RAAF Training at East Sale? [Archive]

john_tullamarine

11th Dec 2009, 03:04

I don't understand why they want to put this thing at West Sale.

Apparently, that's the Boeing consortium's plan and, as is the normal thing, a matter for business plan speculation and risk assessment .. the customer's tender doesn't have any specific interest in any specific location. On the other hand, it does appear that East Sale is moving towards becoming the RAAF's training hub so East Sale or West Sale might fit in with that paradigm ? I can't see any specific indication of aerodrome in the Thales' advert so I guess it could either be for East Sale or West Sale.

There is no infrastructure there, its an uncontrolled airfield,

You would need to read the tender to see what is required and what development might be required at West Sale as a consequence.

the weather is unsuitable to do basic training and flight screening.

A commercial risk consideration for Boeing in these days of performance based contracts.

wind and cloud conditions were hard enough for a qualified RAAF pilot, let alone a beginner.

ditto.

I can't imagine how you'll attract staff (both civilian and military), to work in Sale.

ditto.

VH-XXX

11th Dec 2009, 04:46

Sale is not a bad place to live at all. It is a medium sized country town, it's just not a capital city (although it is classified as a city itself).

To put it into perspective it has McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bill, Subway, LaPorchetta, a shopping centre with Target, Dick Smith and a hardware store to rival Bunnings. I can think of much worse places to be based!

I am surprised to say that the weather is bad. It is standard country Victoria, it is low lying so doesn't suffer from low cloud like say Magalore, it gets smooth easterlies and the occasional fog like anywhere else. Provided you don't want the heat of QLD, the only decent place would have to be mid NSW coast perhaps.

GAFA

11th Dec 2009, 05:05

When BAe/Ansett were looking at setting up their training airports in VIC were looked at but were knocked back mainly due to the weather reducing the amount of training days, hence Tamworth was selected.

mcgrath50

11th Dec 2009, 05:43

I can't see the BAe op not getting the tender again, they run a very tight ship there!

dostum

11th Dec 2009, 05:55

I never trained there myself, but BAe produces a really good product that (mostly) goes on to pass at 2FTS or Army Helo training.

If you want to stand up a new operation like this one, there will be years of 'lessons learned' and complexities. Where will their 'ex-military' instructors come from?

I guess I am asking: why move this thing (at enormous cost) when the incumbent is working well?

layman

11th Dec 2009, 06:51

Sale - east or west doesn't have the country & western music festival. That has to be a selling point over Tamworth

FoxtrotAlpha18

11th Dec 2009, 21:23

Tenders close in Feb, and a decision is due in May/June for an 'Interim BFT'. Has to be up and running by Jan 1 2012 :eek: and will run for a minimum of six years until 5428 finally gets its sh!t together! :hmm:

There are four tenderers - three of them have pitched the old NSC HQ at WSL with a view to moving to ESL if they win 5428, while BAE is sticking with TMW for now.

dostum

11th Dec 2009, 23:57

The NSC HQ is now the Sale college of TAFE. These buildings that Thales and Boeing propose to use are all very occupied at the moment. They haven't even started building the new TAFE in the middle of town.

The other point is accommodation. I doubt there is enough on base accommodation or married quarters to handle an influx of approx 200 staff and students. You would have to build more accommodation in addition to upgrading the NSC facility. Who is going to pay for that?

DeeJayEss

12th Dec 2009, 04:28

Howdy, long time listener, first time caller, just thought I'd input to this.

Sale doesn't have Taco Bill anymore, but it has Red Rooster, who do a defence discount. :-)

Sale actually gets predominant westerly winds. I recall multiple occasions when the wind is actually anywhere between SW and NW, and if strong enough, throws the crosswind limit out for their nav training aircraft, the Kingair. The easterly is in the afternoon when the sea breeze kicks in.

Training at ESL at the moment in Air Combat Officers (both front and back seat 'navs' if you will, as well as ABMers who move off to Willy after ten flights), Navy Observers (TACCO/Co-Pilot role in helos), the School of ATC and Photographic. Central Flying School teach instructors and is the home of the toolettes.

West Sale would be okay, just depends on the aircraft flow and what operations are being conducted. On a normal day down there, they would normally send a few CT4s to WSL anyway to get them out of the ESL CCTA. While WSL is still technically a CTAF, they would still have a certain amount of protection offered by ESL ATC, as WSL needs a clearance for entry when ESL R358 is active. The frequency used for CTAF Ops at WSL, IIRC, was 133.6, the ESL ACD frequency.

Not looking for an argument, just offering some clarification having been down there not too long ago.

Oh yeah, and it is a nice place to live. Single guys, hate it. Families, love it.

Arm out the window

12th Dec 2009, 05:47

My vote's for Mareeba. Any takers?

Gundog01

12th Dec 2009, 08:47

McGrath50,

I can't see the BAe op not getting the tender again, they run a very tight ship there! Yesterday 16:05
dont be fooled by what you see at flight screening or BFTS as consisteing of a 'tight ship'. Behind the scenes the contract negotiations and butt licking are unbelieveable.

Dotsum

Who is going to pay for that?

That is the point of a tender...they produce a product for a fixed price which the government pays for. That is what happened in Tamworth with Bae and that is what will happen with the next contract.

DHA will build and lease houses (without direct cost to the tax payer) and as for Civvy instructors same as any other Civvy job...look after yourself.

