You don’t need to be ex mil and haven’t had to be for some time. As long as you meet the criteria (min 500hrs PiC, SEP experience and a CPL) then you can apply. Doesn’t mean you’ll get in though but 80% of our pilots are not ex mil.
1 Like
It’s what the VR wings exist for, isn’t it?
1 Like
Job advert for “FMO” - personally, I think some of the “desirable” considerations should be essential.
If this position becomes fully active from Jun 2026 (as per VoV - thanks Ben Wakefield), then we still have cadets who cannot be reviewed on any required F6424 action until then (at the earliest) = they can’t fly . On VoV, I’ve asked what interim solution can be found & also for an update to the IBN (011/25) concerning validity / extension of “current” F6424s.
Still no reply from my chasing email to (edit) Wg Cdr Steve Stanton - how rude.
3 Likes
Thank you for everything you’re doing on behalf of every cadet who has to tick a yes box on the Av.Med.1. Both of my kids might never have flown under the current arrangements.
4 Likes
It’s SO frustrating - no-one seems to care about cadets need F6424 action who are stuck in limbo = no flying.
RAFAC are asking for higher standards than they need to.
3 Likes
As always - platinum standard when bronze would suffice. Just like drone flying. Especially when the other cadet forces are flying with other standards.
2 Likes
What’s his job role again? Had a quick look in search, but couldn’t find a role?
SO1 Air Policy.
1 Like
I’ve heard stories of cadets handing in AvMED 1’s at version 5 that show they have been magically cured of conditions previously declared on earlier versions.
Personally, I’d do the same for my child if I thought they were being discriminated against.
2 Likes
If it wasn’t for the values and standards I have to maintain for my profession — I’d do the same, too.
I do wonder if this had been risk assessed given the current situation. Are we in a position where trying to reduce risk may have actually increased it by encouraging the hiding of problems?
1 Like
Yes, most definitely.
Ah. But are we interested in risk to people, or risk of litigation?
5 Likes
I would also have to agree, by saying yes and then not being able to fly, why would you say yes?
I would say that it’s a very high probability - cadets / parents aren’t daft. Unforeseen knock-on consequences of making things more difficult.
1 Like
“You can’t come to the squadron for the next few months because it doesn’t have a safety certificate. Instead, you’ll have to stay at home, which probably doesn’t have a safety certificate either. Or fire escapes, or extinguishers for that matter!”
4 Likes
New IBN - 02 / 26 - to advise about placement of AMO:
It also refers to the F6424 / previous IBNs.
If I’ve read back through the other IBNs correctly, & the way that validity is expressed in text [”Cadets with valid F6424s (approved Fit to Fly by the CFMO) may continue to fly beyond the expiry date”], it seems to me that currently F624s have no expiry date.
So, if my reading is correct, why (medically) was there a one yr limit that is now busted? Is is safe / prudent (medically) to extend the F6424 without a refresh by the GP to confirm that the previous stated condition(s) haven’t got worse?
Surely there can’t be an original reason for a one yr validity that is superseded without CFMO authority? Withdrawal of F6424 was listed as ending 01 Jun 2025, (IBN 07 / 25), so a cadet nearing the validity date (one yr) would be coming up to about 2 yrs for Jun 2025 when the new AMO post is expected to be filled.
1 Like
I thought F6424’s were valid for 3 years?
AvMED 1 is now valid for 1 year.
Same principle - who can authorise an extension - for an unknown period?
V11 of the F6424 stated 2 yr validity.
CFMO post re-advertised; that’ll push things back a lot. 
Need a fix from RAFAC for F6424 support.
2 Likes