Thanks all, much obliged. As luck would have it, the CoC has just also formally come up with corresponding information.
The point above regarding PPL(H) is an interesting one, since the certified solo letter-of-capability being viewed as ACPS-equivalent is clearly expecting fixed-wing pilots to be coming along . So, is this indirect brevet entitlement >irrespective< of the airframe type externally qualified on?
We’ll have at least one independant helicopter pilot within the next 18months-2years, so for me it’s not a theoretical question.
However, what is an abstract situation would be for a PPL(M). Would they be viewed as making the brevet equivalency grade? Or might that not pass the bar, if (say) the training were undertaken onboard a three-axis fabric dart, versus a ‘conventional’ super-light MTOW aircraft??
In the past I’d have been in the “military badge for military sanctioned flying training” camp, and be a nay-sayer!
These days there is precedent within the RAF itself, as all you need is an ATPL and a job with AirTanker, and you get a free RAF pilot brevet as a sponsored reservist with no military experience or military training! :S
[quote=“chaz” post=12766]In the past I’d have been in the “military badge for military sanctioned flying training” camp, and be a nay-sayer!
These days there is precedent within the RAF itself, as all you need is an ATPL and a job with AirTanker, and you get a free RAF pilot brevet as a sponsored reservist with no military experience or military training! :S :)[/quote]
This sounds unlikely. Even if I insert the word ‘flying’ after your use twice above of the word ‘‘military’’ (that is, the baseline requirement for SRs to still be required to tick all the boxes for personal capabilities in the active reserves: selection, RAFFT, ROIT, CCS etc), how could they just be issuing full military brevets to civilian-trained pilots that haven’t been through the MFTS?
Do you think they’d let DE ATPLs fly eg formation IFR tracks without full military training and experience?
My bet’s on Voyager having multiple flight-deck crew-types, to match the role being flown at the time. Comment?
Anyway, MB, tell me more re these unseen (by me) microlight wings. Past tense- why so?
I might be wrong but I’m sure there used to be separate badges - Flying Scholarship with ‘FS’ in the centre for the AEF/Light a/c Courses and ‘M’ in the centre for the 10hr Microlight Course. The Microlight Course (if still running) now comes under the banner of ACPS and results in the award of the standard ‘P’ badge.
No idea when the change happened, perhaps it was when FS & ACPNTS went from central selection at Cranwell to a Wing/Region allocation.
Thanks for that- since you’ve clearly got quite a bit of knowledge regarding the recent past of ACO powered flying brevet, a couple of questions-
Do you (or anyone else on the forum) know why they are so different in design from glider pilot wings? Is the reason they (GPWs) look so traditional in shape because they are awarded for tested instuctor capabilities beyond solo, not just for course-and-solo re ACPS etc?
Have ACO powered flying wings always had that odd ‘squared backing’? Are there any previous designs/brevet patterns? I’m guessing not, and also that it might be a fairly-recent arrangement.
My guess would be that they [Glider Pilot Wings] look they way they do because it is a formal Pilot In Command qualification as opposed to a course badge, allowing carriage of pax and solo sans check flight.
As for previous versions of the ATC FS badge, see the attached which date from 1951-1968
It may indeed sound unlikely, but it happened. They aren’t necessarily doing AAR (in fact, I think the wings were awarded before the RAF began AAR “proper”, as it were, with Voyager. They were all A330 type rated before joining the company and pure ex-airline pilots.
Here are the chaps. The news archive at Air Tanker doesn’t appear to go far back enough for the story:
My personal opinion is that they should have been awarded the “wings” worn by contractor flying instructors, such as those instructing at Barkston Heath and Cranwell - essentially MoD Wings, as opposed to have been earned within a particular service.
Sadly, ACTO 34 does state that a ACP badge can be worn by cadets who have completed a PPL, thus rendering cadets who earned the badge on merit indistinguishable from those whose parents were able to chuck enough money at a flying club to get young Bloggsy through.
I disagree with the above, as a PPL flying instructor - whilst yes you can ‘chuck’ money at a flying school to get bloggs to pass, they still do need the aptitude and ability to pass 9 ground exams and a flight skills test. There are situations where we tell bloggs/bloggs’ parents that we are unable to continue their training.
And even if enough money was ‘chucked’ in, it is a huge achievement to gain your PPL at any stage of life so is definitely worthy of an identifier if you pass whilst still a cadet.
I’d go as far to say that the achievement far outstrips a mere solo, which any competent teenager will probably achieve in about 8 hours. Perhaps it should have its own, superior badge.
stevenhawkingstennisracquet, do you have any flying experience? A PPL, perhaps?