For many years training was conducted at Point Cook, arguably worse flying conditions that East/West Sale. Sure the weather is worse and less "sun" days, but we are teaching people to fly an aircraft in war time, granted it is ab-initio, but if you have to pick your way through a cloud deck to complete aeros above than so be it...harden up the training...too many lemons getting through

VH-XXX

12th Dec 2009, 15:14

There are plenty of houses, the RAAF when they need them just lease them through the estate agents. We owned one one leased by raaf and it sat unoccupied for 9 months!

Ok so they 'did' have a Taco Bill !

DBTW

12th Dec 2009, 20:35

People who live there.

Wasn't the idea to have military super bases? When this tender was under construction, East Sale was nominated by some DOD training big wigs to be the training super base...probably because many of the influential retired ex CFS blokes have bought farms and houses down that way.

Then recently, the Gubmint said they didn't want super bases because they realised what the political fall out would be when places like Pearce and Richmond "had" to go.

Sale may well be a nice place for families and CFS types. If VH-XXX's selection criteria for a good place is
To put it into perspective it has McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bill, Subway, LaPorchetta, a shopping centre with Target, Dick Smith and a hardware store to rival Bunnings. I can think of much worse places to be based!
On those criteria, Tamworth is a better place by far. Last I looked, Tamworth had 3 Macdonalds, 3 KFC, 2 Subway, a new Oporto, 2 Red Roosters, a brilliant main street, 4 large shopping centres/areas with Target, K-Mart, Big W, Dick Smiths...and a real Bunnings!

People like to live in Tamworth. That includes many serving RAAF folk!

As with Sale, some don't like it in Tamworth.

Why not Sale? Most servicemen don't want to get sentenced to CFS or the other training units based there. Let's face it, whilst important, the various training functions performed at Sale are hardly mainstream military so only certain people will want to go there. I did not like my times in Sale because it was too cloudy, too cold, too windy, too wet and too far away from where I wanted to be. (If weather is the defining criteria, then Tamworth wins again.) Adding BFTS to Sale would just add some more people who can't wait to get away, along with those who want to stay because they become settled.

Similarly, the BFTS at Tamworth is not mainstream military, just an important training function. NB: There are now 10 years worth of settled serving RAAF folk along with those who have retired in the area and got jobs at BAE.

Remember, getting people to volunteer for instructor duties at BFTS is much harder than getting them over to Pearce. That relates more to the job than the location. Despite the rose tint hindsight view of people talking about Point Cook, it was never a highly favoured military posting for the same reason (along with the low performance aeroplanes, hard course, crap weather and the close proximity of the sewage works.)

dostum

12th Dec 2009, 20:36

Gun Dog,

A very interesting comment you make about 'too many lemons getting through'. I believe the standard of training is as high as it has ever been.

Too many lemons are getting through because it is much harder to scrub someone now.

In the old days the CO or CFI had the power to suspend someone on a 'scrub ride'. But now, there are an inordinate number of hurdles to jump over if you want to get rid of a non-performer. ARB, Notice to Show Cause, ROG,....the list goes on.

slow n low

12th Dec 2009, 22:58

I have heard several 'little birdies' make mention of the CT4B's lack of crashworthy seating (which allegedly does not meet ADF Op Airworthiness requirements) hence tenders offering different types. :ooh:
Does the CT4F address this issue?? If the CT4 is off the list, what will BAE bring to the table?

oldpinger

13th Dec 2009, 00:28

Dostum,
I assume you speak from a position of intimate knowledge of the suspension system of BFTS?

Your last para is offensive and belittles the professionalism of the instructors concerned.

:mad:

BombsGone

13th Dec 2009, 02:18

Dostrum,
I also disagree with your assertions about the suspension system at BFTS. It is the same as the scheme used at 2FTS and on operational conversions through out the ADF. A bit more staff work and rigor is required than the old days but it is by and large as fair a scheme as possible. Students must still meet the standard set by the CO and the XO.

Back on the topic of Tamworth vs Sale there are pluses and minuses for both locations.

Tamworth:
- Fewer cloudy days.
- Established facilities and staff.
- Uncrowded airspace.

Sale
- Existing RAAF location.
- Multiple postings available to military staff in location (locational stability).
- Fewer thermally and turbulent days (read impossible to teach attitude flying).
- Relatively uncrowded airspace.

Neither location could be described as a place the average 18 year old joining the RAAF would aspire to live in. Not saying it’s all bad, once settled in location married staff don’t mind either.

dostum

13th Dec 2009, 02:40

I apologise if you find my thoughts on the 'old days' offensive. People out in the FEGs are wondering why the standard of graduate has dropped. People are failing conversions that they shouldn't be failing. I can say from experience that conducting IF remedial training in a level 5 sim is novel, but you shouldn't need to do it.

One reason is the hours on pilot course have been cut. The other reason is: less people are being suspended than should be the case; and the point I try to make is its harder to actually suspend someone you know will struggle, even though the interests of 'procedural fairness' have been served.

DBTW

13th Dec 2009, 03:08

:E
Bombsgone says Fewer thermally and turbulent days (read impossible to teach attitude flying). is a good feature for Sale.

Gundog1 said before Sure the weather is worse and less "sun" days, but we are teaching people to fly an aircraft in war time, granted it is ab-initio, but if you have to pick your way through a cloud deck to complete aeros above than so be it...harden up the training...too many lemons getting through is a good feature for Sale.

If weather is to be the deciding factor you can't have it both ways.:= The implication from the above quotes is that ADF sky gods should be taught to handle a bit of bad weather and cloud, but we must keep them clear of turbulence? Actually, they need to learn to fly in all weather, and the training system will cater for that regardless of location. The issue becomes how long the training takes. It seems we are all agreed Tamworth has the better weather for elementary training because it doesn't stop you from flying there as much as it does in Sale. From the other perspective, as the weather is worse at Sale, courses will take longer and will therefore be more expensive.

