Ascent UK MFTS

[Laurent1983]

Hi folks,
Looking to find informations regarding jobs at Ascent Flight Training.

Anybody could share somme informations regarding what to expect on a contract (mean gross salary, benefits and allowances or eventual bonuses?)

Would they hire non-british people?

Trans a lot for any information.

Cheers,
Laurent

[lj101]

Laurent

Mate - probably best to speak to them directly. There is a link here for current vacancies.

Current Vacancies | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/careers/vacancies)

Good luck

[Roland Pulfrew]

And that sums up all that is wrong with PFI-ing your military flying raining system! :ugh:

[BEagle]

Agree with you there 100%, RP!

I wouldn't even be tempted to buy snake oil from the person from Ascent who recently gave us a brief on how well MFTS was going....:ugh:

How long before people wake up to the fact that PFI military training is an unsustainable, complete and utter crock, which (with any luck) is doomed to failure.

I see that one 'essential' requirement for the BJFT SME they're trying to recruit is that the candidate must be:

Prepared to operate on a regular basis between the two key centres: Ascent HQ (Bristol) and RAF Valley


A 'regular' 500 mile round trip by road or 5 hours each way on a train chugging its way from Shabby Wood through at least two dozen stations in Wales, eh? That sounds like a pretty appealing 'essential requirement'....:rolleyes:

[SwitchMonkey]

Essential skills for FJ SME from the advert (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/careers/vacancy/subject_matter_expert_sme_ukmfts_fast_jet_flying_training)

Strong team player with excellent oral and written communicator;

Guess that's me out then, unless an iPhone counts as an oral and written communicator.

[Courtney Mil]

BEags,

As ever, I think you're spot on. In the mean time, Laurent, it's all we have at the moment, so go ahead and give it a go. As long as you like the travelling. I can't see that the MoD has a way of resurecting the Phoenix anytime soon so I think your job would be safe for a while.

[furrydude]

Laurent,

In direct answer to your original query, I would recommend emailing the questions you have to [email protected]

All the best

[BEagle]

Given your location and evident interest, furrydude, are you perchance one of the people running the utter crock known as MFTS?

If so, no doubt you will be able to cast light on the current rumour doing the rounds that 4 Sqn (under Ascent) have temporarily had to stop training students? Who are now being sent to 208 Sqn for traditional RAF training instead? The rumour being that Ascent will have to sort things out for themselves as everyone else wishes to see the return of a proper RAF training system - and the end of this flawed PFI nonsense.

Good luck in finding anyone happy to commute regularly between Valley and Filton.....:rolleyes:

[wannabeTyphoon]

First, i'm very new here so please go easy on me.

I agree with the previous poster, the rumours reaching us from the courses that have made it to Valley suggest that it will be a rough ride to the OCU; poor morale, stop-start flying and insufficient qualified instructors.

[BEagle]

wannabeTyphoon, sorry to hear that things are so bad.

Rumours that there aren't enough trained QFIs for Ascent's training task and that student training has had to be restricted (if not binned altogether, except for a few on 208), whilst frantic attempts are made to train further QFIs, would appear to be true.....:ugh:

But is there really now a 9 month delay in student output targets as a result of Ascent's fai...'issues'?

Are the wheels already coming off this half-baked piece of short-termist nonsense?

I hope that you will get to that Typhoon seat one of these days, wannabeTyphoon and that it will be worth the wait. I sincerely hope that it will be. But perhaps their airships need to think less exclusively about the futile North-West Frontier campaign and more about long-term sustainability?

[The B Word]

BEags

A nice thought, but, the majority of 'airships' at the top these days are wokka types with only a recent operational background in the North West Frontier!

The fall from grace of the Fast Jet jockey since we went back to the sandpit after '91 has been damaging top-end capability ever since we let a kipper mate in to run 11Gp.

In recent years, FJs have not been 'sexy' in the eyes of military.

IMHO, of course...:E

The B Word

[Laurent1983]

Wow, not really great news then....

I still haven't understood the way the training has been set up but, being non-British, I expected some kind of a well developed system with a precise and careful study behind from RAF.
If the contract was awarded for 25 years I thought there had been tons of reasons, from development of a new training system to the sustainment of it.

I guess there's no recommandation to look for further evidence of investigating about reliability and opportunites, for what I read in the forum.

Cheers,
Laurent

[Laurent1983]

Even if I'll try to contact then to understand what is their position and SA about the Ascent adventure.

If anybody has further evidence or information, please feel free to add, e speciali if coming from inside!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

If there's a shortage of FJ QFIs, why does the poster make it sound like I was asking to date his sister when I volunteered to go back to instructing at Valley....? :E

[Willard Whyte]

Curious as to the wages (at Ascent), of which there appears to be no mention - bearing in mind a PA Flt Lt in his, or her, mid 40s with the requisite experience would be on circa £65 - £70K if still in the raf, and perhaps approaching a £20K pension after leaving.

[ShotOne]

On reading these criticisms of alleged delay and disorganisation in the flying training system I'm intrigued as to what it's being compared to. Before starting BFTS in the eighties it was three months before I even had a course date -which was a further four months away. It then came forward by five weeks. In both cases without a word of explanation, not that I that I'd have asked for one, happily holding on full pay! I don't recall anyone asking us about our morale either.

What HAS changed is that if anyone were to have indulged in public criticism of the system back then, their career would have ground to a halt at that instant!

[BEagle]

What HAS changed is that if anyone were to have indulged in public criticism of the system back then, their career would have ground to a halt at that instant!

Yes, the Zersetzung attitude towards thoughtcrime in the RAF back then would probably have embarrassed even the Stasi....:rolleyes:

Don't want criticism? Then don't cause it! Simple!!

[pma 32dd]

I went down to Ascent just over 3 years ago for interview. All very polite in the first session, 2 SME guys both ex mil who checked out my background and knowledge.

Second interview,senior manager and HR lady. Asked to give a presentation with 30 mins to prepare, all straightforward again. Q & A with them, all good

- asked by HR my current and salary expecation...cue her jaw dropping

That kinda finished that..they wanted my experience and qualifcations on the cheap. Needless to say I now work with another company who pay me my proper commercial value...enough said. Hope that helps

[BEagle]

- asked by HR my current and salary expecation...cue her jaw dropping

Perhaps they were making the same mistake which others seeking employment of ex-military experts often make as well? Namely that you'll be happy with their salary topping up your military pension to equal your previous salary....:rolleyes:

But people with specialist skills are wise to that these days!

"No bucks = no Buck Rogers!"

[ShotOne]

"Don't want criticism, don't cause it.." In principle I agree with that sentiment. The point is such delays would have been deemed unremarkable over much of the last few decades and anyone who'd spoken out as you have here would have been strung up.

