Surely, the opposite should be the case?
Could be said for a lot of Aircrew who live off station. Or does being a “Reg” somehow make you superhuman, and immune to all known viruses?
2 Likes
It does if you went through the pre-deployment immunisation program for Gulf War one…
2 Likes
All those Puma, Hercules, Atlas pilots are just supposed to imagine they have currency to go flying patients and supplies around, then?
Could be said. But risk vs reward. Some will now be living on base rather than off, I imagine they’ll be being monitored rather more closely than your average Geoff on the street, and maintaining the security of the country doesn’t stop.
Grand scheme of things, as much as we all wish it were different, AEFs don’t matter, so they’re very much on the list of non-priorities right now. 2020 will be another write off for flying.
This has all been discussed and is in hand, there is a plan.
Has it been shared with anyone? Or are we looking at another: I have information you couldn’t possibly have situation?
3 Likes
Of course not. However, the RAF is currently flying non-covid related training sorties (Hercules and Atlas aircraft are not on the Covid Task force, according the .Gov website BTW), and I was simply wondering why, since AEF Pilots are military, they couldn’t keep up with their currency in the same way that there brethren are.
It must be just as much a pain in rear, if not more so, for the AEFs/UASs to re-qualify their pilots, as it is for us, for example, to requalify our RCOs and SAAI. Not to mention the effects on our organisation (and yes, I appreciate that we are the lowest priority in the grand scheme of things, and I wouldn’t want it any other way at the moment)
Hercules was seen flying into London City to help equip the first Nightingale Hospital, Atlases (Atlas’, Atli? Hmm) have been ferrying patients from remote Scottish islands. Might not be official task force, but they’re certainly being used.
And I would contend it’s because they’re not military. They don’t count. They’re on that list for box-ticking air cadets’ reasons, but the RAF doesn’t acknowledge this in the same way.
My understanding is that an IBN should be going out, not sure on the status of that but SATTs should be aware of what’s happening and be putting plans together to work with the Wings in their AOR.
1 Like
That’s not why - they were due to become RAFAC (like VGS aircrew), until someone pointed out that, unless they held the relevant civvie street pilots licence they could not fly the Tutor, per the Air Navigation Order, which are civilian registered aircraft:
“ Flight crew licence requirement – exception for members of HM Forces
- A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.”
It wasn’t a way of getting them to undertake military duties and as VR(T) have no operational liabilities it’s would be hard to justify.
However some UAS were operating after the lockdown perhaps with regular pilots ? UAS studes ate VR, not VR(T).
HM Forces includes VRT thus easier to keep everyone VRT as it meant no civilian licence would be required.
M_V_L is not wrong, just missing the reason why staying in the RAF (your comments Squadgy)
ie
because
no one is saying that is the case, but as VRT they = RAF thus remain able to fly.
Presentationally, though, it would be terrible. The CAA has grounded all private flights, and RAFFCA clubs are therefore also grounded. As cadets are hardly the UK’s second line of defence, it would be hard to explain to locals used to quiet skies why the little training aircraft are suddenly buzzing around again.
As an example, Benson already has a local who objects to ‘the posh boys’ flying club’ (as he calls the UAS)…
i always that was simply the RAF
it is after all the oldest “Flying Club” in the world!
How will or does all this getting trained, made current etc fit in with the 2m between people? OK people can be ‘suited up’ but who supplies it? Not me that’s for definite.
How are people going to travel when a lot of what we do relies on collective travel, especially wrt cadets. Will people be so willing to travel in cars (anything come to that) with people who are not household members? I’ve seen a number of buses which are normally quite busy with much fewer people on and those people sitting about as far from each other as they can. Unless I’ve missed something the suggestion is that the 2m thing will go on even after restrictions are eased. There is also that if the much vaunted end of this in September happens, we will be a few weeks away from the next flu season, which given the paranoia sees restrictions we have now reimposed for as long as is regarded necessary this time, which will be at least 6 weeks. There needs to be a does of realism in thinking and not to jump the gun until there is a proper steer from the govt, at which point things can be looked at IMO and not until. We are not that important in the grand scheme, unless I suppose you are salaried staff, but being CS, they can be offered other roles. It would seem that schools are now out of the picture until September. A mate of mine said their SLT is already considering not having all years present every day, so they can maintain distancing in classrooms if required.
I just missed that one but they jabbed us up for Op Telic 1 in 2003. Five jabs received but only four recorded in my med docs…
2 Likes
Not actually banned as far as I can see:
…we do not perceive a need to introduce a specific ban on flying by visual flight rules (VFR) as seen in some European countries.
However, your “non-essential” journey to the airfield would be the issue under the SI.
“Maintenance check flights” or similar are approved. See the relevant link here.
Beat me to it regarding the 30min maintenance flights.
I know some schools are keeping their instructors current by having them perform these flights.
Surely AEF (based on the fact they’re civilian registered A/C) could do this… would that be to much common sense?
Taking into account how the station will likely have been around far longer than the aforementioned local has been a village resident I think that’s a really poor complaint.
Admittedly I live behind the camp rather than in the village, but I have no issue with the Tutors, or the Chinooks who regularly try to take the roof off !
1 Like
No, sorry but that’s not right and is important in this respect.
The VR(T), is not and was never part of the ‘RAF’ - It is part of the RAFVR. The RAFVR (note distinct from the RAF Reserve), have no call out liability and therefore it is questionable that any flying they may undertake could be deemed ‘essential’.
The VR(T), are however part of one of ‘Her Majesty’s Air Forces’, and so legally they can continue to fly the Tutor.
1 Like
but it is the same argument?
i missed a stage, much like M_V_L
who said VRT pilots required to they remained part of the RAF……so they could remain as “military pilots” and thus continue to fly
where =
thus for completeness
is not incorrect, just not complete - perhaps the use of RAF should have read MOD
thus The whole point of having VR(T) pilots is so they remained part of the MOD
and that would have saved the nitpicking?
All of which still means: no AEF
3 Likes