If city facilities are going to be the deciding factor and people want stability of service because Bombsgone says
- Multiple postings available to military staff in location (locational stability). is an important factor, it sounds like Sale units should already be vying to move to Tamworth because it's a bigger city with more facilities!

Having said that, I can't imagine why young servicefolk would want to waste away their years in rear echelon jobs like those at Sale? If we are picking the right people, most should want to go back to their operational types and units.:ok:

Oh, one other thing. The BAE college has a big sign out the front saying it's the ADF BFTS, and for those who don't know, the ADF BFTS is run by the RAAF. That would mean Tamworth should have
- Existing RAAF location. added to Bombsgone's list of positive points.

gunshy67

13th Dec 2009, 05:08

Ahh the joys of a “little bit of knowledge”.

The decision to base the Ansett/Bae College at Tamworth was based on many factors. How do I know….? I had a small part in it.

Final short list was Sale (due, I believe, to some old timer RAAF pressure); and Albury and Tamworth.

The NSW government provided funding of $7million for an upgrade for an ILS at TW and upgrade of Gunnedah for close-by, out-station training.

ILS was already in East Sale but that was not going to sway the vote due to weather and other logistic factors.

Albury was a close second due to similar advantages to Tamworth but the final decision was Tamworth.

I have spent many years flying at both East Sale and Tamworth and I have yet to see a Winjeel come to the hover in front of the CFS hut in the wind in Tamworth.

You don’t use a tough environment to introduce trainee pilots to learn to fly. You start in the best one you can get.

Later you train to cover all the other “stuff” like how to fly at 100 feet, at night at 500 kits and kill the naughty people.

Tamworth has accommodation for over 200 students. A 50+ aircraft fleet; superb accommodation; excellent lecture and theory facilities (including a wind tunnel)…………..so, as a tax payer why would I want to see my tax dollars funding and replicating a place that already does the job in a most cost effective manner?

The RAAF reactivate squadrons at various times. Why not reactivate the historic base of RAAF Base Tamworth. See Google for RAAF Tamworth wartime airfield

Happy Christmas to all whomever and wherever your are.:ugh:

DBTW

13th Dec 2009, 11:07

The RAAF reactivate squadrons at various times. Why not reactivate the historic base of RAAF Base Tamworth. See Google for RAAF Tamworth wartime airfield

Ah yes! Tamworth! A major historical home of RAAF CFS! Indeed it was the wartime home of CFS until 1948. So CFS will be going back to their roots when they close East Sale and head north to the nice weather! :ok:

dostum

13th Dec 2009, 19:29

Good point DBTW. It is unlikely that 5428 will be going to ESL, and here is why:

Defence needs to save 20 billion dollars :ooh: over 10 years (a little thing called the SRP). You don't make those sorts of savings by spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading bases (which would be required for BFTS at Sale). You save billions by selling off bases.

The Australian reported that Sale and Richmond would be the prime candidates for base closure. It would be cheaper to consolidate all ADF flying training (including 2FTS, CFS and SAW) at a combination of Wagga/Oakey or Tamworth.

Gundog01

13th Dec 2009, 22:33

Dotsum, dont forget they recently spent several million $ moving OTS from point cook to flash new facilities at ESL. Besides where is the logic in moving 3 units (CFS, 32SQN, SAW) from ESL, when you could move just 1 unit (BFTS) from Tamworth to ESL and still have a majority of training (except 2FTS) at a single location.

Sell off richmond as a second SYD airport and use the funds to consolidate training down in Sale....let the fun begin.

john_tullamarine

13th Dec 2009, 22:36

so, as a tax payer why would I want to see my tax dollars funding and replicating a place

.. and the basis for your presuming that such might occur is ? The world is now one of cold reality and fixed price contracts in the military scenario.

DeeJayEss

16th Dec 2009, 19:09

@flypast9999 --> I'd be fairly confident is suggesting that the changeover would be timed on completion of a given course, just as any major syllabus change should (loathe to say would, because you just never know the circumstances).

DBTW

19th Dec 2009, 19:24

Much comment about fixed pricing! Not sure why anyone would imagine BFTS could be a fixed price contract? In military flying training, where considerable flexibility of throughput is required, fixed pricing would seriously limit the ADF's options.

Similarly, not sure why people would think spending money on air base facilities precludes that air base from closure? Building new facilities is usually a very good indicator that some bureaucrat will see an opportunity to make some money out of a Sale! :}

FoxtrotAlpha18

20th Dec 2009, 03:08

More likely is a fixed price for a minimum of X number of hours per month/year over a set period, and then if a surge is required a provision for additional charges would be built into the contract.

Oh, and ESL is VERY MUCH on the RAAF's radar screen as the future location for BFTS and probably 2FTS, or whatever their eventual structure is! There is a strong desire to centralise all RAAF officer training. :ok:

DBTW

20th Dec 2009, 06:18

Not particularly meaning to be too melodramatic or alarmist, but who is coming up with the centrally based training idea? :confused:

What we need is some fairly clear military thinking, and not some classic, strategically naive concept that only someone stuck too long in a pure training environment could concoct. It is simply not good enough to justify a centralisation of training capability based on the desires of a few serving and ex CFS/SAN folk living around East Sale. Only a potential enemy wanting their attack options simplified benefits from centralised training, especially when the suitable training bases already exist in better places elsewhere in the country?

In the interests of cost effectiveness and value for the Defence dollar, maybe the idea of a remote CFS has run its course?

