PDA

View Full Version : RAF EFT


Roland Pulfrew
31st May 2013, 12:30
I know it's the Daily Mail, but I surprised that this hasn't (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333721/RAF-unable-teach-new-pilots-months-propellers-fall-training-aircraft-mid-flight-grounding-entire-fleet.html) been picked up on yet.


RAF unable to teach new pilots for five months after propellers fall off two training aircraft in mid-flight grounding entire fleet
The German-built Grob 115E Tutor aircraft have not flown since January 9th
It follows two incidents at RAF Cranwell in January and in August last year
On both occasions propeller came off in flight forcing an emergency landing
Row has broken out between manufacturer and maintenance contractor


Got to love some of the comments from the "public" though :D:D

Duncan D'Sorderlee
31st May 2013, 12:37
It's also in the Times:

Pilot training halted after RAF planes lose propellers in flight | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3779092.ece)

Duncs:ok:

Roland Pulfrew
31st May 2013, 12:42
In the Times too, must be true then. One wonders how many RAF pilots it affects given that the last IOT graduation was how many? 20? Total!!! :eek:

:(

Duplo
31st May 2013, 12:50
Not only RAF EFT but RN and Army too. There is also a worrying backlog of instructors to train...

airborne_artist
31st May 2013, 13:10
Way back on 1979 the jointly staffed but RAF housed and equipped RN EFT at Leeming was struggling with the combination of weather, student numbers and airframe availability/serviceability.

FONAC's staff suggested setting up an EFT flight at Yeovilton using some Chipmunks from Roborough.

Suddenly the RAF found the required assets and we got through on time (helped by a massive improvement in the weather, mostly).

How many Chipmunks could now be pressed into service? :E

Roland Pulfrew
31st May 2013, 13:12
How many Chipmunks could now be pressed into service?

And/or Bulldogs? :E

Davef68
31st May 2013, 13:33
What happened to the ex-JEFTS Fireflies?

BEagle
31st May 2013, 14:37
A defence source told the Times: 'There is now a bottleneck. No military pilot has started training for six months and there is no solution in sight.'

According to the source a row has now broken out between the defence contractor Babcock and the German manufacturers about who was responsible for the failures.

The source added: 'The aircraft are provided by Babcock under a PFI. The contract is to provide flying hours per year.

'They are wriggling out of it saying it is a design fault, which is surprising considering the the supply of flying hours is the essence of the contract.'


Wonderful things, PFIs....:hmm: Strange how we never had these problems when we did things properly, with Tiger Moths, Chipmunks, Bulldogs etc. - and even ab initio Jet Provost training. But no - the bean counters decided to contractorise things and to use this wretched Plastic Pig which clearly isn't up to the job.


'The MOD can confirm that the Babcock Grob Tutor aircraft are currently undergoing a pause in flying operations whilst an on-going mechanical issue is investigated.

'The impact to the training pipeline is being mitigated by the adoption of a number of measures including the use of other platforms.'

And which 'platforms' might those be?

A 'pause in flying operations'? A 'pause' of nearly 5 months....:\ It's lucky that there's no real urgency to train military pilots for what passes for the UK Armed Forces these days...:rolleyes:

UAS life must be a barrel of fun. What a wonderful start to a youngster's flying career - 'The props are falling off the Plastic Pigs, but we've no-one left with any idea about how to fix them back on again.... But hey, you can go hill walking instead!'....:mad:

Party Animal
31st May 2013, 14:48
I may be simplifying things far too much here but surely if Babcock are contracted to provide x flying hours per year, the risk of how they achieve that lies with them?

In other words, they should either spend their own money on alternative aircraft and argue with the Germans in their own time or pay the costs for a decent civilian flying school to train our upcoming pilot bretheren till they are ready to go again?

Or let me guess - the PFI contract says that any failure to meet agreed targets will lie entirely in the hands of the MOD.

:mad:

Wander00
31st May 2013, 15:08
Well, we have brought Hunters back (in a way), so why not other aircraft. Would the RAF allow flying training in "permit" aircraft? Probably not. Gliding (shades of the nascent German Luftwaffe in the 30s) - there's an idea. Send them all to Syerston.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
31st May 2013, 15:23
or pay the costs for a decent civilian flying schoolNooooooooo!

I did a flying scholarship at one of the best civvy flight schools, and they taught me how to fly safely and well.
Then I joined a UAS and they started from scratch..., and taught me how to master the aircraft, which is completely different. My UAS instructors had flown Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Lightnings (2 of them), Canberra, Hercules, Nimrod, Shackleton, Liberator; and they taught me stuff both inside and outside the cockpit that proved profoundly useful later.

Gliders with RAF Instructors would be a much better bet.

Roland Pulfrew
31st May 2013, 15:28
Or let me guess - the PFI contract says that any failure to meet agreed targets will lie entirely in the hands of the MOD.

