MFTS

[LFFC]

It looks like the MFTS deal has been given the green light.

The Times - 13 Nov 06 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2451694.html)

Last week, the MoD’s investment approval board (IAB), its top decision-making body on spending, gave the green light to a £2 billion PFI to supply pilot and aircrew training to all three British Armed Forces — the military flying training system (MFTS).

The IAB’s decision on MFTS is likely to be signed off by Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, and the Treasury over the next few weeks. An announcement is expected early next month.

[BEagle]

When one asks the MFTS people "And where, pray, are you going to find a sustainable source of QFIs", there is alaways a loud sucking of teeth and a bit of foot-shuffling.......

Talking to a chap from one of the new dumbed-down UASs, I discovered:

There aren't enough QFIs to go around. They get round that by using a few AEF pilots who are still current QFIs.... So why are they available - are the AEFs overmanned?
There aren't enough QFIs to be able to supervise solo students from the tower - they've got round that by changing the rules to require less supervision of their less trained pilots.....:hmm:
There is virtually NO ground instruction. The chap couldn't even reecognise an engine valve, for example.

Where will it all end? Hopefully not with a smoking hole!

[Safeware]

From the Times article:
# Sir John Chisholm, the chairman, saw the 2 per cent stake that he acquired in 2002 for £129,000 become a holding worth £28 million

# Graham Love, chief executive, became worth £23 million through his 1.6 per cent holding

# Carlyle, the US private equity fund, cut its holding from 30.5 per cent to 13 per cent, taking out £161 million

# The Government cut its stake from 56 per cent to 23.9 per cent, gaining about £290 million

Not a bad return on £129K. Wonder what happened to the govt's £290m.

sw

[Uncle Ginsters]

At least MFTS seems to be progressing. I would have thought that FSTA would have warranted an appearance in that article (cue Beagle) unless they know something we don't....does anyone know the latest developments on that front?
Beags - On the UAS front: There aren't enough QFIs to go around That depends how you define "enough".
There aren't enough QFIs to be able to supervise solo students from the tower - they've got round that by changing the rules to require less supervision of their less trained pilots True. But this rule hasn't changed for the UAS's - back when they were still providing EFT, there was no requirement for a QFI in the tower, or even on the ground (with the exception of cct consol). The three EFT Sqns are deemed to have sufficient manning to increase supervision, and so the current orders reflect that new requirement (since the UAS/EFT changes)

[Ken Scott]

I despair when I think of the first class flying training system we had when I joined in the 80s and what it has now become, through relentless privatisation & cost saving schemes. The quality of student pilot arriving on my OCU today can be enough to make you weep, & in less than a year these guys & girls are going to be flying in Iraq & Afghanistan - in 3 years they're expected to become captains!

I suppose I can hope that MFTS will improve the quality of the pilots from the training system, but the endless pursuit of ever cheaper training will not produce the goods, I fear.

[muppetofthenorth]

On the UAS front, I can say that a sqn of 55+ has been told that 2 QFIs are adequate....

We have at least another 2 from the local AEF who are now 'qualified' to teach in the air.

And yes, there is absolutely no ground training of an aircraft/technical nature.

[XV277]

When one asks the MFTS people "And where, pray, are you going to find a sustainable source of QFIs", there is alaways a loud sucking of teeth and a bit of foot-shuffling.......



Foreign Air Forces perhaps? Civillian pay and conditions, could be quite an attractive proposition as an alternative to the airlines.

And by the time they run out, we'll be using UCAVs anyway, for which your Sony PSVII prowess will be more important!!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

On the UAS front, I can say that a sqn of 55+ has been told that 2 QFIs are adequate....

We have at least another 2 from the local AEF who are now 'qualified' to teach in the air.

And yes, there is absolutely no ground training of an aircraft/technical nature.


I find that gobsmacking.

In 1994 UBAS was about 55 students and had the Boss plus 4 full time QFI's. Several days a week there would be a tech/met/nav briefing either presented by staff or by a student.

Hell, I remember a superb background briefing on the work of being a Test Pilot by the recently ETPS QFI that held us all spellbound for 4 hours one wet Wednesday afternoon.

Sad.

WWW

[muppetofthenorth]

We still of course have Met briefs before flying days, and on town nights a guest speaker will tell us about their job/role etc.

What Im saying is that when we are asked what engine does a Tutor use and what is it's power rating, no one knows.