It’s not like a driving licence.
Also, it’s considered good manners to read a thread through before commenting. You clearly haven’t, or you’d know that the Annexes to ACTO34 state the badge can be worn by anyone who has soloed privately.
I’d go as far to say that the achievement far outstrips a mere solo, which any competent teenager will probably achieve in about 8 hours. Perhaps it should have its own, superior badge.[/quote]
stevenhawkingstennisracquet, do you have any flying experience? A PPL, perhaps?
It’s not like a driving licence.
Also, it’s considered good manners to read a thread through before commenting. You clearly haven’t, or you’d know that the Annexes to ACTO34 state the badge can be worn by anyone who has soloed privately.[/quote]
Indeed. I was awarded a 30hr RAF Flying Scholarship. I had to go to OASC to get that. It was run to a CFS-approved syllabus. You flew solo after 10hrs and if you hadn’t soloed by 10:30 you were chopped. If cadets don’t solo in the allotted time on an ACPS, they don’t pass the course and don’t get the wings- as opposed to those being paid for by mummy and daddy who can keep on throwing money at the problem.
Incidentally I paid for the extra 10hrs to complete my PPL and I’ve been a QGI on a VGS since 1994.
Indeed. I was awarded a 30hr RAF Flying Scholarship. I had to go to OASC to get that. It was run to a CFS-approved syllabus. You flew solo after 10hrs and if you hadn’t soloed by 10:30 you were chopped. If cadets don’t solo in the allotted time on an ACPS, they don’t pass the course and don’t get the wings- as opposed to those being paid for by mummy and daddy who can keep on throwing money at the problem.[/quote]
My bold
As a VGI you should know that this is no easy task to dash someone’s hopes/dreams then.
Also your post, is all well and true in situations whereby you are doing an intense 10/30 hour scholarship over the course of 1 week/2 weeks/ 3 weeks … but If you are a 16 year old student, whereby mum and dad (or yourself in some cases) was only able to ‘afford’ to fly 1hr a week or so (and that was dependant on the weather too) as well as passing a class 2 medical (£££) and your air law exam whilst fitting in school. It will more than likely take you a lot longer than 10hours.
Also, I doubt you had to pass the CAA Air Law exam before you soloed. Much is implied by those who have undertaken military or paramilitary (in which I include the old 30-hour scholarship and GS courses) EFT about how it is ‘better’ than the civilian equivalent, but it’s not, it’s different. As VZ says, self-funded civilian training is unlikely to be continuous; but it is also more likely to include proper consolidation work, ground school and written exams, rather than just throwing someone at the aircraft continuously in order to achieve solo in artificially few hours.
Do I understand from VZ that you are now a gliding instructor on a VGS? If so, you need to have an attitude check. CCF cadets, whom I suspect will form the majority of those you are denigrating, form 23% of your customer base and keep you in the free flying you are currently enjoying.
[quote=“tmmorris” post=13343], rather than just throwing someone at the aircraft continuously in order to achieve solo in artificially few hours.
[/quote]
That’s not really true is it? Continuity and perpetual consolidation is just part of the job and the most efficient means to train people. Even a break over a weekend can affect progress at some times early on. You’re not going to be sent solo in any aircraft unless you are safe and competant. The time is irrelevant, albeit in a “state funded” scheme, if you aren’t solo within a reasonable time (some other factors permitting), continued effort is probably futile, as you’ve been selected for your potential.
I heard a case recently of a civvy at a major commercial flight training school, who, I was relieved to hear, was chopped having failed to solo in 25 hrs. Thank heavens.
Air Law - civvy flying school (CFSed or not)= must be done pre solo.
RAF - obviously just a bunch of hooligans with no idea having not taken it…
You jest… but one of my cadets was in a notifiable AIRPROX at a VGS, and the very young instructor not only didn’t notify it, but wasn’t even aware such a thing existed. Wouldn’t have happened in a civvy flying school of any description.
I like the VGS system, but its members need to accept what they are: a basic training organisation which falls some way short of a ‘proper’ flying school, civilian or military, and with a different role. Unfortunately some of their members - overwhelmingly the younger ones - think they are something rather more pointy.
That is strange as the ASAR officer is working his backside off at the moment improving just such training maybe the inquiry should have been if he was aware of DASORs instead of airprox?
The constant theme at the moment is on air safety and has been for sometime DASORs, air safety management plans, ASIMS, transfer of data on to CADS all improvements only just this week an email about the robust chasing of the CAA over VGS airfield infringements. Hardly cowboys really?