A bit like SAYS/PAYD when the contractor goes on strike. Or when your tanker doesn't meet it's AAR clearance. Or when G4S fail to provide your security. Be interesting to see how MFTS goes.......

Bean counters; can't live with them and can't shoot them!

Onceapilot
31st May 2013, 16:29
Its back to all through jet training then, like what I did:ok:!

OAP

angelorange
31st May 2013, 16:43
There were problems in the past with this and other platforms. Some just said "oh, they all do that !" .............until Haddon Cave:

Royal Air Force Nimrod XV230 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_XV230)


Hope it gets fixed soon.

GalleyTeapot
31st May 2013, 17:43
No secret and old news.

Lima Juliet
1st Jun 2013, 06:51
Fox3

Then I joined a UAS and they started from scratch..., and taught me how to master the aircraft, which is completely different. My UAS instructors had flown Spitfire, Meteor, Hunter, Lightnings (2 of them), Canberra, Hercules, Nimrod, Shackleton, Liberator; and they taught me stuff both inside and outside the cockpit that proved profoundly useful later.

That might have been the case when you joined up, but these days a lot of the UAS/EFT graduates have to put in serious work (for both ground exams and flying tests) to achieve a PPL. It's not their fault, it's just that they don't get the same exposure anymore :(

I guess this is one of the reasons why the CAA/EASA could not agree with 22Gp regarding exemptions for licensing in CAP804 - we just don't train them like we used to.

In humble opinion, of course...

LJ

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Jun 2013, 11:46
So, how many hours would a UAS student get now in 3 years? I got 144, including solo formation flying. The PPL(A) was a giveaway if you had attained PFB.

Hueymeister
1st Jun 2013, 12:07
Can anyone post the article from the Times? Can't access it here....

whowhenwhy
1st Jun 2013, 15:07
I'd been led to believe a couple of months ago that an approach had been made to Syerston to conduct EFT on the Vigilant. Anyone able to confirm?

Hueymeister
1st Jun 2013, 15:54
Depends if the system will wear the guys not doing spinning and aeros...it works fine if you want to fly for the airlines, but what about our potential fast-jet types? Send them to the Blades? Load that onto the Tucano cse?

AtomKraft
1st Jun 2013, 16:04
My Daughter's in the UAS and she had one air experience flight last year.

Must be a bit annoying.

I hope the MoD has a penalty clause in place should Babcocks fail, for whatever reason, to supply the 80,000 flying hours p.a. that they are being paid for.

Qfeye
1st Jun 2013, 16:46
Yes it is annoying. The hrs contracted is about half what you've quoted. Never the less, still poor

Lima Juliet
1st Jun 2013, 17:14
Fox3

These days the UAS 'core syllabus' is 31 sorties if I recall correctly. A student will normally fly 10-12 hours a year over the 3 years to achieve it. A bit different to your 144 hours in 3 years isn't it?!

LJ :ok:

PS. Last time I looked EFT was about 55-60 hours over 6 months.

betty swallox
1st Jun 2013, 17:50
angel orange.

I think to compare this situation to the loss of XV230 to be niaive in the extreme.

lj101
1st Jun 2013, 17:51
Huey

The Times article as requested;

The RAF has been unable to teach new pilots to fly for nearly five months after its fleet of 90 training aircraft was grounded over safety fears.
The suspension of all flights by the RAF’s Grob 115E Tutor trainer after two planes shed their propellers in-flight was a “complete fiasco”, defence sources said.
Princes William and Harry are among pilots to have done their basic training in the Tutor, which is described by the RAF as a cost-effective aircraft with “docile handling characteristics and good performance”.
It is used by all new crews for the RAF, Navy and Army, as well as university air squadrons.
The aircraft are owned and maintained by the defence contractor Babcock, under a contract that was originally negotiated in a government Private Finance Initiative. It is supposed to provide 80,000 flying hours a year across several aircraft types.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that the 90-strong fleet had not flown since an accident on January 9 at RAF Cranwell, in which a plane’s propeller broke off in flight.
The same aircraft type suffered an identical accident on August 23 last year, also near RAF Cranwell. In both cases, the planes made forced landings without serious injury to the pilots.
The first incident was attributed to a lightning strike, but the RAF grounded its fleet after the second. Another incident in 2004 saw a propeller on a Tutor break up while it was conducting aerobatic manoeuvres.
A defence source said: “There is now a bottleneck. No military pilot has started training for six months and there is no solution in sight.”
The source said that the RAF, the aircraft manufacturer Grob, and Babcock were disputing where responsibility for the problem lay. “The aircraft are provided by Babcock under a PFI. The contract is to provide flying hours per year. They are wriggling out of it, saying it is a design fault, which is surprising considering the supply of flying hours is the essence of the contract.”
It is understood that Babcock does not agree that there is a question over liability for the problem or dispute between the parties.
After such a long gap, instructors will be forced to retrain on the aircraft.
Another defence source said: “They are trying to put a new prop [design] on but the new prop is not working well, there are problems with the oil supply. The remedy is proving a failure. It’s a complete fiasco.”
The source added: “There are big knock-on effects. We have got guys who’ve been delayed phenomenally.”
“This is deeply worrying,” said Julian Brazier, a Conservative member of the Defence Select Committee. “An extended pause in basic flying training will have a knock-on effect on pilot numbers. The long-term consequences are very serious.”
Defence officials said that the immediate impact of the crisis had been mitigated because an overall reduction in RAF numbers had reduced the need for new crews.
The MoD said: “The Babcock Grob Tutor aircraft are currently undergoing a pause in flying operations whilst an ongoing mechanical issue is investigated. The impact to the training pipeline is being mitigated by the adoption of a number of measures, including the use of other platforms.
“Whilst the Tutor aircraft is not being utilised to deliver basic flying training at this time, flying training activity as a whole has not ceased.
“There has been no impact to the front line.”
Babcock declined to comment, though an update is expected from the firm today.