[BEagle]

Except that, in this situation, the frustration / delay hasn't been due to any 'fault' of the RAF......:rolleyes:

Just the plank who thought that MFTS was A Great Idea.

How many other air forces farm out their core military training to civilian companies?

[Canadian Break]

One of the "planks" involved was a RN 2.5!!! Pre-emptive strike for the Harriers controversy?

[PPRuNeUser0172]

How many other air forces farm out their core military training to civilian companies?

Well NFTC for one is a very similar setup and one which the RAF has been a successful member of.

MFTS in principle is not a bad thing as a concept...the execution is perhaps demonstrably a little off at the moment but there are probably some hefty mitigating factors?!

The setup in terms of infrastructure (ac/real-estate/IT support/sims) should mean that this system is world beating. Just not quite there yet sadly.

[Bob Viking]

I'm biting my tongue as hard as I can and will not be drawn into a public debate on the rights and wrongs of MFTS. As someone who is intimately familiar with both MFTS (IV Sqn) and NFTC I can tell you that you are much further from the mark than you think on several counts.
BV:=

[BEagle]

So, BV, that would indicate that you disagree with the statement: MFTS in principle is not a bad thing as a concept...

Even though you are 'intimately familiar' with IV Sqn?

Hopefully no self-seeking airship will direct manning to sort out the chaos at Valley - and the whole failed MFTS experiment will be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

The Hawk T2 and the syllabus might be one thing, but the bolleaux of MFTS quite something else....

[PPRuNeUser0172]

BV,

I regret any incorrect assumptions about the similarity of MFTS and NFTC, again I don't wish to be critical of either system but merely offered my tuppence of thoughts. With your insight what makes them so different?

I am afraid I cannot support the notion that MFTS should be banished to the bin. It is, whether rightly or wrongly the system that is now in place and it is incumbent on all involved to see it through is it not?

I am surprised there is an apparent shortage of QFIs; now is this because the system (and I am looking specifically at IV Sqn) can't train them, or that the FJ desk are not posting people to Valley?

[Roland Pulfrew]

it is incumbent on all involved to see it through is it not?

Well that, I suspect, is where there is going to be a divergence of opinion. Unfortunately it is time that civilian contractors, who fail to meet their part of the contract, we're dealt with severely; even if that means bankrupting them. Defence cannot remain a cash cow for under performing contractors. Only then might the penny drop with our political masters that you cannot do Defence on the cheap.

IMHO, MFTS is a set too far, is incompatible with any number of government policies and risks destroying what was once, arguably, the best military training system there was. If it fails now we still have the knowledge and skills "in house" to recover the situation. If we leave it another 5 years............

[Bob Viking]

I think I can answer that without putting my foot in it!

At NFTC, the contractor provides the jets, sim and infrastructure and nothing more.
Under MFTS the contractor is supposed to provide everything except the pink bodies to fill the QFI shaped flying suits.

BEagle, you're just being mischievious.
BV

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Cheers BV,

Forgive me for being dim, but I still don't see what huge differences exist between the 2. Not that it matters... NFTC is working and according to many here MFTS isn't.

At NFTC, the contractor provides the jets, sim and infrastructure and nothing more

Apart from jets, sim and infrastructure, what are MFTS expected to provide that NFTC aren't? Doesn't "infrastructure" cover syllabus, IT etc etc. Both systems rely on a supply of instructors by their respective Air Force(s). Are Ascent been given the QFIs they were guaranteed to make the programme viable?

Roland,

Unfortunately it is time that civilian contractors, who fail to meet their part of the contract, we're dealt with severely

Is this a matter of perspective? Do civilian contractors who work for Ascent really (and deliberately) not provide what it is they are supposed to? Is it down to a badly written contract, lacking the finer details which only come to light once the system is "running"? These issues then lead to a bunfight over who does them and at whose expense...

Clearly what is not in question is the frustration but is one side firmly to blame?

[Bob Viking]

DS.
I didn't choose my words very well perhaps. By infrastructure I just meant stuff. At NFTC the military developed, wrote and standardize the syllabus. MFTS are supposed to do that themselves and the military guys just teach it.
BV

[Roland Pulfrew]

Is it down to a badly written contract, lacking the finer details which only come to light once the system is "running"?

DS, you are probably correct with that. It is all the little extras that we as military personnel just do, because of years of experience, because it s what is expected of us and because when tasked with doing it by the Boss we get on and do it. The little things that would be impossible to capture in a contract but wich are the glue that holds the whole system together. Things like if the PowerPoint presentation provided by the provider (be that RAF or contractor) is wrong, you just get on and change it. But with contractor provided PowerPoint that is a contract change, requires negotiation and time, effort and (significant) amounts of money.

at whose expense And that is where the logic of contractorization fails. The company need to make a profit (unlike the military). Your short term contracted service may be cheaper on paper, initially, but it will not remain so. Their costs will increase, there will be things we want to do that were never captured in the contract, we will need to make changes against the 10 or 15 year old plan, they will not be able to deliver the quality we require over time = more expensive, less effective, more frustrating than doing it all in house.

[minigundiplomat]

A couple of points here.......


BEags

A nice thought, but, the majority of 'airships' at the top these days are wokka types with only a recent operational background in the North West Frontier!

The fall from grace of the Fast Jet jockey since we went back to the sandpit after '91 has been damaging top-end capability ever since we let a kipper mate in to run 11Gp.




Sorry mate - but the MFTS programme was going a long, long way before a wokka mate woke up and found himself wearing the daddy pants. Ergo - your statement [in this context] is hoop.

Secondly, the RW element was still in full swing as I left; Ascent were advertising for some very, very highly qualified and uniquely experienced individuals. Unfortunately, HR seemed to have mixed the offered salary with jobseekers allowance. I guessed those interested were expected to fund their employment from their service pension.

Pay peanuts - get monkeys.... et voila!

[Background Noise]

Daily Post says it's great: RAF Valley: Hawk T2 aircraft mean fast jet training for pilots is faster than ever - Daily Post (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/raf-valley-hawk-t2-aircraft-6503699)

[Roland Pulfrew]

A nice thought, but, the majority of 'airships' at the top these days are wokka types with only a recent operational background in the North West Frontier!

The fall from grace of the Fast Jet jockey since we went back to the sandpit after '91 has been damaging top-end capability ever since we let a kipper mate in to run 11Gp.


minigun

I had a little chuckle to myself with that as well. In my 30 odd years in Her Majesty's Flying Club there have only been 2 non-FJ Chiefs, Sir Peter H and the current CAS. And of course the 'kipper mate' referred to, ran the amalgamated 11/18 Gp rather than just 11 Gp - sadly probably a reflection of the decline in power of HMFC!! :sad:

[teeteringhead]

And of course the Ascent Training Director (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/people/profile/simon_falla) is a notable rotary mate too ........