Using similar justification to the centralisation advocates, why don't we get rid of the unit which is remote from the main training bases? What we call basic and advanced flying training really don't mix that well "on airport," nor does Nav/Obs training mix with either. Even with 5428 rationalisation, it would be better and more cost effective to have individual aircraft fleet locations separate, with embedded training cells on location. The truth is this situation already exists, so CFS is already an expensive duplication of effort and an inefficient utility of scarce assets.

Whilst I understand our "non-streamed training to Wings standard" has bestowed a certain aura upon CFS in Australia, and the organisation does deserve some respect, it is, at the end of the day, just a unit flying what everyone else on earth categorises as a basic training aircraft! Remember only we call the PC9 an advanced trainer, and most other air forces consider flight training to be a bit of a back water, respecting the central bodies considerably less that what we seem to do. (Not meaning offence, just telling it how it is.)

NB: I have already had my turn in uniform so the final decision won't have immediate affect on me as much as it may on some, so I am relatively easy either way. But the safety of my country is important to me. For that reason I ask whether we really want the ADF exposed to attack by putting all our training eggs in one basket?

And with or without a central training base, what military mission does CFS perform that couldn't be more efficiently peformed by the individual training units? If we really want to save some money, let's pay off a few non-core military missions, especially those which are duplicated...like CFS.:ok:

Freebags

20th Dec 2009, 14:41

I don't believe the perceived risk of centralising your basic and advanced pilot training would be high on the list for any potential foe to target. Perhaps getting past the other more significant "centres of gravity" first would be a higher priority.

Secondly, CFS conduct a very important job for the wider ADF. I believe the RAAF in many areas conducts business in a better way than many of the worlds other air forces. Without drifting too far off thread, I'll just say that having a unit such as CFS that's external to the squadrons, checking each squadron's flying standards, is just another valuble layer in maintaining those standards not to mention safer flying operations.

No I've never worked at CFS.

As for consolidating initial pilot training to one base - sounds like common sense. Did I say "common sense"?

DBTW

20th Dec 2009, 20:14

An interesting view from Freebags, although I do not believe the traditional military threat is what we are talking about with bases anymore. Decentralisation increases the survivability of separated schools against more modern threats.

Whilst there may be some benefits with centralised basing, consider the accepted view in the fighter force where they believe it is important to have the 2 Hawk squadrons separated in order to avoid saturation in the training airspaces of both Pearce and Williamtown. In that conversation you are talking about an additional 3000 hours (or so) by bringing the squadrons together!

Bringing the two flying training schools together in one new location will add something like 40,000 flying hours to that base. To be frank, with what already happens at Sale there is simply not enough airspace, clement weather or runway facilities to entertain such an increase.

I believe the RAAF in many areas conducts business in a better way than many of the worlds other air forces. is a nice, comfortable "my team needs my support" kind of thing to say. But it is a very subjective view with no factual basis. I am absolutely certain all air forces feel the same way about their own capabilities. Most first world air forces have comparable safety standards to the RAAF/ADF, whilst few adopt such a high profile "CFS style" foot print. Even those that do, do not allow it the same levels of power and influence as ours enjoys.

Remember initial pilot training is already consolidated in one place, as is advanced flying training. My suggestion would be to add the small CFS element to each base and consolidate use of the aircraft fleets more efficiently. That would be common sense. Did I say "common sense"?:ok:

Arm out the window

20th Dec 2009, 21:59

As we all know, CFS doesn't just check instructors, it trains them (amongst other roles).
Having a common initial training standard for QFIs enhances standardisation, lets you post people between units more easily and helps ensure undergraduate students get consistency between the two schools.

Not sure about this 'high profile CFS style footprint' you're talking about, DBTW - not everyone has a fun time on their cat check, I guess, but having an external agency as a kind of auditor is a good idea, in my view. If the individual flying schools absorb the instructor training and checking roles, it all gets too incestuous.

DBTW

20th Dec 2009, 23:01

You have a point Arm out the window. There are some issues that need addressing in a full and educated review. I am not necessarily saying I have all the answers. I am saying that rather than just accepting some areas and positions as inviolate, we need to ask hard questions and get some properly considered answers.

My straight question is that with all the pressures on equipping and manning front line units, do we need a totally independent flying unit such as CFS to maintain the honesty and integrity of our training processes, let alone the performance of the operational units?

One way to overcome incestuousness within a unit is to have an embedded cell tasked with the locally relevant CFS mission answerable to an external entity higher than the unit CO, thus giving them a degree of local autonomy. In effect, CFS could be an experienced Wing Commander sitting in an office at a central location rather than having a fully established flying unit with several different aircraft types based away from the main schools.

Remember the RAAF lost the sole right to flying training with the emergence of civilian aeroclubs and flying training institutions in the post WW2 era. The uniformed position was next eroded by the use of contractors to run the BFTS and to support 2FTS, and that happened more than a decade ago. Indeed, many of the contractors employed have several magnitudes more military experience than those left in uniform! In line with the movement at the schools, it can also be said that instructor training is no longer the sole domain of CFS. If a school is about syllabus and ethos, then there are other ways to achieve it without having to waste expense on a remote and separate facility.

I suppose one of those ways is to bring all the training to one location, including the CFS. I have tried to address that in my earlier post.