Hueymeister
1st Jun 2013, 18:28
Thanks very much Lj

chanter
1st Jun 2013, 19:22
Surely it is up to Babcocks as the contractor to provide either an alternative aircraft that is fit for purpose at their cost to meet their contractual obligations and then argue the toss with Grob. The whole debacle is a disgrace.

Can I suggest to Babcocks that they could lease Lycoming motored DA40's in the meantime and get our EFT going again!!

airborne_artist
1st Jun 2013, 19:37
It's time to dig out the contract and see what the SLAs are and what is contracted in such an event.

Or find that such an event had not been foreseen in the contract :\

Fox3WheresMyBanana
1st Jun 2013, 20:24
So, the student gets one flying hour per 3 weeks of University term time?

I take it the concept of continuity is considered passé these days?

I got 33 hours in my final term at Uni. I weep for the current generation.:{ I really do.

Bob Viking
2nd Jun 2013, 05:23
Fox3.
The UAS chaps will effectively get those hours just for fun. They will then go on to complete EFT just like everyone else.
When you look at it like that it's not as bad as you think.
Although of course it's not like it was in your day!
BV ;)

BEagle
2nd Jun 2013, 06:22
The UAS chaps will effectively get those hours just for fun. They will then go on to complete EFT just like everyone else.


Which might be true for those committed to the RAF, but destroys the traditional UAS raison d'être.

If students want to join a military organisation at university, a better option these days would be the URNU.

oldmansquipper
2nd Jun 2013, 07:21
“There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey.”

― John Ruskin

PFI?

ACW599
2nd Jun 2013, 08:39
>Which might be true for those committed to the RAF, but destroys the traditional UAS raison d'être.<

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Lima Juliet
2nd Jun 2013, 10:16
I've long been of the opinion to scrap the flying on UAS and just run it as an Officer Cadet Trg Unit. Send any of them expecting to go Aircrew to a Service Flying Club to do their PPL, which would cost ~£4,500 for an EASA or ~£3,500 for the less useful CAA NPPL. That would save a heap of cash for starters. Then send the others flying on trial flying lessons twice a year at around ~£200 per student. Again a massive saving.

First intro to military flying should be EFT and its 55hrs on 16 or 57 Sqn at soon to be Cranwell.

It'll all be different when I'm in charge! :}

LJ

Mandator
2nd Jun 2013, 12:05
Is the grounding of the Little White Grubs an MAA thing? I can find no EASA Airworthiness Directiive making any mention of these propeller failures and requiring any form of fleet grounding or inspection regime.

If I were Babcock (and I'm not) I would point out to the MOD that EASA say the aircraft is safe to fly, therefore if you want to ground them and have a new propeller, then you pay for it. However, if EASA smacks an AD on it, then the ball is in Babcock's court. Until EASA does that there is no 'unsafe condition'.

Lima Juliet
2nd Jun 2013, 14:39
I think the Tutor has a different prop? You know how the MoD like to screw about with something that works already?! The Vigilant is the same, it's a Grob 109B that's been screwed about and has more problems than the bog standard 109B.:ugh:

LJ

just another jocky
2nd Jun 2013, 16:45
Don't you just love it when folk who think they know a lot, draw conclusions and suggest advice, actually know diddly squat and look silly. :=

Come on guys, making suggestions on the back of minimal information is not very clever.....then again, this is P Pr.....etc. :rolleyes:

This is old news, is in hand and should be sorted shortly. Leave it to those who know what is going on.

The B Word
2nd Jun 2013, 17:54
Leave it to those who know what is going on.

Isn't that one of the reasons why we're in the position we're in? No primary training aircraft 6 months down the line?

The B Word:cool:

just another jocky
2nd Jun 2013, 18:05
B Word - no.