[jamesmaybrick]

Hi guys,
this is my first post...I am an Italian Air Force Pilot Instructor, my family is from Uk and lives in Edinburgh. I have been in Ascent offices for an interview for the position as Subject Matter Expert. They are still in touch with me but before I leave the AF and start commuting from Bristol rather than Italy I was wondering if anyone can give me some info about the company
Thanks a lot for your help.

[BEagle]

Well, from what I hear, it's not going too well right now, is it BV?

[Double Hush]

Generally, or in light of Friday's events?

[Bob Viking]

Enough of the cryptic clues. What have you heard?!
BV

[Double Hush]

Another QRF grounding

[Could be the last?]

Can someone clarify where Bacock/Dyncorp sit within the MFTS conudrum? There is a reason............!

[wannabeTyphoon]

Originally Ascent Flight Training (the winning bidder in the UKMFTS competition) was a consortium comprising Lockheed - Martin and Vosper Thornycroft. Babcock took over VT a couple of years ago.

wT

[GroundSAR]

Ascent, a 50/50 joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Babcock International won the contract in May 2008.


From here

About Ascent | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/about_us/about_ascent)

[Morf]

When Ascent originally won the contract in 2008 the company was a collaboration between LM and Vosper-Thornycroft. VT were consumed by BDS a year or two ago.

I understand that Ascent are split up into various sub Groups - Holding, Flight Training, etc, etc so that the failure of one element won't necessarily bring down the entire business.

[chopper2004]

Finally they're looking into this

UK MoD begins training helicopter acquisition - 9/10/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-mod-begins-training-helicopter-acquisition-403559/)

[Martin the Martian]

Looks like the line-up is complete:

T-6C to head UK military training renewal - 10/24/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/t-6c-to-head-uk-military-training-renewal-405203/)

No mention of Linton-on-Ouse though?:sad:

[Davef68]

So 30 years later the RAF gets the PC-9 it should have had.... :ok:

[GipsyMagpie]

So route to a A400m will be single piston, twin jet, quad prop. Hardly seems cost efficient

[DCThumb]

Errr, Grob 120TP - turbo prop....not piston!

Route to A400 more likely single Turbo Prob, Single Turbo prop, single jet....hold......twin jet, four prop!!!

[Haraka]

And , not even at this level , designed and built in the U.K.

It makes you want to cry.

[Danny42C]

lj101, (Your #2 - some way back):

Clicked on the link, found:

Ascent General Manager-RAF Valley (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/careers/vacancy/ascent_general_manager_raf_valley)

Location: RAF Valley
Manage Advanced Jet Training (AJT) delivery to achieve the required student output whilst ensuring safety and protecting business performance

What's happened to Station Commanders ? :confused:

Lighten my darkness, please !

Danny.

[CoffmanStarter]

Danny ...

Valley still has a Station Commander ... All should clear if you refer to this link :ok:

About Ascent | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/about_us/about_ascent)

Best ...

Coff.

[pr00ne]

Martin the Martian,


Not only NO mention of Linton On Ouse, but a specific statement that the T-6C fleet will be based at Valley.


So, this means the end for Linton On Ouse, and presumably 208 Sqn at Valley.

[BEagle]

pr00ne wrote: Not only NO mention of Linton On Ouse, but a specific statement that the T-6C fleet will be based at Valley.


That should improve morale amongst the BFTS QFIs and their families....:rolleyes:

Good job that the weather factor at Valley is so good that it won't be an issue for BFTS flying......:uhoh:

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Going to be an interesting circuit, Hawk T2 and T-6C (surely to be called Harvard?)

Fancy your first T-6C solo in that environment?

And, are they REALLY going to replace ALL of the Tutor fleet with the turboprop retractable undercarriage Grob T120TP?

UAS, AEF, selection and grading?

Really?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

The planned mil/civ mix for BFT QFIs is interesting. I look forward to the attempts to woo people at option points from Linton to living on Anglesey!

I'm sure Valley has the capacity. I know plenty of people enjoyed it, but most colleagues there with happy families have young kids and wives at the latter end of maternity leave etc. Much more in the way of employment opportunities within commuting distance of York.. why on earth would they move 1 FTS??

[just another jocky]

Guys, I know this is all news for you, but it's well known in the circles that need to know. Yes, some stupid-sounding decisions but it's their plan and it's what's been signed up to so you can slag it off as much as you want but it wont make it go away.

[SVK]

JAJ,

You are of course correct, but what it does do is immediately change my JPA Job Preferences, Location preferences and my wish to risk a QFI tour in an area where my Wife's Career cannot follow. Especially now that Military Rents are to go up as well. I am sure I'm not the only one.

[Danny42C]

Coffman Starter,

Thanks for the link. In modern parlance: "I can see what they're at". It seems to me a long string of wholly admirable aspirations with which no one would take issue, but I'm not yet convinced that it can "deliver the goods" any better than what we had before.

After all, we won a war with our old (outdated ?) training methods, and I would have thought that a hundred years after Colonel Smith-Barry laid down the principles of flying training, the people who are actually doing the job might be better placed to determine the best way of doing it than a hideously expensive firm of management consultants.

But then I suppose that I am (and happy to remain as) an Old Fuddy-Duddy when all's said and done !

Harrumph !, Danny.

[wg13_dummy]

We had the brief from the shiny suited chaps from Ascent a few weeks ago and despite the fact that rotary training hadn't really been signed up to, it struck me that it was about cost, cheapness and suiting the treasury and hardly had anything to do with efficiently delivering military flying training or making the current process better. Cant really blame the company as it appears they are stoolies of the usual MoD 'business model' i.e. like a Blow Fly round the arse end of a Diarrhetic cow.

Yet another 'plan' from the good ideas club of myopic idiots.

[pr00ne]

just another jockey,

Then I suppose that means the end of air experience flying at the AEF's and UAS's, and Grading at Middle Wallop and Yeovilton?

If, as wg13_dummy says, the accent appears to be all on cost saving and cheapness, why on earth is the G120TP there as a replacement for a fixed under carriage piston engine single?

Strange decision.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

What I don't quite understand about the choice of aircraft is that they've gone for 120TP which is, if I'm not mistaken, a 200kt+, 25000' capable retractable undecarriage pocket rocket (see flight's article on it). They then supplement that with T-6C, which, to my knowledge, adds a little in terms of performance, and in-line rather than side by side seating. Obviously one wishes to download training hours as far as one can, but surely it isn't too much of a leap to ditch t-6 and use the 120 for bfjt also?