The method I am advocating takes away the systemic incestuousness that has allowed CFS to become a self perpetuating myth. What makes our CFS military? In Australia, many people involved with flying instruction have become career instructors on a revolving roster of jobs in and around East Sale. Their front line experience, if they have any, has faded to the point of being non-existent, and their military contribution to the ADF is seriously degraded to the point where I wonder whether they should wear a uniform. Many air forces agree this kind of person is needed, but in most other air forces, these people have limited career prospects in that promotion is stopped around the FLt Lt/Sqn Ldr equivalent level. Similarly, many services contract the training mission to civilian companies. Australia is quite unique in allowing a full pyramid of career structure to someone who may never have served on a real operational aircraft!

Although I did say it earlier, the answer might not be to get rid of CFS. I am saying that we should review and rationalise it rather than just accepting its right to life. My next conversation starter is what I have said above. For leadership of the CFS mission, I would place the onus with the ADF safety folk. Such a command could also designate agents in the various operational types to ensure proper monitoring of their training performance.

Roller Merlin

21st Dec 2009, 01:13

DBTW
you are spot on regarding the CFS role and the career instructors there, some of whom may be increasingly out of the loop with current operations. My view is that rationalisation is needed in our flying training system across the board. It is increasingly outdated, and proposed reforms to bring it up to date have been intercepted by well meaning but stupid senior defence personnel over the years. However the defence reforms that put big wheels in motion gloss over such minor issues in the conquest to save huge $$ out of big contracts and pushing Defence units onto cheaper ground and airspace.

IBFT and the now basketcase of Air5428 is such a quest and invariably will be decided (late) on "value for money" -ie when all factors are put in the pot and stirred to a Labor tune, the cheapest jackpot will be the winner, regardless of pilot opinions on weather, aircraft choice and suchlike. Old boy politics will be played behind closed doors to gain contract traction and gather intel on competitors. Ministers will have to be pleased, or decisions will be delayed during a possible election year 2010. I reckon this one will go down to the wire as there are so many interested parties, and companies with deep pockets wanting feet in the door. The sad thing is that after it all, more money to be squeezed from the ADF and our training systems may not get much better at all.

Captain Sand Dune

21st Dec 2009, 01:52

The most significant factor (in my opinion, anyway) that hasn't been clearly stated so far is local political interests.
The local member for New England (assisted by BAe) is lobbying mightily to keep the IBFT contract in Tamworth. This is reported on reasonably frequently in the local press and on the local TV news.
A brief look at the internet reveals that the member for Gippsland (assisted by Boeing and Thales) is similarly lobbying for the IBFT contract to move down there.
The award of the IBFT to a particular company will not in any way infer that that particular company will be the preferred bidder for 5428. Given that, I personally I can't see why another contractor would risk the huge capital outlay for what is only an interim contract.
However that's only my opinion, and I get the feeling that in the end the outcome will be in favour of which electorate succeeds in their lobbying efforts - not want the ADF wants.
To the best of my knowledge the announcement will be in March/April 2010. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out between now and then.

CharlieLimaX-Ray

21st Dec 2009, 02:49

Poor darlings being paid by the taxpayer to learn to fly and then being forced to live in Sale while they do there training!

Next the RAAF may want them to go off to a war zone, hope it is somewhere nice and warm and not to noisy or frightening!

dostum

21st Dec 2009, 05:05

Captain Sand Dune,

The local politicians down in Sale have been talking this up like it's already theirs. They have been spruiking a lot of garbage about how the weather in Sale is superior to Tamworth's. You can do a direct comparison on the BOM website , and it proves Tamworth is less cloudier, less windier and less rainier in every single month.

The ESL airspace and ILS will become totally maxed. How will ATC handle all the extra traffic? I've heard that BFTS is the busiest unit in the RAAF.

I think those companies are trying to get their foot in the door at WSL on the assumption that 5428 will be setting up at ESL. A very dangerous (and expensive) assumption, because there are no guarantees about what 5428 will look like and where it will end up.

East Sale - Very good for CFS, but totally inappropriate for BFTS.

Arm out the window

21st Dec 2009, 07:42

I don't think you can say Sale's totally inappropriate for BFTS - as someone stated previously, Point Cook did the job for a long time and it's no better than Sale Wx wise.
There's a heap of airspace - it would just need to be managed better, and using West Sale for BFTS circuit ops would work.
Having said that, I don't particularly want to see BFTS move from where it is, but Sale could be made to work without too much drama, I think.
As SGT Schultz says, 'I know nothing', but from the rumour mill and what's in the Gippsland local papers, someone's pushing the Sale barrow pretty hard.
As I said before, though, Mareeba has to be the location of choice. :)

gliderboy

21st Dec 2009, 08:38

Arm,

Unless it is located in Maroochydore or Noosa (Lake Weyba), then I won't be coaxed out of retirement to fly!

Merry Xmas

Gliderboy:ok:

DBTW

21st Dec 2009, 19:32

Point Cook did the job for a long time and it's no better than Sale Wx wise.

Good on you Arm. Point Cook did do the job for a long time. I remember instructors use to threaten all kinds of crime to avoid a posting there because the job wasn't as glamorous as Macchis in Pearce, the weather was pretty crap and the areas were constrained for the high number of airframes needed to fulfil the RAAF run BFTS mission.

Having said all that, I believe the shift away from Point Cook also related to the giant wheel turning to the "we should only use one type for basic and advanced flying training" position, as it does every three decades or so. Unfortunately the plan didn't work for the same reasons it never works, and as an added disaster the turbo-prop protagonists managed to foist a basic trainer into the advanced flying training role!:yuk: (Now we suffer international derision with our publically funded, premier military formation display team whispering around in an unimpressive buzz box! I say bring back a jet!)