BEagle
2nd Jun 2013, 18:27
I've long been of the opinion to scrap the flying on UAS and just run it as an Officer Cadet Trg Unit.

Any sensible student would join URNU or the OTC instead. Who on earth would wish to bugger about at a non-flying UAS?

Send any of them expecting to go Aircrew to a Service Flying Club to do their PPL, which would cost ~£4,500 for an EASA or ~£3,500 for the less useful CAA NPPL.

A invitation to tender would need to be let to the flying training industry. Any favourtism towards Service Flying Club would be robustly challenged. Your figures for the EASA PPL or NPPL are way, way out of date, incidentally.


That would save a heap of cash for starters.
The price of everything, the value of nothing.

Then send the others flying on trial flying lessons twice a year at around ~£200 per student. Again a massive saving.

Absolutely no point in that.

First intro to military flying should be EFT and its 55hrs on 16 or 57 Sqn at soon to be Cranwell.

No, assuredly not. A flying scholarship between university and Cranwell, perhaps. Then a proper BFTS course on proper miltary training aircraft for ALL ab initio pilots, not just those deemed FJ material - and forget all about this ridiculous penny-pinching EFT nonsense.

Gericault
2nd Jun 2013, 18:38
Not to mention the damage this may be doing to the wider reputation of the RAF outside of the UK. Some countries hold the RAF training system and its products as their "holy" (pbuh) grail. They might even pay a packet to have a piece of it; that might be embarrassing.

muppetofthenorth
2nd Jun 2013, 19:46
Any sensible student would join URNU or the OTC instead. Who on earth would wish to bugger about at a non-flying UAS?

Because an URNU or OTC would be bugger all relevance to someone wanting to be in ATC, Logs, be an ABM or any other of the entire gamut of ground-based roles and deprive them of the opportunity to be around career RAF pers in an RAF environment?




Just guessing. I don't now, I was only on a UAS, didn't fly (out of choice) and then joined up. And did all that this century.

Basil
2nd Jun 2013, 19:49
One wonders how many RAF pilots it affects given that the last IOT graduation was how many? 20? Total!!!
Nikita and John - Thank you! :E

BEagle
2nd Jun 2013, 19:58
Some countries hold the RAF training system and its products as their "holy" (pbuh) grail.

It was...once.

No longer, it seems.

Because an URNU or OTC would be bugger all relevance to someone wanting to be in ATC, Logs, be an ABM or any other of the entire gamut of ground-based roles and deprive them of the opportunity to be around career RAF pers in an RAF environment?

Utter bolleaux. The purpose of the RAF is to fly and fight. The purpose of those who don't is to support those who do. A UAS without any flying would hardly be a sensible environment within which to inculcate prospective members of any other branch.

I was only on a UAS, didn't fly (out of choice)...

You should damn well have been ordered to get your sorry blunt backside off the ground! Not having the opportunity to fly is one thing, choosing not to do so is emphatically something else!

muppetofthenorth
2nd Jun 2013, 20:09
The purpose of the RAF is to fly and fight. The purpose of those who don't is to support those who do. A UAS without any flying would hardly be a sensible environment within which to inculcate prospective members of any other branch.

Bold: Unquestionably. But not everyone who joins can/will fly.
You don't need to fly to be able to learn about the RAF. The UAS allows it's students to do Summer Vacation Attachments every year, shadowing officers on station during their day-to-day work. For 99% of them no flying is involved. Does that mean they don't learn anything? If so, why do it?

You should damn well have been ordered to get your sorry blunt backside off the ground! Not having the opportunity to fly is one thing, choosing not to do so is emphatically something else!

I was given every opportunity, slots were available. However, I knew I was never going to fly in the RAF (my eyesight being well beyond limits) and had colleagues on the UAS desperate to get as many hours as possible. I was only too happy to allow them the 'extra' opportunities.

airborne_artist
2nd Jun 2013, 20:25
Because an URNU or OTC would be bugger all relevance to someone wanting to be in ATC, Logs, be an ABM or any other of the entire gamut of ground-based roles

Poppycock.

Logs - Purser/QM are direct equivalents.

ATC/ABM - navigating an URNU PB would build skills. Reading/using a nautical chart, dealing with tides/tidal flow, using navaids etc. might look different on paper, but is still good experience. Met is met whatever uniform you wear and as important to the seafarer as it is to the aviator.

RAF Regt are slightly interchangeable with the infantry ;)

The whole purpose of URNU/OTC/UAS is to deliver a more rounded individual. I can't see any disadvantage in a future FJ pilot (or any other RAF officer role) knowing how to do a section attack or plan and execute an entrance to a harbour, in fact I can see lots of positives.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Jun 2013, 20:28
shadowing officers on station during their day-to-day work. For 99% of them no flying is involved.