[BEagle]

The G 120TP seems a good choice for EFTS at RAFC Cranwell, but way over the top for UAS / AEF work. Either that means the end of UASs and AEF flying, or perhaps they'll soldier on with the Plastic Pig?

But why choose an old design such as the T-6C? Wouldn't the PC-21 have been a better choice?

No doubt the shiny-suited snake oil folk at Ascent know the 'big picture' better than 92 years of CFS experience?

I note that the G 120TP has similar (if not better) performance to the Siai-Marchetti SF.260. Yet when the Chipmunk replacement programme took place, the SF.260 ('too complicated for the UAS world'), the Pitts S-2C ('we can't have a biplane') and (I think) the Zlin Z-42 ('Good grief - a communist aeroplane?') were ruled out in favour of the political Bulldog. Which served the RAF well, until the wretched Teutor appeared on the scene.

After the :mad: Marston report destroyed the traditional UAS scheme in 2005, students only get around 10 hours of flying per annum, unless they're allocated someone else's share. But plenty of running around doing 'Force Development' bolleaux :yuk: . So I can't see them maintaining their skills on a complicated aeroplane such as the G 120TP with such little annual flying. However, if flying does stop at UASs, who in their right mind would choose a UAS over an URNU or OTC?

I'm so :mad: glad that I joined the RAF when it could afford to do things properly - as many hours on the Chipmunk as you could get at ULAS, paid the equivalent of £14800 in my 3rd year, then £20800 in my 4th year. Summer camps at Thorney Island, Marham, Newton and Abingdon. Followed by Officer Training and flying training on a proper jet trainer at RAFC Cranwell and on to the Gnat / Hunter at Valley / Brawdy....:ok: Things hadn't changed that much when I went back as a QFI 25 years later, but the writing was on the wall by then - so I'm glad that I wasn't there to see it all go to hell in a handcart.

[aw ditor]

Does this mean both the Hawk and T6 will be based at Valley? Bit crowded over N.Wales?

[Shackman]

Noting that Ascent, a 50/50 joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Babcock International won the contract in May 2008 it has now taken longer than WW2 to get to the point of announcing a choice of aircraft, which presumably now have to be ordered, built, tested, RtS'd etc, and will in the end cost more than WW2 in financial terms. Isn't it great that instead of 'Action this day' we have teams of committees to pass the buck and hoover up the money because in our new management style no individual is deemed able to do so.

No doubt this will work - for a very few, very expensively trained aircrew - but we seem to have fallen way below the drag curve and the only real winners appear to be Ascent. And as yet no mention of rotary/DHFS, which was supposed to be part of this monolith but went in to the 'too difficult' tray some time ago.

I too mourn the passing of what was considered one of the best flying training systems in the world that many other countries tried to emulate. No one is going to emulate this!

[BEagle]

aw ditor, given the very small number of pilots under training these days, compared to the times when the UK could afford an air force worthy of the title, I doubt that there'll be a lot of crowding.

4 FTS used to operate 2 Gnat squadrons, plus a Hunter squadron, with a far greater number of aircraft than the Snake Oil Flying School will operate.

I suspect that mixed circuits and the delightful Anglesey weather factor might be rather more of an issue than the actual numbers of aeroplanes at Valley.

[aw ditor]

Thanks Beagle for the new perspective, it certainly was busy when I was last there in 1957! Vampires, Swifts, Master Div., etc etc etc..

[ShotOne]

Many thanks, beagle, for posting details of the generous pay you enjoyed as a student. Lucky you. But, aside from winding up younger ppruners struggling with their student loans, is this really evidence for your hell in a handcart theme?The RAF still attracts high quality candidates.

ps. Was the Pitts really once under serious consideration as an RAF trainer?? A fine aerobatic mount no doubt, but lethally unsuitable in that role.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

BBC News - RAF basic pilot training to move to Anglesey (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-29766179)

BBC reporting the move of BFT from Linton to Valley.

Duncs:ok:

[Phil_R]

Only come by this forum very occasionally.

Almost every time, I learn something horrifying about the current defence setup.

They've PFI'd military flying training, for *&£$'s sake?! I sit slack-jawed with horror.

[Bob Viking]

BEagle and Shackman.
Just a quick question if I may. When did you last set foot inside the perimeter of RAF valley?
It is very easy to throw spears at Ascent (God knows I have in the past) but unless you've actually seen the recent set up and experienced the Hawk T2 process (I realise that comes across as business speak but we do live in the 21st century) then you are in danger of coming across as a little out of touch to put it mildly.
I am not particularly au fait with the rationale behind the latest aircraft choices but I take issue with one of BEagles points again. UAE is using PC21 in place of a jet trainer. Whilst I am not entirely convinced by that progression I don't think you need to spend the money required to have a PC21 and a Hawk. T6 should be just fine.
Shackman you are underestimating the rest of the world. Despite any reservations we may have the set up at Valley is very much admired. Saudi have already made moves to copy it and Canada and even the USA have commented on its desirability as a concept.
Finally despite all of the above, it will still be military or ex military pilots flying the jets and the CFS ethos will continue. Just not in the way it did in 1972 (or any other date you choose to name).
I lose count of the number of times I have said this but guess what gents. Time moves on. Since the dawn of aviation guys will have been saying 'it's not the way it was in my day'. You have some valid points but approaching it like the old gits on Harry Enfield just winds people up.
BV

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well if Linton is closing I guess Yorkshire UAS will be looking for another new home :ugh: Maybe they could just move back to Fenton, except of course it's already been stripped of kit :ugh: Is this the death of military (RAF) aviation in Yorkshire?:{

[skua]

RP
AFAIK Leeming is still in Yorkshire, but I take your point.

Linton seems a particularly happy and successful station. So obviously, it has to go.

[BEagle]

BV, the Hawk T2 training system is one thing, the concept of PFI'd military flying training is quite another.

RP, perhaps YUAS could join ULAS at Wittering? It'd be about as logical to the current breed of MoD bean counters.....

[Bob Viking]

BEagle.
Fair enough but please don't do a disservice to the military guys who will fight tooth and nail to make the whole think work.
BV

[Sailingbiggles]

BV's comments above are a refreshing ray of light in what seems to have become a UKMFTS/Ascent bashing thread!

The Valley UKMFTS setup is not without its teething problems (the worst of which are firmly a thing of the past) but it is steadily improving and is already leaps ahead of the previous AFT/TW system.

As mentioned by BV, many nations are looking with envy at the 4 Sqn setup with its fantastic aircraft, infrastructure, synthetics and staff and I for one feel that what we as a nation have in 4 Sqn UKMFTS is World beating.