In operating the PC9, originally envisaged as a CT4 replacement, I suppose the RAAF could have chosen Point Cook as the training base, but instead they kept Pearce. My guess is that decision was made due to better facilities, airspace and weather over west? And because more instructors wanted to go to Pearce, not Point Cook!

Read my earlier post on why Sale won't work. Combining the 2 existing schools in one base will add something like 40,000 more hours per year to an already busy base. Besides, last time I was there, the military ATC had manning problems and regular tower closures! It is a fact, Sale airspace will be seriously constrained by bringing in one additional school, let alone two.

Even geography works against Sale with mountains on one side and a cold sea on the other! You know our modern sky gods simply hate flying small aeroplanes over mountains and water? :sad:

FoxtrotAlpha18

22nd Dec 2009, 00:16

Oh come on - does anyone really think the basing location of a unit is decided upon based on where the instructors want to go??? :hmm:

Get real folks - it's all political pork barrelling!

Whilst the weather at Pearce might be good, students are coming to 76 and OCU with little IFR experience, and the airspace sucks!

The RAAF would love to centralise all Hawk training at Willy - ONE maintenance organisation, ONE squadron, ONE HQ etc - it'd save squillions! But do you think the member/s for whatever seat Pearce is in will let 79 go without a fight? And yes, there are airspace issues at Willy too, and then there's the member/s for Willy who will no doubt be fielding the increase in noise complaints (just wait till the JSF arrives!!!).

The pork battle is going on with IBFT at the moment too, where all the local, state and federal politicos in Tamworth have got behind BAE's bid, while the local and state govts in VIC are supporting Boeing's, Raytheon's and Thales/FTA's bids at WSL!

The base in the most marginal seat will always win...:suspect:

DBTW

22nd Dec 2009, 03:36

The RAAF would love to centralise all Hawk training at Willy - ONE maintenance organisation, ONE squadron, ONE HQ etc - it'd save squillions!

That is a view, FA18, although you need to have a chat with your 78 Wing boss. I am clearly not as close to the action as you are with a handle like yours, but Mr 78 Wing doesn't seem to share your opinion, and he says so in last month's Australian Aviation...he reckons another unit flying 3000 flight hours at either place will bulk out the airspace.

Now please don't get to me on the Willy airspace not being big enough,:suspect: because it is probably the most inefficiently used airspace in the Southern Hemisphere, but high level bosses like Group Captains seem to get listened to when they speak... or is he a pork barrelling for both Pearce and Willy?:)

dostum

22nd Dec 2009, 04:14

DBTW,

I think Foxtrot18 was referring to the airspace at Pearce being crap. He's right. There's just too much traffic with 79, 2FTS and the RSAF in the same tight wedge of airspace. It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.

Here's a thought: move BFTS to PEA and 2FTS to Tamworth! Tamworth has close to double PEA airspace. A slower BFTS type aircraft would be much more suited to the confined training areas at PEA.

As a QFI you could have a more desirable aircraft in a country town (2FTS at Tamworth), or a less desirable aircraft in a premier location (BFTS at PEA). You therefore wouldn't have everyone kicking and screaming to go to PEA (and stay there forever).

FoxtrotAlpha18

22nd Dec 2009, 04:29

That is a view, FA18, although you need to have a chat with your 78 Wing boss. I am clearly not as close to the action as you are with a handle like yours, but Mr 78 Wing doesn't seem to share your opinion, and he says so in last month's Australian Aviation...he reckons another unit flying 3000 flight hours at either place will bulk out the airspace.

I read the same article - quite a good one actually - those guys often get some quite good insights!

I can't and won't speak for the 78WG or any other boss, but believe me when I say he has some extremely good insights and ideas into future air combat training. I would suggest however he may have been quoting the current softly softly, easy does it company line rather than his personal opinion (which may or may not differ) in the article. I think you'd have to walk a long way to find a Group Captain who will go on the record with a personal opinion about any policy if it even slightly differs from that of AFHQ!

The 79/Pearce study was conducted by a couple of One-stars earlier this year with input not just from 78WG, but also from 76SQN, 81, & 82WGs, ACG, TFSPO, DMO, BAE and others, and the eventual recommendation will come from DCAF's office.

And while moving 79 to Willy would require some rejigging of the airspace as well as other on and off-base adjustments, nothing is an automatic deal-breaker! The hard part of upping the ante at Willy will be dealing with the locals re noise... :*

I think Foxtrot18 was referring to the airspace at Pearce being crap. He's right. There's just too much traffic with 79, 2FTS and the RSAF in the same tight wedge of airspace. It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.

Correct - it's maxxed out!

Arm out the window

22nd Dec 2009, 05:38

Gliderboy, Merry Xmas to you too mate - Maroochy would also be a fine option - God knows why the Army didn't take it over Oakey when they had the choice. As for coming out of retirement, I'm as we speak working at a unit not a million miles from one of the ones being discussed in this very thread, who'd've thunk it eh!

DBTW, funny how things work out; as you may know, they were doing big runway works at Pt Cook in the late 80s to bring the PC9 there as the basic trainer (which is how come we got the fat tyres - to land on the parallel grass runways), with the ill-fated Wamira one of the other contenders. CT4s were to retire, Macchis were going to soldier on under the LOTEX program. A cunning plan, as Blackadder would say, but things sure didn't turn out as predicted. Maybe all training will be consolidated at Maroochy, stranger things have happened!

Chronic Snoozer

22nd Dec 2009, 15:47

It's only a matter of time before there's a midair.I've lost count of the number of times that quote has been used and yet....nothing has happened.

@Roller Merlin: now basketcase of Air5428 is such a quest . Care to elaborate?