That's another big change then. On the UAS I flew Lightning, Jaguar, Wessex, Hawk (8 trips). I was given pole time on all of them, oh, and 2 weeks in Gibraltar - very educational. The 'shadowing' on my first attachment co-incided with a Squadron Boss's leaving do, so I had to spend my first 13 1/2 hours drinking :\

Lima Juliet
2nd Jun 2013, 21:45
BEagle, those prices might be "way out of date" outside with civvy flying clubs but take a look at the prices of a SE(P) with instructor at Waddington or Halton Flying Clubs (or others) and they charge about £100 all in per instructed flying hour in a C152. Looking at Halton's website they charge £15 per CAA exam.

So for a CAA NPPL with 32 hours that is £3200, plus £90 for the exams, plus a £50 GP's medical => easily within reach of my ~£3500 estimate.

For an EASA PPL with 45 hours then that is £4500, plus £90 for the exams, plus a Class 2 medical around £150 => £4740 which is slightly over, but they may be able to do a deal?

Look at the RAF Microlight Flying Association and you can fly a 3-axis 80hp all-metal low-wing bubble-canopy EV97 Eurostar for just £70 per hour with an instructor!

So, no, I do not believe my numbers are "way out of date"...

I agree that the idiotic commercial business folks would want to go to "invitation to tender". However, I would have thought that you could recognise the value-added of learning to fly at a Service Fling Club that a commercial flying school can't offer? Ethos? Military and ex-Military members? Government Aerodromes? Military oversight? Use of Military Mess accomodation?

The "invitation to tender" would have to be written to include these as part of the statement of requirement and then that would exclude the majority of civil flying schools.

Also, they used to give flying to non-flying branch UAS studes, so why not gve them trial flying lessons? That is the point that I was making.

There is every reason not to join URNU or OTC if you want to join the RAF and you like flying and/or aircraft.

Sorry, mate, but I see this as a very workable solution if UAS had to go in it's current guise. As we start to feel another budget squeeze for SDSR 2015, then why not? We are already skint you know! :ok:

LJ

BEagle
2nd Jun 2013, 22:35
The flying scholarship scheme of the past was one thing - professionally run commercial flying training organisations provided 30 hours of training.

With the best will in the world, you couldn't expect a RAFFCA club to push its members aside just to fly students which the RAF couldn't manage to train itself. The infrastructure (aeroplanes, instructors, facilities) is unsuitable for more than a few trainees at a time. A handful of enthusiastic part-time instructors and a non-uniform fleet of aircraft are inadequate for such a task - anyone agreeing to a contract to do so would be on a hiding to nothing. It would be unlikely for even the best run flying club to be deemed appropriate for the task; in the past, CFS used to take a very close interest in the training organisations used for flying scholarships and I cannot see that being any easier with the advent of MAA et al....

Incidentally, microlight training has been considered before - and rejected.

Train properly, or don't bother.

That's another big change then. On the UAS I flew Lightning, Jaguar, Wessex, Hawk (8 trips). I was given pole time on all of them, oh, and 2 weeks in Gibraltar - very educational.

Indeed! On the UAS at which I instructed, ground branch students were expected to fly air experience trips. But of course we didn't have non-RAF ground branch trainees back then. If a ground branch APO had asked not to fly, Questions Would Have Been Asked! We also tailored the air experience to suit their potential branch - I well remember doing some flight profiles for an engineering branch student who wanted the information for his thesis, for example. And one of our more enthusiastic young ladies was an admin branch APO who subsequently did very well in her service career.

Join a UAS and choose not to fly - ridiculous!

muppetofthenorth
2nd Jun 2013, 22:49
If a ground branch APO had asked not to fly, Questions Would Have Been Asked!

Well, for one I was an Off Cdt, but that's very much not important.

Questions were asked. And I answered them in the exact same way I have done on here. And they were accepted in the manner in which I hoped they would be; not so much a case that I didn't want to fly, just that I didn't feel I'd get more out of an hour's AEF than a potential pilot wanting to improve his/her skills would.
Perhaps had I been offered a "tailored" trip like you describe I might have thought differently, but at the time it was not an option nor possibility I was aware of.

Dan Winterland
3rd Jun 2013, 02:43
I was one of the last full time EFT QFIs in the RAF. As the EFT in all three services was going to the lowest bidder, one question constantly being asked was "What if the provider goes bust or fails/refuses to provide the service". The answer was "That won't happen as there are enough contractural safeguards to prevent it".

We all thought the whole system was badly thought out and naieve in it's concept - and estimates to how long it would take to fail seemed to be a fairly consential 10 years amongst us cynical QFIs.

OK, it's taken nearly 20 years - longer than we anticipated. But we did know it would come.



What a farce!