To BEagle and Shackman; I do wish that I had witnessed the footloose and fancy free flying enjoyed by FJ guys 'back in your day' but the Cold War is over, the RAF has shrunk and despite this our up-to-date FJ training system is something to be proud of........it just needs a little less negativity to allow it to shine.

[jumpjumpjohn]

Gents,

The comparison made between NFTC and MFTS is valid - as someone who is currently working within a fully PFI'd flying training system where all that the military provides is the QFIs, I can tell you that giving up too much control is an enormous mistake.

Support and infrastructure can often be done better by contractors (as long as they are held to account when things are not working/delivered), but the control over the syllabus and the delivery has to remain with the military. We have spent the last 2 years trying to undo a number of substantial training problems that stem from this issue.

Getting help from contractors is one thing, but giving them control is quite another - it is still military flying training.

[Lockstock]

The RAF still attracts high quality candidates.

Absolutely true :ok:, more so now than ever.

In fact most of the current crop are extremely sharp, keen, focussed.. and a lot safer and easier to fly with than many of the old and bold, "the RAF isn't what it used to be" CRM nightmares of yesteryear.

[1.3VStall]

Lockstock,


You'd expect the RAF to recruit the highest calibre people, given that the entry into training requirements are a mere trickle compared to days of yore.

If you are only skimming the top 1% of applications, rather than the top 10% then best quality should be guaranteed!

[Lockstock]

1.3VStall

Errr yes.. glad you agree with me :ok:

[LFFC]

Well that's tri-service flying training sorted. I wonder what's in store for single-service flying training and everything else that fell into the RAF flying training budget (AEF, UAS, Red Arrows, BBMF etc)?

[Double Hush]

Linton closing should not come as a surprise - the only way that Ascent could justify their low bid was by closing one of the training airfields. The only thing that's stopped this happening sooner is the Tucano's lack of clearance for an immersion suit. No goon bag = no seaside airfield. What should come as a surprise is that anyone thinks you can co-locate T6 & Hawks for flying training. Downwind speeds of 100 kts and 160+ kts will make for a sporty visual pattern. Airspace around Valley is already congested and this will only get worse as the RAF and RN try to recover aircrew manning post-SDSR 10. Impending European airspace directives are likely to exacerbate the problem. I just hope I'm not there to experience the chaos.

[BEagle]

Bob Viking wrote: Fair enough but please don't do a disservice to the military guys who will fight tooth and nail to make the whole think work.
BV

Why should we expect 'military guys' to try and make this ridiculous crock of $hit 'work'? That's the job of the PFI provider. A 'can do' attitude is all very well in the military world, but not so for sorting out some contractor's bolleaux so that their bottom line won't suffer.

Snake Oil Flying School know darn well that it's going to be difficult for them to attract QFIs of the right calibre - particularly if the only option for them is Valley.

I suspect for many, who might have thought about QFI-ing, that the airline world might now be of rather greater appeal.

But if they closed Valley, moved the Hawk T2s and remaining T1s to Leeming with T6NL....T-6Cs replacing the Tucanos at Linton.....:E

[Shackman]

BV - I will happily admit it's over 2 years since I was last at Valley, and I will equally bow to your up to date knowledge of what is happening in that neck of the woods, and as such apologise for suggesting otherwise. I know the military (and ex military) guys and girls will ALWAYS do their best to make the system as put in place work.

But my main point is it has still taken an awful long time to get to the point of (presumably) ordering new aircraft and then getting the whole syllabus up and running.

[Party Animal]

Regardless of how good or bad the future UK Mil flying training will be - it's still going to be located at Valley. I accept some people like Holyhead and it surroundings but I've only ever met one in my significant number of RAF years service.

Good luck anyway.... :ooh:

[greenedgejet]

Why the disparity of manufacturers (apart from EFT which continues to be given no choice but modified white plastic private pilot light aircraft with poor egress options now the EJ seats cannot be fitted).

If you're going to purchase BFT and multi engine trainers surely it is better to source them from the same firm. E.g Beechcraft T6 plus King Air or Embraer Super Tucano plus Phenom?

Back to EFT, the Flight "pocket rocket" article was written by someone employed by Grob who presents their TP sales video so naturally it was positive!

The tried and tested SF260TP has the same Alison 250, 15000h design life, can be painted any colour, has a much clearer canopy and lower coming design, and can carry hard points for fuel/ electronic training pods.

What did the Indian Air Force buy instead of the 120TP?


PC7m

[Cows getting bigger]

greenedgejet, you missed the most obvious advantage of the SF260 - it is sooooooo sexy.

[angelorange]

Interesting comments about line between BFT and EFT. Does MFTS need both platforms?

Royal Thai Air Force used Alison 250 engined German RFB Fantrainer for over 20 years as initial platform all the way to F5E fighter. Both Luftwaffe and USAF pilots rated it above beech turbine Mentor and PC7.

RAF also had history of starting with more capable types such as the JP.

Agree the SF260 always looked right - no unnecessary aero mods.

Is side by side essential? Not for Tigermoth, Harvard, Spitfire generation.

Interestingly, civi street are looking at more exposure to tandem cockpits in gliders and for upset recovery training (re: flight crew training conference held by Royal Aero Soc.).

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Chaps,


To Perhaps add some calm.


I flew both the P21 and Texan II. They are both Very Good.


Advo

[DCThumb]

I think Peter Collins wrote the article for Flight before he had any formal role with Grob - he was/is a staff writer for flight, amongst other things. Maybe he got a job with Grob on the strength of his enthusiasm for the 120!

Looking at it, it seems a sensible progression - the cockpit avionics are common with the T6, and it can have its performance/features restricted to suit earlier students.

I am intrigued to know the future of the Tutor fleet. They are very cheap to operate for the perceived benefit. And, after all, the RAF ran the Chipmunk fleet for many years mainly for the AEF task - will they be retained just for this/UAS?

[The B Word]

I've long believed that UAS/AEF/VGS should be attached to Service flying and gliding clubs. These could employ full-time/part-time instructors at ~£25ph to teach to solo or fly the air experience profile - the savings could be immense, with full cost of a Grob flying hour being between £200-£400ph (depending on 109 or 115) and a comparable aircraft hired for ~1/3rd of the cost. If the flying is done on a Govt airfield then they still get some military ethos and the airworthiness and the financial risk is shifted away from the Service.

Let's face it, not that many can join the Regulars as a pilot, so why invest so heavily in the expected 50,000 in the Air Cadet Expansion Program and the University Air Sqns? I believe that the Oxford University operate their gliding club at RAF Weston on the Green and the University College of London operate their gliding club at RAF Halton - why can't the UAS attach in a similar way?

The B Word

PS. The recruits at RAF Halton have been given AEFs with the microlight club in the past - see here:http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/news/index.cfm?storyid=06D457BF-5056-A318-A80E9E613C515004. It kind of shows what could be done with the Senior Leadership Team's backing.