Centaurus

23rd Dec 2009, 07:48

In the old days the CO or CFI had the power to suspend someone on a 'scrub ride'.

And that was the problem. There was no accountability and although there may have been trainee pilots scrubbed for perceived poor performance there were an equal number scrubbed very late in the course when commonsense dictated a change of instructor should have been the first solution. I recall a typical case where within two weeks from graduation a student was summarily thrown off course for putting a Wirraway on it's nose at the end of it's landing run. The student was blamed for being too harsh on the brakes. It was later discovered the brakes had been poorly serviced and the brake tolerances were quite different from the original specification. The fact that all instructors knew Wirraway brakes were savage, was glossed over. The student training costs must have been substantial so you would have thought the CFI or CO would have taken a closer interest why this particular student was scrubbed.

That sort of scrub mentality was common in RAAF flying training schools simply because no questions were asked and the student was thrown off the base back into civvy life within 48 hours of getting the chop. The fact the poor bastard may not have had a home to go back to was never considered.

I saw this at first hand on many occasions. And this casual attitude by RAAF instructors went completely un-challenged and it cost tax payers plenty. Many scrubbed students went on to make excellent airline pilots.

When I joined the RAAF as a trainee pilot we started at Point Cook. Among the flying instructors at that time were experienced former wartime pilots and three of these were hard-bitten screaming skulls whose reputation for scrubbing students was well known. In later years all three became DCA Examiners of Airmen. A few years back I met up with my former CO of Point Cook. He was a former Catalina pilot during the war and was shot down by the same Japanese units that devasted Pearl Harbour. He was 90 when we had coffee in Sydney together.

When I told him of the fearsome reputation three of his instructor staff had under his command at Point Cook, he was astonished and admitted he had no idea about their reputation. He thought all his instructors were fine gentlemen - after all he was "Sir" to them and treated him with the greatest respect. He was blind to their cruelties to students because no one talked about such things in the Officers Mess.

All instructors whether civilian or military must be reasonably accountable when it comes to teaching people to fly. Some should never be instructors. But I am all for a requirement to first warn students by whatever administrative means is deemed appropriate by the training agency, before a decision is taken to stop further flying training if a civilan flying school - or to scrub a military student. An instructor should not be God when it comes to accountability.

Chronic Snoozer

23rd Dec 2009, 20:55

'Many scrubbed students went on to make excellent airline pilots.' But would not have cut it in the RAAF. Not sure of the relevance here.

An instructor should not be God when it comes to accountability. Fair suck of the sav, those days are long, long gone. In fact I hazard to guess the pendulum has swung well and truly the other way and thats the issue at hand. Something must have changed for people to be saying things like People out in the FEGs are wondering why the standard of graduate has dropped. People are failing conversions that they shouldn't be failing. I can say from experience that conducting IF remedial training in a level 5 sim is novel, but you shouldn't need to do it.

Brian Abraham

24th Dec 2009, 00:14

Centaurus, how right you are. Recently attended a reunion where a chap related his story of being scrubbed on his final handling test on a Vampire at Pearce for a less than pretty landing. Now who doesn't have one of those irrespective of experience. What cost that to the taxpayer?

Roller Merlin

24th Dec 2009, 05:15

To those who think that anyone could be scrubbed from RAAF Pilot Course in Phase 5 or even on wings test nowadays, without having a track record of poor performance and failures up to that point, you are mistaken. Those days are long gone.

These candidates always have a history indicating they would have difficulty passing operational conversions, but may have other circumstances and personal issues that COs consider are related, and so COs sometimes keep them on course in their interests and the possibility that they may improve. In many cases they do, but some get to the final month of course where their problems in areas like as weak multi-tasking, prioritisation and problem solving get fleshed out. Candidate performance is very carefully monitored nowadays and they have every access to remedial training, counseling, and redress avenues. Sometimes the candidates see their final chop ride in simple terms, such as crap landings, but invariably there were a whole gamet of things consistent with previous performance, they were not aware of in flight, that they should have been managing. An unfortunate cliche, but it is like giving them a longer rope for which to hang themselves.

ozbiggles

24th Dec 2009, 11:58

Yes, the phrase Pearce is a place waiting for a mid air has been used a lot.
Yes, there has never been a mid air
Want to have a guess at how many near mid airs occur there and but for a few seconds in time, good airmanship and pure luck other times didn't happen?

Chronic Snoozer

24th Dec 2009, 13:52

Half a dozen per decade. That are reported.

I think the point is - anecdotally the place is ripe for a midair. What has been done about it?

DBTW

24th Dec 2009, 18:59

On the thread topic, it seems we are agreed Pearce has busy airspace with 2FTS, 79 Squadron and the RSAF flying training unit present. With this loading, and with Pearce being anecdotally "ripe for a mid air," then the question on sending all training to East Sale has been answered. It can't be done because there would be too many aircraft in the airspace thus making it unsafe to operate, especially with those vicious high mountains and the incredibly cold sea nearby!;)

Truckmasters

24th Dec 2009, 20:12

I'm a few years out of date on the sale issues.
However unless my current information feed is completely b/s I don't see how sale can't do the job with airspace.
There is approx 15-20 PC9's, less than 10 CT4's and less than 10 Kingairs operating fulltime from sale.
So the airspace "experts" are telling us that that current number of aircraft has already maxxed out the airspace which essentially consists of a 50NM ring around ESL. Sure there is water and mountains as a risk factor. Survival kits, rescue choppers and water exposure suits normally solve those problems of risk relatively easily.