Lima Juliet
3rd Jun 2013, 05:19
BEags

http://www.haltonaeroclub.org.uk/images/flightline_page.jpg

Looks like a "uniform fleet of aircraft" to me. They could teach aeros in the Citabria as well. This RAFFCA Club has 2X full-time instructors, 1X Examiner, 1X RT Examiner and 3-4X part-time instructors. They could take half a dozen UAS studes a month and turn them into PPLs and the airfield they are based at has plenty of accomodation should they need it.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmicrolight/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/DE5578C1_5056_A318_A8DB2582B8DB02E6/IMG%5F6868%2Ejpg

The same airfield uses 2X EV97 Eurostars (yes, they are "uniform") to provide a 30 minute AEF 'trial lesson' to Recruits who want to fly. The small cadre of instructors are annually CFS checked.

I'm pretty certain that if there was a possibility of being funded then plenty of RAFFCA Clubs would raise their game and get a business model that worked. Seeing as the RAF are unlikely to need more than 60-80 pilots per annum for the foreseeable future, then training the 'lucky few' at a Club would be doable in my humble opinion. Don't forget my 'pie in the sky' suggestion is that we only replace the UAS flying element, the 2X EFT Sqns would carry on as normal - maybe with Fireflies with prop blades that don't fall off! :ok:

LJ

BEagle
3rd Jun 2013, 07:01
Perhaps had I been offered a "tailored" trip like you describe I might have thought differently, but at the time it was not an option nor possibility I was aware of.

Did you even ask?

Using RAFFCA or RAF Microlight hobby resources for a formal training task is emphatically NOT the way to go!

Some prospective students now prefer to stay with their ATC squadrons for as long as possible, rather than join the UAS. I don't blame them - UASs have been destroyed by the appalling Marston report.

Mandator
3rd Jun 2013, 07:14
Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E. Therefore, EASA has yet to determine that an unsafe condition exists. This continues to suggest to me that the issue is one of MOD duty of care and that the contractor will not be liable for the costs.

LJ: The Evektor you illustrate is certificated on a Permit to Fly. I would expect some regulatory issues with the CAA if it were to be used in the way you suggest.

Lima Juliet
3rd Jun 2013, 08:11
Mandator - factory built microlights on permits to fly can be used for flying instruction. Check out the BMAA website.

BEags - I guess you and I differ on that then. :ok:

LJ

Roland Pulfrew
3rd Jun 2013, 09:07
LJ

They might be "uniform"

But I would argue they aren't "in uniform".

I'm with BEags on this one. We (the RAF) should own our own fleet of aircraft to provide UAS/AEF flying training. NOt sure that anyone actually makes an aircraft that meets the requirements anymore, although the Tutor was pretty good at meeting the requirement.................
right up until the prop blades started falling off!!

For EFT, what we really should have is this :E :

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/1/2/5/1962521.jpg

Dan

I was one of the last full time EFT QFIs in the RAF

What about 15 (R), 57 (R) and 85 (R) (although the latter is now disbanded) sqns? ;)

angelorange
3rd Jun 2013, 17:11
That G120 TP full certification has been delayed by a gear up landing and still has many of the G115e issues re: vis and wide canopy arches, low wing loading effects at LL etc.

It does have an MT prop though but costs $$$$ cf basic piston trainers.

But Singapore is interested. India and Botswana went for new version of PC7 instead.

angelorange
3rd Jun 2013, 17:37
Several of those Civvi FIs who taught RAF Scholarships in the early 1990s were invited by CFS to look at employment JEFTS with Huntings. Quite a few are still working for Ascent and Babcock today - now several with 17 years QFI experience being examined through both Military and CAA tests every year to keep the stds and skills up. The need for aeroplanes to fly is being resolved - just not a quickly as most would like.

Instructors are now very hard to find in Civvi street due to the shiny jet syndrome, P2F and entitlement culture - no need to build hours if you have 150k to burn on Integrated/MPL plus TR for 6 month job !

Flap62
3rd Jun 2013, 17:37
Matador,

An aircraft can be airworthy but totally unsuited to the task of EFT/UAS. If it is deemed not to be certified for aerobatics/spinning for example then it may be perfectly safe to fly but has fallen outwith the parameters of the contract therefore the contract provider is responsible.

angelorange
3rd Jun 2013, 17:41
"Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E."

AAIB report on last prop loss imminent.

Previous one: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_030406.pdf

NutLoose
3rd Jun 2013, 18:39
Suprised they never went for something like the SF260, can even be armed, metal aircraft fully aerobatic, used by lots of Airforces

SF-260 (http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Products%5CPages/SF-260.aspx)

They also do a turboprop version that goes like hot snot

http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Media/Lists/ProductFactSheets-Fact%20Sheets/SF-260TP.pdf

Lima Juliet
3rd Jun 2013, 18:51
Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E. Therefore, EASA has yet to determine that an unsafe condition exists. This continues to suggest to me that the issue is one of MOD duty of care and that the contractor will not be liable for the costs.