[1.3VStall]

The B Word,

Correction - the Oxford University Gliding Club operates alongside the Windrushers Gliding Club at the Bicester Gliding Centre - no RAF connection at all!

[just another jocky]

- will they be retained just for this/UAS?

Yes, I believe so.

[The B Word]

My apologies - it's the Oxford Gliding Club at RAF Weston on the Green! :ugh:

I still think that attaching to Gliding Clubs on RAF Stations is a good idea though if UAS/AEF/VGS is unaffordable (which I believe it is!).

The B Word

[Rocket2]

"I still think that attaching to Gliding Clubs on RAF Stations is a good idea"
Not to mention the odd RN or Army site (they both have their own well supported gliding associations)
Just being pedantic - no offense intended

[The B Word]

Rocket2

Yup, RN and Army would be great. Indeed, some VGS already operate from the sister Services' sites (Predannack, Abingdon, Upavon, Wethersfield and Chivenor).

The B Word

[ASFAO04]

Hi there,is anyone has an interview experience with Ascent to give me an idea?:ok:

[minigundiplomat]

Just tell them you're cheap to employ - they will do the rest.

[Timelord]

Ascent interview;
"Are you willing to go to Valley?"
"Yes"
"You're hired"

[ASFAO04]

Hello can you be more specific with numbers?

[ASFAO04]

Is valley so alfwul?

[drustsonoferp]

No, Valley isn't awful at all. The location has a lot going for it in terms of mountains, coastline and scenery. It's more a matter of proximity to other places: if you are used to being elsewhere, then just about everywhere 'else' will take some time to reach.

There is no metropolis, but for the right sort of person, that's exactly the point.

[Bob Viking]

Valley is just like every other station you could find yourself at. Some people will love it, others will hate it.

The myth about the Welsh hating the English is as out of date as it is ridiculous. People like to trot out the same old rubbish that they have heard from others. The bottom line is that Anglesey has changed a lot in the last few years (there are still crap bits just like you'll find anywhere but overall it's a lovely place), it's a great place if you want to give it a chance and the Welsh are not as bad as people would have you believe.

https://whywelsh.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/welsh-speakers-are-unwelcoming/

BV:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

BV, I recall the words of one Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" (actually she didn't quite say it that way, but that's the normally accepted version, along with "Cor, Lord Astor, 'aven't you got a little willy!").

But commuting to Valley from Chester? Even on the vastly-improved roads of today, that's a 90 mile one-way trip.

Whether Ascent can attract enough people of the right quality to sustain their operation at Valley remains to be seen.....:hmm: As a student I did a year there; first the Gnat course, then holding, then a Hunter refresher. Apart from the often vile weather, I quite liked the place - but as it took nearly an hour to reach Bangor on the old A5 and Menai Bridge route, escape from Anglesey wasn't a particularly common event, so we made the most of it. Whereas now it's only about a 25 min journey and there's even a decent dual carriageway back to Engerland.

[Background Noise]

Of course there are lovers and haters but most of the feelings expressed here are from those who have done time at Valley within the Service with the commensurate removals, disturbance allowance, subsidised accommodation, HTD etc - and in the knowledge that it was just for 3 years. I can't see many of those who 'didn't actually mind' Valley wanting to go there for a permanent civilian job.

Beags - Chester to Valley is only :rolleyes: about 80 miles, so I can see somewhere in the Chester area being about 70, and pretty much dual carriageway door-to-door. Again, for a last tour with HTD, that isn't so bad - but for a permanent commute, potentially at one's own expense, not so attractive.

As for,

Is valley so alfwul?

Not sure what the citizenship requirements are but it looks like he's got the language hacked! ;)

[BEagle]

70 miles is still way too far for a daily commute, surely? But now that there's a decent road, possibly do-able.

After my Hawk refresher, it took me around 8 hours to drive to Chivenor on the old A5 to M5 route to Taunton and then the Black Cat café route. And I certainly do recall how glad I was to see the 'Croesoe I Gymru' sign in my rear view mirror!

It did amuse me when Ascent was advertising some post based in Bristol, which required 'regular' visits to Valley - I could imagine people beating a path to their door. Not!

[Bob Viking]

All I'm saying is stop and think about it. Was the hatred you felt any different from that which could be experienced anywhere else? You know what us pilot types are like. Turning up in an area with our flash cars and bottomless wallets (I wish) and stealing all the local girls. I know of more people getting beaten up in the Sleaford/Lincoln area for this kind of behaviour than I have ever heard of at Valley.

There are usually two sides to every story. I'm English through and through but have probably gone native more than most. My wife is from N Wales. Two of our kids were born here. My wife's family and friends have always been very welcoming and I have never felt any angst from anyone. I believed all the crap when I arrived at Valley in 2002 but once I opened my eyes a little I found it was all untrue.

Too many people believe the lies and also base their views on what it was like before the dual carriageway was built. If you haven't been here for a while then trust me. It's changed. I for one wouldn't choose anywhere else to be based in the UK. Each to their own.

BEagle. The matter of getting civilians to work here though is clearly another matter. Thankfully it's not my problem.

BV

[BEagle]

Well quite, BV. I didn't really understand why so many FJ pilots hated the idea of a tour at 4FTS after the dual carriageway had been built! Cars and roads have improved enormously since the days of my Gnat course some 40 years ago :eek: ; even minor embuggerances such as all the Welsh on TV are now a thing of the past. So Valley isn't really as isolated as it used to be.

Just over an hour to Chester! There's lovely - the North Wales Expressway must have made such a difference to life.

[Background Noise]

70 miles is still way too far for a daily commute, surely? But now that there's a decent road, possibly do-able.

It did amuse me when Ascent was advertising some post based in Bristol, which required 'regular' visits to Valley - I could imagine people beating a path to their door. Not!

It used to take 45 minutes to get off the island! And why do you think Ascent is based in Bristol rather than Valley!

Not saying I'd love it, but as a LTD, from the future retirement pad in Chester I could see it working. Probably less time on the road than a 20 mile commute into London (but not for me either).

I enjoyed my student time there. There was loads of flying, great continuity, my dick wasn't leading me to N Yorkshire every weekend - and I did relatively well on the course. For those who couldn't wait for the Friday afternoon getaway, or who had a hard time on the course I can see it not being in their bag of favourite paces.

I enjoyed my (first) instructional time there too. The area is spectacular, the flying was great, the kids were young enough not to worry about a 3-year hiccup in their secondary education.

I just can't see them attracting the right calibre of folk - unless they pay LARGE amounts of cash, much like they do in other well known 'less desirable' flying training locations.

