my professional pilot exams. These were CAA tested exams and were long hand as well, long before the days of 'the answer is somewhere on the paper'.
One rule for some and not for others.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now I have nothing against ex mil guys, except that they seem to think that the sun shines out of their a**.
I have personal experience flying with a few of those and they have this seriously cheesy problem.
Just wind your necks in a bit and behave in an acceptable manner. Get rid of what they have drummed into you in the army and just be "NORMAL".
I have personal experience flying with a few of those and they have this seriously cheesy problem.
Just wind your necks in a bit and behave in an acceptable manner. Get rid of what they have drummed into you in the army and just be "NORMAL".
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have flown with both serving military,ex-military and wholly civilian pilots, and quite a cross-section of each. Those who have caused me the most grief and 'CRM' problems were those who always had/have something to prove (specifically, 'I'm better than you').
And not a single ex-mil among them. The ONLY crew I have met who have ever had an inflated opinion of their own abilities have been civilians, from various backgrounds. But maybe I've just been lucky.
Seems you get tw*ts in every bunch, eh Twisted?
------------------
...proceeding below Decision Height with CAUTION...
And not a single ex-mil among them. The ONLY crew I have met who have ever had an inflated opinion of their own abilities have been civilians, from various backgrounds. But maybe I've just been lucky.
Seems you get tw*ts in every bunch, eh Twisted?
------------------
...proceeding below Decision Height with CAUTION...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am an ex-RAF fast jet Navigator and now a civvie airline Captain and so have seen life from both ends. I find myself somewhere in the middle and say to all military pilots just about to become civvies to beware of how badly they sometimes come across. I concur that the standard of ex-military pilots is actually very high in terms of ability and they have gone through all the same training as civvies. Giving them licences is not some 'freebie' but just an accurate reflection of their knowledge and abilities. Where the problem comes is that a lot of ex-RAF guys feel the world owes them a living and behave in an objectionable manner. A small minority have blotted the copybook for a substantial majority of great people. Being an ex-nav I have had to do it the hard way by working for turboprop companies and never got the 'secret handshake' entry to Virgin, Cathay and the like. I quite understand the ill-feeling that many civvies feel towards those ex-military blokes with relatively low hours who walk into the top jobs. I have had cause to be very embarrassed by ex-RAF pilots who have behaved very badly in their civvie roles - to the point where I have not advertised my ex-military background. And yet there are some fantastic military blokes (and gals by now!) out there who will be the salt of the earth to any airline.
I have benefitted enormously from my RAF training and it will hold me in good stead for the rest of my flying career. To my ex-colleagues who are about to enter the civvie world,learn a few simple rules that will save you a lot of unnecessary heartache -
Never say - 'When I was in the Air Force we did it this way....' Nobody is interested.
Never talk about your war experiences or similar events regardless of how important they are to you unless specifically asked.
Always ask your flight deck colleague about his own background and make a point of learning from his/her experiences.
Don't expect to be a Captain too quickly. Particularly if you are ex-fast jet. This is a whole new world that is radically different from the one you are now leaving. Time in the right had seat is invaluable in learning how it is done in the civvie world. The civvies have taught me so much about how to do things that I simply never knew flying fast jets.
Finally - Never, Never use ex-military white leather flying gloves on the flight deck. You will be a source of ridicule to your colleagues.
Those are my thoughts for what they are worth. Frankly I feel sad that so many good people are being blighted by a few donkeys.
I have benefitted enormously from my RAF training and it will hold me in good stead for the rest of my flying career. To my ex-colleagues who are about to enter the civvie world,learn a few simple rules that will save you a lot of unnecessary heartache -
Never say - 'When I was in the Air Force we did it this way....' Nobody is interested.
Never talk about your war experiences or similar events regardless of how important they are to you unless specifically asked.
Always ask your flight deck colleague about his own background and make a point of learning from his/her experiences.
Don't expect to be a Captain too quickly. Particularly if you are ex-fast jet. This is a whole new world that is radically different from the one you are now leaving. Time in the right had seat is invaluable in learning how it is done in the civvie world. The civvies have taught me so much about how to do things that I simply never knew flying fast jets.
Finally - Never, Never use ex-military white leather flying gloves on the flight deck. You will be a source of ridicule to your colleagues.
Those are my thoughts for what they are worth. Frankly I feel sad that so many good people are being blighted by a few donkeys.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twistedfirefighter/N2000 - nice to see you have such a balanced outlook on life .... a chip on both shoulders! (although Normal Nigel hasn't contributed yet!) I think you'll find people with inflated egos in any walk of life - to tar all ex mil guys with the same brush is, quite frankly, short-sighted and immature.
In line with most sensible people, I can only applaud this decision. Having done all the exams (very much like Dan, but with an MCC and an IR course at Exeter thrown in - the price for being FJ!) this must be a step in the right direction. 2000hrs, especially in a FJ takes an awfully long time and the RAF/Navy/AAC get the return of service they deserve.
In line with most sensible people, I can only applaud this decision. Having done all the exams (very much like Dan, but with an MCC and an IR course at Exeter thrown in - the price for being FJ!) this must be a step in the right direction. 2000hrs, especially in a FJ takes an awfully long time and the RAF/Navy/AAC get the return of service they deserve.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle,
An employer is entitled to reject applications on the basis of age if they can prove the age restriction to be valid. For instance; if an airline can prove that people over age 28 (this in only an EXAMPLE) consistently need extra training or fail sponsored training then the airline is legally entitled to cap the application at < 28. This is not age discrimination but a perfectly legal means of an airline saving itself time and money. So, it may be that airlines find people over the age of 38 (and especially ex-Crab Truckies
) statistically more 'difficult' to train than their younger contemporaries. In this case they are perfectly entitled to ask your age and you'd be unwise to start a slanging match in the interview (not that you would of course, but just exagerating for effect).