How's your German? ;)

http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/lta/2004-352R2.pdf

Lima Juliet
3rd Jun 2013, 18:56
I found an English version:

http://www.caa.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pageuploads/AD-NOTE/AD-2004/060_LBA_D-2004-352R2.pdf

:ok:

BEagle
3rd Jun 2013, 19:00
The SF260 was looked at as a Chipmunk replacement back in about 1970....

Unfortunately, it wasn't selected. CFS were concerned about the retractable landing gear, if I recall correctly. But even though selected for political reasons, the Bulldog was a very reasonable alternative - far more suitable for UAS/AEF work than Das Teutor.

NutLoose
3rd Jun 2013, 19:04
Leon that AD was superceeded, as a licenced engineer I know where to look...:O

See

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/search/simple/result/)

Search Hoffman and you get

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0110.pdf/AD_2006-0110_1


..

Lima Juliet
3rd Jun 2013, 19:07
Fair dos, me old. But at least I know how to post the link! :ok:

http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0110.pdf/AD_2006-0110_1

EDIT - Bugger, you beat me to it! :\

NutLoose
3rd Jun 2013, 19:12
:E





....

Wander00
3rd Jun 2013, 19:39
See lots of SF 260s over here, usually low flying. My stupid dog tries to chase them down the garden!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
3rd Jun 2013, 20:30
Some mates in the US let me have a go at their mock Air Combat in SF260s. It was nice to fly and seemed pretty idiot-proof - I'm quite sought-after as a Test Idiot you know ;)

greenedgejet
3rd Jun 2013, 21:06
Not easy to find 100+ servicable machines in a hurry but for a much delayed MFTS perhaps a mix of:

PAC CT-4 Airtrainer Trainer Aircraft - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/pac-ct-4-trainer/)

and

Extra 300L Aircraft (http://www.bruceair.com/extra300l/extra300l.htm)

or

Air Force Academy Buying 25 Cirrus SR20 Trainers | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/air-force-academy-buying-25-cirrus-sr20-trainers)

and

SF-260 (http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Products%5CPages/SF-260.aspx)

Now with glass cockpit: http://www.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-US/Media/Lists/PhotogalleryHomePageStructureList/SF-260TP%20new%20glass%20cockpit_8750.jpg



And for MELIN/45SQN proceedural work pre B200:

Why Buy DA42 | Diamond Aircraft (http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft/da42/)

Quite a few were owned by the now defunct Cabair Group.

Then there's the Tucano replacement...........

Cheaper than PC21 (nice tho that is!):

IAF inducts PC-7 Mk-II turbo trainer aircraft | The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iaf-inducts-pc7-mkii-turbo-trainer-aircraft/article4769141.ece)


or fanjetaviation.com: About Us (http://www.fanjetaviation.com/about-us/)



Sadly the following are long gone to other airforces and Test Pilot schools (maybe a few left at Leicester):

Slingsby T67 Firefly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_T67_Firefly)

Mandator
3rd Jun 2013, 21:47
Hi LJ: As you see, still nothing from EASA on Hoffmann propeller blade failures. So, is there an unsafe condition? Not in the eyes of EASA, it seems. If I were the contractor, I think I would be standing behind that as my defence.

Don't forget that even wholly military aircraft types can also hit the buffers for a fleet-wide airworthiness problem (eg, the Red Flag Buccaneer, and there are many more instances), so the military procurement chain in itself is not complete protection from this situation.

Qfeye
3rd Jun 2013, 22:21
Gents, whether or not EASA decide the prop is an airworthiness problem, when flown under the military LAFT2 contract the DH can ground the fleet. DH is held personally accountable for the safety of the air platforms in their AOR. Haddon Cave and the MAA saw to that. 2 similar prop failures in 6 months. Would you sign it off?
Work for a solution is ongoing and near conclusion.:ugh:

Lima Juliet
4th Jun 2013, 05:51
QFeye

Well said. It looks like a history going back to 2004 with these ADs, so the DDH/ODH have done the right thing with the 2 recent events. The AAIB will probably make their full reccomendations soon as well.

LJ

Duncan D'Sorderlee
4th Jun 2013, 07:09
LJ,

Other than the fact that they resulted in blade failures, I don't think that the 2004 incident is related to the current problem.

Duncs:ok:

Mandator
4th Jun 2013, 07:32
Qfeye: You are quite right, but it is the therefore the operator which has 'grounded' aircraft and not the regulator.

As LJ says, the AAIB will soon report (the sooner the better really). If the AAIB makes any Safety Recommendations, these must be considered by EASA and the propeller manufacturer, Hoffmann. This might result in Hoffmann issuing a Service Bulletin which might then be mandated by an Airworthiness Directive issued by EASA. It will then be up to the contractor to comply with the terms of any new Service Bulletin and the associated Airworthiness Directive. That is the regulatory process, but it might not be quick enough for the DH.

Thomas coupling
4th Jun 2013, 09:21
If you buy a ford Ka and then rallye it without modding it....what do you expect.
Babcock went in cheap and now there is egg all over their face. Let's see how they worm their way out of this.