[27mm]

We were ok in our Penrhyn Close OMQ, but the poor Aussie exchange dude was up on Windy Ridge. Great flying and Hunters beach, but one stint there was enough for us.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The Valley UKMFTS setup is not without its teething problems (the worst of which are firmly a thing of the past) but it is steadily improving and is already leaps ahead of the previous AFT/TW system.



Are you sure about all of that?

As mentioned by BV, many nations are looking with envy at the 4 Sqn setup with its fantastic aircraft, infrastructure, synthetics and staff and I for one feel that what we as a nation have in 4 Sqn UKMFTS is World beating.

I wonder how much detail of the day to day issues and overall productivity of Ascent at Valley might filter through the glossy sales pitch given to other countries, backed up by people on site who might have been briefed to smile and nod. "4 Sqn continues to deliver in accordance with the agreed schedule" might be a good soundbite for the people in charge to consider using, but would only impress people who didn't look too closely (or weren't allowed to). At least 208 aren't there any more to provide a comparison :{

Pure conjecture, of course :oh:

[Napa Valley refugee]

Chaps, there's lots of posts here about Devil's Island but what about the Rotary MFTS bit. Does anyone know whats happening with Shawbury? I thought the contract was supposed to be announced early this year!

[pr00ne]

Torque of the devil,

Are you sure about 208? They've just publicly unveiled a Hawk in a centenary scheme to celebrate their anniversary.

[Double Hush]

One has to remember that 4 Sqn is a success despite Ascent, not because of them. In the TW role, Ascent were (and still are) completely out of their depth. Not wanting to pay a wage that will induce SQEP aircrew to join their ranks, Ascent cannot deliver a 'world class training system', at least at this highly tactical level. All the syllabus and courseware was designed by the RAF as Ascent did not know the front end of a missile from its back end, let alone how to employ it. It is still managed and updated by the RAF! At 4 Sqn, Ascent like to think they run the show but the success of the training is wholly dependant on the calibre and expertise of the (military) instructors, as it always has been. It does beg the question 'what exactly are we paying Ascent for?'. It is in this context you can understand why so many are frustrated with working on 4 as you are beholden to 2 different masters.

However, despite Ascent, 4 Sqn are turning out front line aircrew who are much better prepared for the front line. They are the product of an aircraft (T2) and (RAF designed) syllabus that has brought TW training bang up to date.

[Bob Viking]

Double Hush.

I don't know who you are and I don't know if you have actually worked on IV but trust me when I say your comments are not welcome (and not entirely accurate). There are people in black flying suits who are working every bit as hard as their green suited brethren to make a success of the programme. Comments like yours will not help anyone, least of all those on IV Sqn.

So congratulations are in order for successfully managing to p1ss off a whole bunch of people. If that was your aim then bravo and I hope you're happy.

BV

[Tourist]

Double Hush may not be polite, but the fact that you say "not entirely accurate" is quite revealing.

[Bob Viking]

Sh1t stirring again Tourist?

You can read what you like into it. I was just trying to show more politeness than he demonstrated.

BV

[Tourist]

Your post was in no way polite.
If he is factually incorrect then say so.

[Bob Viking]

Tourist.

My beef is not with you so let's let it lie.

BV

[The_Agent]

This is garbage, DoubleHush. I'm sorry, I don't normally post here, and I'm not keen on changing a system that has worked well for years, but you've pointed your finger at the wrong people, and it's simply not right.

"Not wanting to pay a wage that will induce SQEP aircrew to join their ranks, Ascent cannot deliver a 'world class training system', at least at this highly tactical level."

Whatever they pay, it must be enough because they QWIs that work there are certainly SQEP, with more instructional hours and flying experience in their small group than all of the RAF instructors combined.


"All the syllabus and courseware was designed by the RAF as Ascent did not know the front end of a missile from its back end, let alone how to employ it."

Many of those QIs have fired those very same missiles and dropped those bombs they talk about in their Phase Briefs. The courseware taught was generated collaboratively between the RAF and Ascent-employed SMEs.

"It is still managed and updated by the RAF!"

Both the RAF and the QIs contribute to the courseware. New QFIs come back from the front line. They have the gouge, the older instructors have the teaching experience. Working together works well. The management could be better - Ascent's courseware update process is unwieldy compared to when it was managed by the RAF. That's not the fault of anyone working on IV Sqn though.


"At 4 Sqn, Ascent like to think they run the show but the success of the training is wholly dependant on the calibre and expertise of the (military) instructors, as it always has been."

Again, it's collaborative. The success is dependent on the expertise of both parties. If the students technical knowledge and emergency handling is good, it is not down the the RAF instructors, as over 90% of that is delivered solely by Ascent. Thanks to Ascent QIs, the students arrive at the aircraft better prepared for each sortie than I have seen in any other training system.

"It does beg the question 'what exactly are we paying Ascent for?'. It is in this context you can understand why so many are frustrated with working on 4 as you are beholden to 2 different masters."

This is true. I would agree that we do not need Ascent. Simply bolster the numbers of the RAF from 34k back up to 60k+ and we wouldn't need Ascent.

Of course, those very same QIs would stil be doing the teaching, just wearing green suits and getting paid PAS. Would that be OK? So what's your point?

You're waving your finger at the wrong people.

We have partnered with Ascent due to the 2011 NAO report and the SDSR shrinking of the service. How we shrunk the regular service to the size where we needed to employ ex-military rather than keeping them as existing military is worthy of debate.

Now we are here though, we have partnered to bolster the ranks. Thankfully, the individuals selected to work alongside the RAF instructors are an extremely experienced group of individuals.

"However, despite Ascent, 4 Sqn are turning out front line aircrew who are much better prepared for the front line. They are the product of an aircraft (T2) and (RAF designed) syllabus that has brought TW training bang up to date."

What is your evidence for this statement?

[Morf]

The Agent .......

Are you Agent S? If so, you've changed your tune from the IV Sqn Rumor Network!

[ORAC]

UK Receives New-Generation G-120TP Aircraft for Pilot Training (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk-receives-new-generation-g-120tp-aircraft-for-pilot-training)

LONDON — Britain has taken delivery of the first of a new generation of aircraft set to revitalize its fixed-wing military pilot training capabilities.

Affinity Flying Training Services delivered two Grob G-120TPs to the British Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Cranwell on Nov. 17, kicking off a program which will see 38 aircraft across three different types handed over by the end of 2018 to replace Britain’s aging stock of trainers. The delivery comes nine months after Affinity, a joint venture between KBR and Elbit Systems, secured a £500 million (US $622 million) deal to supply fixed-wing aircraft for the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) program led by Ascent.

The G-120TPs will be used to teach basic aviation principles and handling skills as well as provide an introduction to basic navigation, night flying and instrument-only flying. The aircraft will be based out of RAF Cranwell and RAF Barkston Heath.