The reduction in QFIs is mostly down to the fact that UASs no longer provide EFT, and therefore the flight training syllabus isnt quite as intensive, certainly, there's no grading after every flight. Though this does mean that during flying camps, when 15-20 are present, people would be lucky to get more than 2 flights in the entire week.

[Vifferpilot]

I find that gobsmacking.

In 1994 UBAS was about 55 students and had the Boss plus 4 full time QFI's. Several days a week there would be a tech/met/nav briefing either presented by staff or by a student.

Hell, I remember a superb background briefing on the work of being a Test Pilot by the recently ETPS QFI that held us all spellbound for 4 hours one wet Wednesday afternoon.

Sad.

WWW

You can't compare your experience of UAS flying to the new system, it is a fundamental change. Flying is now a fairly minor part of the UAS structure and is not a formal teaching course wrt RAF training. Therefore there is no requirement for technical training. There are no longer any 'pilots' in the UAS student body, all are treated the same, it is merely a 'taster' for those desiring a career in any branch in the RAF.

[BEagle]

That last post can also be heard later tonight on BBC2....

What utter bolleaux from 'viffer' (doof doof, nozzles, mate, bona, MEXE....). Why on earth anyone would ever consider joining the University Air Scouts these days is beyond me. Join the OTC, do the mud and cabbage kit properly AND be paid better.

A taste of the future RAF = underfunding and inadequate training?

[muppetofthenorth]

Forgive the thread digression, but I feel I ought to try and defend the UASs. As has been mentioned, the UAS system no longer provides EFT to all aspiring pilots, but it has been massively enhanced in all other areas.

Every week there are opportunities for 2 different sessions of AT, there are many and regular expeds throughout the year. 10 of our number are currently in the Carribean, sailing around the BVIs. In March 20 are going skiing in Austria, and towards May, another BVI trip will happen. This is ontop of regular sailing trips in the Solent, Hebrides and to the Channel Islands. During the summer vacation we offer at least 2 more AT trips abroad, as well as many more chances to go to the Lakes, Snowdonia and many places besides.

During active camps, at summer, New Year or Easter, the AT chances also become many more varied; climbing, walking, sailing, kayaking, scrmabling, mountain biking to name but a few.

This is on top of the huge array of sports that are still available.

And we do the whole 'mud and cabbage' bit too, just not as often.

And I for one, would be more than willing to pay for this, I consider the pay I receive a bonus.

I would have hoped people here would appreciate ambition, and as it has been by aim for many, many years to enter the RAF, I find it disheartening to learn how derogatory everyone is.

[Jackonicko]

Of course it's marginally better than sitting in your pit, skinning up and catching exotic diseases, but the point is that the UAS system was once useful.

More than useful. It used to provide the cream of the Valley/Brawdy output (out of all proportion to the numbers). It used to reduce the chop rate among those who'd gone through it to the extent that it paid for itself - the savings in wasted JP/Hawk hours more than paid for all of the Bulldog flying.

And it used to motivate people.

There was a retention crisis when I was going through UAS, and we all knew about the (pardon me) "f*** factor" of Tacevals, the increasing hold lengths in the training pipeline, the endless defence cuts (the RAF was a shadow of what it had been even ten years before), etc. etc.

But two years on a UAS (three if you played your cards right) with proper flying training, and as many hours as you could hog was a powerful incentive to commit to the RAF, and no-one really cared about the negative points.

[Vifferpilot]

That last post can also be heard later tonight on BBC2....

What utter bolleaux from 'viffer' (doof doof, nozzles, mate, bona, MEXE....). Why on earth anyone would ever consider joining the University Air Scouts these days is beyond me. Join the OTC, do the mud and cabbage kit properly AND be paid better.

A taste of the future RAF = underfunding and inadequate training?

Jeez m8, you really do have your head right up your own...

A. I have never been nor ever will be a BONA mate...don't assume, check! Viffer can mean a whole load of things!

B. I never said that I approved or was trying to sell the UAS system, merely reporting what it now consists of. It was a statement of fact.

C. You really are a ****** :ok:

[Jackonicko]

Viffer,

Do calm down!

I must say that I also thought that your post sounded terribly like the kind of spin so often used to justify the changes to the UAS system. "Different, not diminished", you know the kind of bol.locks.

It probably sounded like that because it was so uncritical.

Now it may be that the old style system was no longer affordable, but to fail to acknowledge that excellence has been replaced by what is, at best, adequacy, seems wrong.