Flap62 has it in one.

Mandator
6th Jun 2013, 12:18
The CAA General Aviation Report - Occurrences, published on 6 June gives the following insight to the problems:

"RPM decay during display practice.

A progressive level of RPM decay was experienced during the course of the sequence and was unacceptable towards the end of the flight. During the penultimate stall turn, an RPM decay to 1700 was experienced with associated oil pressure drop to 30psi. Tech Log entry made. Engineers report states that following installation of the MT propeller on this a/c type, several confirmed reports of RPM decay have been reported during certain aerobatic manoeuvres especially in vertical or near zero G conditions. The inverted oil system is suspected as being a contributory factor and the manufacturers and maintenance organisations are in consultation. All company owned a/c have been temporarily removed from operation until advice from the OEM has been provided."

Rigga
6th Jun 2013, 17:29
I would think that any mandatory action effecting an international grounding of the type/fleet would let the supplier off the hook.
It's not necessarliy the suppliers fault and the failures may yet be attributed to doing Aero's? (I don't know which operators ac failed) which might put the cost back to the operator again.

Even so; It only takes money to start flying again - and when you pay you can take you pick on what to fly in.

just another jocky
6th Jun 2013, 18:32
Guys, you have about 2% of what is going on. When it's all sorted, I'm sure we can discuss it 'til the cows come home, but until then, in the immortal words....

.....if you know, you ain't saying sh1t, if you don't know, you don't need to.

Sorry, but all this speculation, whilst heartening that you are all concerned, is not achieving anything.

Standing by for incoming. :uhoh:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th Jun 2013, 18:53
.....if you know, you ain't saying sh1t, if you don't know, you don't need to.

I remember OC Ops saying that once when the Staish suddenly disappeared from sight.:uhoh:

TEEEJ
12th Jun 2013, 15:49
I noted a Tutor in the circuit at Cranwell during 16L.

just another jocky
12th Jun 2013, 16:20
Apart from a brief lull over the last couple of weeks or so, they've been flying there for a while now.

TEEEJ
13th Jun 2013, 11:51
Just another jocky,

Thanks for the update. :ok:

rmac
15th Jun 2013, 16:00
Was at a civ flying school yesterday where a number of AAC pilots were catching up with their EFT....is that where we have come to ??

Wont mention which one, don't want the opposition taking out our future Apache pilots before they even have wings :}

Mandator
24th Jun 2013, 19:58
Found this report on another Forum:


Boscombe Down’s Grobs should be back in the air soon. (I have informed that Wyton’s started flying last week). Of the above seven aircraft two had the new props fitted and were fully ‘buttoned up’, two were having engine runs, one was having its new prop fitted and two were waiting their turn with the new props in boxes.

It wasn’t just a case of new props being needed, the rigid engine oil pipelines had the be replaced with flexible ones as well.

According to the SUAS OC each aircraft has to be test flown by Babcock’s Chief Test Pilot, followed by the UAS / AEF pilots regaining their currency on type (they haven’t flown since early January).

just another jocky
24th Jun 2013, 20:08
I'd standby to standby on all of that. ;) :zzz:

longer ron
24th Jun 2013, 20:45
I can confirm that a Grub was ground running at Boscombe last week and sounding much nicer with a metal prop :)
The plastic props used to sound 'odd' whilst in the circuit overhead !

bad bear
20th Sep 2013, 07:03
Are the Tutors all back flying now?

bb

Force For Good
20th Sep 2013, 08:29
I'm not sure that they are all flying again but a vast chunk of them certainly are, for example EFT and MELIN is all up and running again.

Some UAS locations etc are still short. Not sure how many current pilots exist outside the core EFT / CFS system though...

thing
20th Sep 2013, 08:58
BEagle, those prices might be "way out of date" outside with civvy flying clubs but take a look at the prices of a SE(P) with instructor at Waddington or Halton Flying Clubs (or others) and they charge about £100 all in per instructed flying hour in a C152. Looking at Halton's website they charge £15 per CAA exam.


Training at Waddo is in four seaters (172 or 28) and with the ground exams, maps and other bits and bobs an EASA PPL will now cost you around 6K if you do it in min hours. However you can offset your ELCAS against this which makes getting a PPL for a serviceman stupidly cheap, don't know why more don't do it.

TwoDeadDogs
26th Sep 2013, 03:13
@greenedgejet,
We had the SF 260 over here, in Ireland, in the Irish Air Corps, for basic and advanced training.Delightful aircraft (and much sought after by visiting RAF/Army types) but very, very expensive to run (courtesy of Agusta's supply system/Dept of Defence/Dept of Finance).The Bulldog had been one of the contenders to replace the Chippie but the Marchetti won it. They were sold off for very small money, in mint condition and are mostly in the USA now.

regards
TDD (exSF260 mech)