The private finance initiative (PFI) deal signed in February with Ascent, the Lockheed Martin-Babcock joint venture running the UKMFTS program, will see Affinity procure, operate and maintain 10 Beechcraft T-6C Texan aircraft, 23 Grob G-120TP Prefect turboprops, and five Embraer Phenom 100 jets to train RAF and Royal Navy aircrew. The deal runs until 2033. The first Texan and Phenom aircraft are scheduled for delivery next year. The final Grob is due for delivery in March 2018, the last Phenom in January 2018 and final T6-C in November 2018.

The deal will see the current training fleets of Grob G-115, Beechcraft King Air 200/350s and Shorts Tucano pensioned off.

Advanced training on RAF-owned BAE Systems Hawk jet trainers is also part of the UKMFTS program but is separate to the Affinty deal. Airbus Helicopters signed a similar deal in May to provide 32 helicopters for the UKMFTS program.The first deliveries for that start in 2018.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The deal will see the current training fleets of Grob G-115, Beechcraft King Air 200/350s and Shorts Tucano pensioned off.

Advanced training on RAF-owned BAE Systems Hawk jet trainers is also part of the UKMFTS program but is separate to the Affinty deal. Airbus Helicopters signed a similar deal in May to provide 32 helicopters for the UKMFTS program.The first deliveries for that start in 2018.


Couple of misleading details here. Last I heard, the Tutor will continue in service, just not in the EFT role. And the first deliveries from AH will need to be before 2018 given that the go-live date is 1st April 2018! Or has the plan changed?

[KPax]

With the state of the Squirrel fleet at Strawbs (85 mph gust and a lot of untied Squirrels) maybe the date will have to come forward. Still not sure what this gust will do to a small rotary that is not tied down, it can't be good.

[just another jocky]

Last I heard, the Tutor will continue in service, just not in the EFT role.


Correct. It will continue with UAS & AEF flying nationwide.

[A and C]

I note the Grob G120TP's are on the civil register and maintained under EASA 145.

[KPax]

Airbus Helicopters UK has received the first of 32 new rotorcraft which will eventually be used to deliver training to Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Army Air Corps crews under a £1.1 billion ($1.36 billion) deal.

[CAEBr]

I note the Grob G120TP's are on the civil register

'were' would be the correct word.

As a contractorised contract, maximum effort is put into the paperwork. The aircraft are test flown by Grob with a German D-xxxx registration. They are accepted by Affinity on the UK civil register, and are then transferred onto the UK Military Register. The first two, G-MFTS and G-MEFT have now become ZM300 and ZM301 respectively. With an active military clearance, subsequent aircraft 'may' forgo the UK civil registration step, but it probably depends on how many variations of the civil registration can be made using MFTS, MEFT etc, since 23 would be needed :E

[A and C]

So can I assume that rather than like the Grob Tutors that are maintained under EASA 145 the G120TP fleet will be maintained under military oversight ?

[Lynxman]

UK military registered aircraft are subject to the MRP, not civil regulation, and any contracted maintenance organization must have MAOS approval.

[sycamore]

Refer to the ATC gliders thread.....;

[Just This Once...]

UK military registered aircraft are subject to the MRP, not civil regulation, and any contracted maintenance organization must have MAOS approval.

You are mistaken as there is no prohibition on using civil regulation and there are current UK military registered aircraft maintained to EASA standards with their oversight.

[chopper2004]

Also do not forget Ascent has also received apart from the Prefect :) .......lol

cheers

Affinity takes delivery of new towing vehicles - Affinity Flying Training Services (http://www.affinityfts.co.uk/affinity-takes-delivery-new-towing-vehicles/)

Affinity continues ramp up with new vehicles - Affinity Flying Training Services (http://www.affinityfts.co.uk/affinity-continues-ramp-new-vehicles/)

[just another jocky]

Shouldn't they be yellow? :E

[aw ditor]

"Just this Once". Just-to-clarify, would it not be UK CAA oversight' to EASA Regs.?

A.D.

[Shackman]

DHFS aircraft are civil owned, military registered; flown under military regulations but serviced under CAA standards. CAA inspections seemed to be fairly frequent and at short notice.

[A and C]

As the CAA is now mearly a regional office of EASA are you telling me that the regulatory authority for the maintenance of these aircraft is EASA ?

I as because you statement differs from some above.

[Lynxman]

Military registered are military regulated in all respects. MRCOA are subject to RA 1124 that requires them to be subject to Civil Aviation Authority oversight arrangements to ensure access to the civil spares pool and to maintain their value when returned to the civil register. CAA oversight ensures minimum compliance with civil regulation beneath the primary MRP.

[A and C]

I think we are getting there slowly, firstly I think by using the term CAA you are referring to EASA as the G120TP is an annex 1 aircraft.

Now for the big question, will the maintenance organisation require EASA145 approval ? And will the certifying staff require EASA part 66 licences ?

Also can parts repaired by an EASA 145 organisation be accepted for service on these aircraft without further approval from military authorities ?

[Just This Once...]

If you take Shadow (pimped King Air) as an example, the RAF maintainers start with a quick year away to study and gain their EASA licences. They also require further time away to work on other civilian types to keep their skills on items that they may not have been exposed to with Shadow. Maintenance can also be completed by civilian contractors under their own approvals, with or without assistance of the RAF techies. The usual RAF engineering management chain have no powers or oversight as the buck stops with the licensed RAF technicians who coordinate directly with the various civilian authorities.

The only challenge is keeping hold of these SNCOs once their RoS is completed.

[A and C]

So the bottom line is the final oversight is EASA145.

The unintended consequence is as soon as the highly skilled RAF techies get a part 66 licence they will be gone like a rat up an aqueduct.

[EAP86]

Don't the highly skilled RAF techies only need a part 66 licence if they are to 'certify' the work?

Is there a UK military version of part 66 yet? EMAR 66 was published some time ago http://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/documents/emar-66-edition-1-0-(23-sep-2014)-approved-(forms-removed).pdf but that would have needed to be UK-ified by the MAA. I suspect there would have been some debate about the use of a Licence or equivalent competence level but it should have been completed by now.

EAP

[A and C]

For years the RAF has been very reluctant to let its technical staff get a civil maintenance licence, mis information was rife both about obtaining and maintaining a maintenance licence.

I can remember lending a techie my British airways licence course notes ( and a copy of the crewrooms question bank ) as no help whatsoever was forthcoming from inside the RAF.

To find that the RAF must now put these guys on a course to get a part 66 licence would seem like a reversal of years of custom & practice.

But it will end in tears for the RAF if they fail to reward those who have worked to get the licence with the market pay rate.