Yep I agree Sale can't handle the extra workload of BFTS, there is no spare aerodromes for circuit work. Has someone blown up West sale, Bairnsdale, Yarram? Besides those councils wouldn't have been interested in the extra revenue from the extra movements caused by all the CT4 equivalents. And the runway works for a heavy trainer (a light aircraft) would have been way too much to spend if required

Yep I definitely agree with the airspace experts, compared to Pearce and Willy, Sale looks ways too overcrowded.

Now as to weather that's a different topic. Tamworth might not have the rain and cloud. However how much training is lost to hot weather, either from delayed flying or ineffective training due the student suffering heat stress.
Neither place is perfect.

How about traffic avoidance. The TCAD fitted to the current CT4's needs a radar to interrogate the transponders for the system to work. Tamworth doesn't have one so half the time the system is ineffective. Sale does have one (although it used to be u/s half the time) which would make the system work better. Tamworth used to do half of its training in airpace that anyone could drive through the middle of anyway.

Sarcasm, cynicism and facts aside
It will get decided by Politicians, absolutely nothing to do with which is better for the job.

DBTW

25th Dec 2009, 10:21

Hi Truckmaster. Merry Christmas!! It has been a good debate so far.

It will be a political decision of course, and despite your vehemence, location will have everything to do with it.

If you want to talk politics, let's just agree the whole IBFTS fiasco (in allowing East Sale into the picture) is about being seen to enable a competing bid against the incumbent, and very little to do with any other of the various well made discussion points put forward in this thread.

Of course everybody understands a move of basing and re-equipment at BFTS as a 6 year interim measure, with no guarantee of any post 5428 work, will never be cost effective against an established supplier in a location with the overheads already largely covered.

Centaurus

25th Dec 2009, 12:23

Would just LOVE to know the names of those 3 who eventually joined DCA etc. Private post me if you wish. Probably flew with them at some time.

It is too long ago and by now they are probably not of this earth..no names no pack drill..

woodja51

25th Dec 2009, 12:34

does anyone know what the 330 job/s are that QinitiQ are looking for at all.. (seems like lots of military recency on this thread so thought I would inquire?)

Has it got anything to do with the RAAF tanker MRTT?

Trying to find out what the contract details might be before going further into it..

sorry ... to explain...ex RAAF tanker QFI thinking about a move from the sand pit..

WJA

dostum

25th Dec 2009, 20:37

And that is exactly the point DBTW. IBFT is not just about plonking 30 aircraft at WSL on 01 Jan 2012 and kicking on from there. := It requires infrastructure (millions of dollars worth, not crap demountables or old TAFE buildings), catering, curriculum development, training new instructors ...If you are going to do this properly it will take years to set up. :ugh:

Season's greetings to you all!

gliderboy

25th Dec 2009, 22:16

Come on Woodja!!

you have been threatening that for years!!

Gliderboy
;)

woodja51

26th Dec 2009, 08:58

Hey glider boy... yeah ya right... bit of slow learner ... just after some info on the offer if any one has any..

getting itchy feet to do something different...but agree I am great at procrastinating..:rolleyes:

oldm8

26th Dec 2009, 10:29

To put it into perspective it has McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bill, Subway, LaPorchetta, a shopping centre with Target, Dick Smith and a hardware store to rival Bunnings. I can think of much worse places to be based!This has had me laughing all night. VH-XXX you are obviously easily pleased.

Wow a Dick Smith and a Target in one town. Hold me back!

I can only think of one place worse to be based. Sumbadeeeeeeeee!

Seriously though can anyone hazard a guess as to what they might pay on this gig? I can't imagine too many wanting to take a pay cut to go live in Sale. Bzzzzzzzzzz.

rapiddescent

26th Dec 2009, 10:32

mmm, I must agree with Oldm8 on this one.

Sale is great for the first week you are there - but only if you have just off the bus from Tindal!

Ref 79 and 76 merging - dead in the water!

Arm out the window

27th Dec 2009, 21:49

And of course for all your clubbing needs, get yourself down to Ringers!

VH-XXX

27th Dec 2009, 22:53

Hey man don't knock Ringers, the cowboy look with old boots and horse shoes and lanterns hanging off the roof still has a while to run!

I don't live there and never have (lived out of town), went to school there, it's not a bad place, Melbourne is getting closer to it all the time due to road upgrades (it's now a sub 2 hour trip), you could do a lot worse. Many RAAF personnel have been happy with their time there being a good place for families etc, good schools etc, but agreed not all that exciting for a single guy. Tom Cruise types need not apply.

oldm8

27th Dec 2009, 23:48

Excuse my ignorance but being somewhat involved in the training system myself I am surprised I had no idea that this was even being considered.

Is this in competition for the existing contract currently fulfilled by BAE at YSTW? Or is it to replace 2FTS?

FoxtrotAlpha18

28th Dec 2009, 00:59

I notice there's an article on IBFT with some good 5428 gouge in the latest Australian Aviation (blue 787 first flight cover), but in summary...

Air 5428 will replace BFTS and the PC-9s of 2FTS, CFS and 4SQN. The original plan was to have a privately funded solution (like Singapore has with Lockheed) but this has been shelved.

The Interim BFTS (IBFT) will cover the period between the end of BAE's current arrangement and the start of Air 5428, or about 6-8 years from 1/1/2012. BFTS had to be re-tendered because of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement which prevents govt contracts being rolled over indefinitely. :*

Three of the four IBFT tenderers have pitched their bids at WSL because there's a perception that the RAAF wants all future officer training centralised at ESL, while BAE has pitched its bid as an extension of the current arrangement at TMW. IBFT will tell you they have no site preference... :}