[muppetofthenorth]

Of course it's marginally better than sitting in your pit, skinning up and catching exotic diseases, but the point is that the UAS system was once useful.

More than useful. It used to provide the cream of the Valley/Brawdy output (out of all proportion to the numbers). It used to reduce the chop rate among those who'd gone through it to the extent that it paid for itself - the savings in wasted JP/Hawk hours more than paid for all of the Bulldog flying.

Agreed, undeniably there were bonuses for pilots, it helped them hugely. But the 'way it was' didnt really cater that well for Ground Branch studes, like I would have been. I want to go Eng, and under the old system, because of my eyesight, would not have been allowed to fly. The activities available to me, though plenty, would not have come close to what is now available, because the funding wasn't there, nor the skill base.

The current system is better for all round developement, the old, better for pilot developement...

Just depends what the RAF really wants more of.
[Though, I say that after a week where 3 of our studes have been accepted as Pilots at either bursary or DE levels.]

[Jackonicko]

Except that under the old scheme you'd probably have got a University Cadetship, been paid as an APO, and would have got a degree of Air Experience flying and some top vacation attachments.

The new system might give a bit of AE flying to ground branches, but the downside is too great, IMHO

[muppetofthenorth]

I can see where you're coming from.

But even though I am technically a groundie, I am eligable for the full, current, flying syllabus. I just chose not to. I still get all the flying I want [10 hours+ since January to present] and have been on some pretty decent attachements, Leuchars in the summer and then a week at Cranwell just before restarting university. As for the cadetship and the APO, now the RAF offers a system whereby you take youe 'year in industry' with them and become an APO, this is more than likely something Ill be applying for.

I still feel more is available to more people this way.

So what if it doesnt give some the leg up it used to? The RAF has for quite a while said that it would rather prospective pilots NOT go to university, so that they [the RAF] has more of their 'valuable learning age'.



ANYWAY, we have veered somewhat...

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Christ on a bike - what is it? The Duke of Edinburgh adventure training club for the 18 - 22yr old?!?

WWW

[airborne_artist]

It's pity the RAF can't just admit that the UAS system is snookered. Why not just hand some cash to the Army and direct all those interested to the UOTC. Those that want to get some flying in could be enrolled in their nearest ATC squadron and go AEFing.

[212man]

"10 of our number are currently in the Carribean, sailing around the BVIs. In March 20 are going skiing in Austria, and towards May, another BVI trip will happen. This is ontop of regular sailing trips in the Solent, Hebrides and to the Channel Islands"

Sounds like the Sea Scouts!

I lamented the fact that the 4 regional inter UAS competitions no longer culminated in a final competition, due to costs. I would never have imagined how far away from what we had then things would end up. Very sad.:ugh:

[Elmlea]

Every week there are opportunities for 2 different sessions of AT, there are many and regular expeds throughout the year. 10 of our number are currently in the Carribean, sailing around the BVIs. In March 20 are going skiing in Austria, and towards May, another BVI trip will happen. This is ontop of regular sailing trips in the Solent, Hebrides and to the Channel Islands. During the summer vacation we offer at least 2 more AT trips abroad, as well as many more chances to go to the Lakes, Snowdonia and many places besides.

Sounds remarkably similar to my old UAS. We had a major exped at least once a year, sometimes twice, plus a handful of smaller ones. All the sports were represented, a small dose of mud & cabbagery, we did plenty of ground training and some more AT when on our summer camps.

We also had SVAs for everyone, did summer camps to some relatively different and interesting places, and completed EFT while we were at it.

It sounds like the new system's drawn attention to a lot of "new" things which were available under the old system if you could be bothered to arrange it.

The only advantage I can think of is that previously, your shy, underconfident wannabe blunty didn't have much to do around his UAS on a typical day because everything was geared towards flying. Now, he can get a bit more involved.

[idle stop]

Perhaps, with the advent of MFTS, the UAS should be re-branded as something else. That way those of us who were privileged to go through the 'real' UAS system will not feel that the UAS, (like our Degrees!) are being dumbed down constantly by the erosion of their status as bona-fide service pilot training units.

[Bo Nalls]

MFTS announcemnt (http://www.pprune.org/forums/MFTS announcemnt)

Ascent consortium of Lockheed Martin and VT Group has been awarded a 25-year deal to help the UK Ministry of Defence train British military aircrews from all three armed services.