As an aside; A2 QFI etc means something in the Forces, but it counts for little in the civilian world. Likewise the 4500 hours spent 'airline type' flying if you're no good at the rest of the interview. They are ticks in the box (and some very creditable ones too) but, as you no doubt appreciate, they are only that and just serve to get you to the interview. Some of your 'transport' colleagues have let themselves down badly in the past. They think because they have airline-type flying experience they automatically leap-frog the FJ & helo chaps. This is definitely not the case. I'd be very interested to know why you're flying trucks and not FJs etc (this ain't aimed specifically at you, but you know where I'm coming from).
In summary, your qualifications are fine, but to be brutally frank, they're not much more than that. 4500 hrs is good in the military, but fairly insignificant in the civvy airline world. Likewise the QFI cat; great if you want to get a free ticket from the CAA but of limited value in getting you into an airline, as they don't normally recruit trainers specifically and it's a forces qual and not CAA. I'd stick to your strengths and not go off at the deep end with age arguements hoping to use your military qualifications as your sole 'justification' for them owing you a job.
On the subject of the thread, I think it's great that the CAA are finally giving the military pilots more credence than before. When I went through, you were allowed to sit combined papers and that was it. So you saved a couple of quid in exam fees, but still had to sit all the exams and do all the IR/multi BS. The US has a much better system. Sit a mil-comp exam (for which they have the database of questions and answers, thanks to freedom of information) and come away with a lovely civilian licence. Cost, oh about $0. The more the military training is recognised the better. It is without doubt, far more comprehensive and demanding than the civilian equivalent and it is right that QSP's skills should be recognised...more than they currently are in my opinion.
Now get off your zimmer, BEagle, and get that application form away.
Chin chin,
Pontius
------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!
An employer is entitled to reject applications on the basis of age if they can prove the age restriction to be valid. For instance; if an airline can prove that people over age 28 (this in only an EXAMPLE) consistently need extra training or fail sponsored training then the airline is legally entitled to cap the application at < 28. This is not age discrimination but a perfectly legal means of an airline saving itself time and money. So, it may be that airlines find people over the age of 38 (and especially ex-Crab Truckies
) statistically more 'difficult' to train than their younger contemporaries. In this case they are perfectly entitled to ask your age and you'd be unwise to start a slanging match in the interview (not that you would of course, but just exagerating for effect).As an aside; A2 QFI etc means something in the Forces, but it counts for little in the civilian world. Likewise the 4500 hours spent 'airline type' flying if you're no good at the rest of the interview. They are ticks in the box (and some very creditable ones too) but, as you no doubt appreciate, they are only that and just serve to get you to the interview. Some of your 'transport' colleagues have let themselves down badly in the past. They think because they have airline-type flying experience they automatically leap-frog the FJ & helo chaps. This is definitely not the case. I'd be very interested to know why you're flying trucks and not FJs etc (this ain't aimed specifically at you, but you know where I'm coming from).
In summary, your qualifications are fine, but to be brutally frank, they're not much more than that. 4500 hrs is good in the military, but fairly insignificant in the civvy airline world. Likewise the QFI cat; great if you want to get a free ticket from the CAA but of limited value in getting you into an airline, as they don't normally recruit trainers specifically and it's a forces qual and not CAA. I'd stick to your strengths and not go off at the deep end with age arguements hoping to use your military qualifications as your sole 'justification' for them owing you a job.
On the subject of the thread, I think it's great that the CAA are finally giving the military pilots more credence than before. When I went through, you were allowed to sit combined papers and that was it. So you saved a couple of quid in exam fees, but still had to sit all the exams and do all the IR/multi BS. The US has a much better system. Sit a mil-comp exam (for which they have the database of questions and answers, thanks to freedom of information) and come away with a lovely civilian licence. Cost, oh about $0. The more the military training is recognised the better. It is without doubt, far more comprehensive and demanding than the civilian equivalent and it is right that QSP's skills should be recognised...more than they currently are in my opinion.
Now get off your zimmer, BEagle, and get that application form away.
Chin chin,
Pontius
------------------
You Ain't Seen Me - Right !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just curious, how many of those slagging off the recent changes and HM forces generally, have actually worn the colours?
mmm...thought so! Green eyes perhaps?
Engage brain before opening gob(s)! Broaden your minds a little chaps. Very few ex-growbag wearers are the hellians you talk of. I've dealt with far worse civvy pilots than ex Forces. Of course, there are rotten apples in every barrel but noone gets a monopoly on the good or the bad (some airlines do seem to get all the ugly though!). A different background does not mean anything other than just that, DIFFERENT. Proper CRM means drawing on each others experiences, however gained, even if it's "I won't do that again!".
mmm...thought so! Green eyes perhaps?
Engage brain before opening gob(s)! Broaden your minds a little chaps. Very few ex-growbag wearers are the hellians you talk of. I've dealt with far worse civvy pilots than ex Forces. Of course, there are rotten apples in every barrel but noone gets a monopoly on the good or the bad (some airlines do seem to get all the ugly though!). A different background does not mean anything other than just that, DIFFERENT. Proper CRM means drawing on each others experiences, however gained, even if it's "I won't do that again!".