[dakkg651]

For the last ten years the big experiment for COMR flight training has been DHFS.

I would like to know if this experiment has worked.

Has the semi-finished product from Shawbury been up to standard compared with the good old days?

If so, can it work for the fixed wing world?

[50+Ray]

What is the future (if any) for AAC & RN EFT? Barkston to close?

[spheriod]

It looks like the MFTS deal has been given the green light.

A complete waste of time if you ask me. It will never work.

[minigundiplomat]

For the last ten years the big experiment for COMR flight training has been DHFS.

I would like to know if this experiment has worked.



Yes and No.

DHFS turns out a resonable product, with an empty bag of experience and a full bag of luck. In that respect it is a success.

It has also brought an element of commonality into the FT system, and is the springboard for all 3 services rotary mates.

But...........

Only the basic and intermediate stages are common, and all 3 services then split before conducting their own training, despite the fact most, if not all will be flying multi-engine aircraft.

The three services have different needs, which DHFS struggles to cope with, resulting in the RN and AAC carrying out their own advanced training, with the RAF doing likewise, though under DHFS.

The main bone of contention is that DHFS is set at a steady pace. Meeting this pace, or slowing it down is an easy enough task for OASC or the other service equivalents. It is turning up the capacity switch which has proved difficult, resulting in disparities between supply and demand.

[charliegolf]

Mini,

What system did you train under- was it the 'old' Shawbury regime; or DHFS? I ask because mine was under the old system, obviously, and I don't have any sense that they could have opened the valve to any great effect back then either.

Granted, we we not at war, but neither were we under the cosh so much financially.

CG

[moosemaster]

What Im saying is that when we are asked what engine does a Tutor use and what is it's power rating, no one knows.

Do you REALLY need to know this information though?

Or is it sufficient to know what the aircraft performance figures are. (Climb rate, speed etc)

The big "thing" in training now is "Need to know" and "nice to know"
It was an odd concept to me to begin with as I was trained when everyone needed to know everything, but the students seem to appreciate not being swamped by the sort of cr4p that I was inundated with during training.

Do I NEED to know how many 'T' handles are on a C130, or do I just need to know where the ones I will use are?
Do I NEED to know exactly what happens inside a hydraulic system, down to the last valve, or do I need to know what services it supplies and what the operating limits are, plus, can I do actually do anything when/if it fails?

I'm not saying the new UAS is better or worse as I have no direct experience, however MFTS SHOULD be good, provided they get the Subject Matter Experts and Instructors, and that they don't cut the need to know information too far back to the bone.

Fingers crossed.

[airborne_artist]

What Im saying is that when we are asked what engine does a Tutor use and what is it's power rating, no one knows.

It's all on the web. All the RAF's Tutors are on the civil register. The register lists the powerplants, and from there you can get the output of the version in use.

20 seconds is all it took :ok:, so if you are keen enough, it can be found. You would hope that anyone with the ability to get into a UAS would have at least a clue as to how to find the answer. Spoon-feeding may work for A-levels, and even some degrees, but it won't happen much in real life :ugh:

[muppetofthenorth]

20 seconds is all it took http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif, so if you are keen enough, it can be found. You would hope that anyone with the ability to get into a UAS would have at least a clue as to how to find the answer. Spoon-feeding may work for A-levels, and even some degrees, but it won't happen much in real life

Yes.

I know full well it's an Avco Lycoming engine rated at 180 [some sources say 185] hp, but the point I was trying to infer - in a post made by myself some two and a half years ago - was that that knowledge wasn't in any way required.
Of course you could find it out, just as you could find out who scored the winner in the 1963 FA Cup Final and while you can debate the usefulness of either snippet of information to your heart's content, there's obviously a reason for not being taught it.

[airborne_artist]

the point I was trying to infer - in a post made by myself some two and a half years ago - was that that knowledge wasn't in any way required

Indeed, but for the sake of a few seconds, the spotter in me (and most aviators...) can, if they want to, find it for themselves - the poster was suggesting it was not available, at all.

On its own the information may well be useless, but combined with other info it may become more useful. As it happens the engine type is very common across many marques of light aircraft, so if our UAS matey gets a PPL he/she is likely to meet it again, and can use/compare the info accordingly.

[muppetofthenorth]

I completely agree, but this whole discussion stemmed from complaints about the UAS system and it's place within the current training system and what will be MFTS. The, perhaps over-simplified, answer to the argument is that the UAS isn't training people to be pilots. If they then get selected to enter the RAF they then have to go through EFT and do the ground school that any DE applicant would, at which point they can learn all the relevant information.

[muppetofthenorth]

the poster was suggesting it was not available, at all.
As I was the poster I can categorically state that that was not what I was suggesting in the slightest!

[bayete]

I agree with Deliverance, the system has been dumbed down too much.
I was shocked a couple of years ago when on a Ground Cat Q&A I asked a guy who had been on the Sqn (front line) for a year a P Of F question.
Q: "What is the lift equation?" I thought a nice easy one to lead into some other more involved questions.
A: "Err I don't know, I don't think we were ever taught that"
Now I know he was taught that. What followed was a discussion, him saying it was not relevant to his flying to know these things, me saying professional pride of a professional pilot to know a little more about flying than- Push cows get bigger etc and more throttle = more noise etc.
What would he have said if a had asked what was the most critical engine and why?!

How do you select your instructors of the future if all you have to know and are examined on is the minimum.

I have met guys in the civvy world who will complain if they are asked to demonstrate any more than the minimum ability on a sim ride as it could destroy their confidence if they cannot achieve any more than the minimum required for testing, however life does not always present you with the minimum required. And they would still pass as long as they demonstrated at least the minimum.
I would like to know how good I am, what are my limits and have an instructor demonstrate to me where my knowledge is lacking and where I could improve.

[airborne_artist]

Muppet wrote:

As I was the poster I can categorically state that that was not what I was suggesting in the slightest!

Muppet - your orig post was:

What Im saying is that when we are asked what engine does a Tutor use and what is it's power rating, no one knows.

Now, just because you were not spoon-fed the info in ground school is not an excuse not to find out, surely? You could have a) asked the QFI/ground instructor b) asked the guy who maintains the aircraft c) looked in the publications about the type or d) Googled.

[artyhug]

A valid point Bayete but only so far.

Personally, I did an aeronautics degree, qualified as an A2 QFI and am yet not 100% sure that what I seem to remember is the lift equation is indeed correct and not simply the ramblings of an overful mind!

Now without a doubt no professional pilot should have the temerity to dismiss it as a useless piece of information however my brain is full to bursting with details that I need everyday to keep myself and those I support alive.

The days of being able to build the hydraulics system from memory are over and no amount of railing against the youth of today or the system by aged QFIs, a generalisation I hope you will excuse me, who haven't seen the frontline in 20 years will change that.

The issue today is that we have more than a clockwork instrument panel and a gunpack to understand and operate. Core information must always take priority and once that is at a suitable level then by all means judge someone on their unwillingness to pursue further knowledge out of professional pride but not before.

Rant over.

[bayete]

Arty fair enough, there is now a huge amount ancillary information to learn about operating modern aircraft and not just the actual flying bits, you have to include understanding ATOs, ACOs, SPINS, tactics etc.
But there must be some level of basic aviation knowledge, the problem is where do you draw the line?
I was worried when I started flicking through some of the questions in "Ace the Technical Pilot Interview" book but in the end a lot (not all) of the knowledge was somewhere hidden in the back of my limited capacity head. This was because it was taught at an early stage, we were examined on it and at the time we needed to know it to pass through flying training.
Once on the front line operating complex aircraft in a complex environment that basic knowledge need not be at the forefront of your mind but I think it should be somewhere in your conscience.
I think guys who have come through training in the last 5 or so years will find themselves severely lacking when they come to leave the air force and present themselves for interview for another job. They will need to do a lot of study.
I am not an "aged" QFI but this is what I personally believe.

P.S. I hated trying to teach basic AeroD when half the class were Aerodynamics University students at UCL, I know they new more than me and could dispute some of the old basic theories that were in AP3456.

[muppetofthenorth]

Now, just because you were not spoon-fed the info in ground school is not an excuse not to find out, surely? You could have a) asked the QFI/ground instructor b) asked the guy who maintains the aircraft c) looked in the publications about the type or d) Googled.

I know the details because I went out of my way to find them.

But there was no need to.

That knowledge was at no point required for the 'course'. Yes, if we were curious we could easily find out - as I did - but as I say, you have have misinterpreted my original post. The knowledge is there, but unnecessary*.



*or so the people who decide such things think. Blaming us is unfair.