NAO report on MFTS

[Jerry Atrick]

Military flying training - National Audit Office (NAO) (http://www.nao.org.uk/report/military-flying-training/)

Just released today - answers a lot of suspicions. Discuss!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

To know whether training is improving, the Department needs to set a performance baseline and the right performance measures. However, it does not effectively use the data it has to understand current training performance. For example, it does not hold data centrally on training activity and does not routinely analyse the pockets of data it has or subject them to comprehensive quality control. It therefore has no baseline for training times or costs from which it can measure Ascent’s performance or set meaningful performance targets.

If MoD didn't already measure training activity as above, how did it know contractorisation would be a good idea in the first place?

Gotcha! The entire contractorisation game is headline budget cuts and nothing else.

[gijoe]

Budget driven...bit like the SDSR?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The entire charade of Government/MoD has been "make the threat meet the budget" since the end of the Cold War, but external contractorisation and the NAO means that the mechanisms are now revealing it as such.

Personally, I think the UK should go the whole hog - let's contractorise the front line.
Exactly how effective is it to train and arm Iraqis who run away when IS turns up, leaving IS to collect said arms (and recruit a few of the trainees)?
Do me a cost-benefit analysis of lobbing PGMs at pick-up trucks from jets that cost hundreds of millions.
Can I see an Excel chart of campaigns won in the last 15 years please, Sales? Oh, that's zero is it? And your Target was....?

[Martin the Martian]

Paragraph 9 of the summary:

'There were also delays to new helicopter training because the Department thought it owned existing training aircraft when it did not.'

WTF?????

[BEagle]

By transferring control of training to a contracted provider, the Department has less flexibility to increase or decrease training capacity without requiring contract renegotiations and incurring extra costs and time. Such negotiations could cause further delays and increase the risk of a gap in training that results in fewer trained aircrew than needed.

No $hit, Sherlock!

The 'Department' has, at a guess, zero chance of increasing training capacity if it's needed:

- Aircraft? Barely enough as it is.
- Aerodromes? You've closed most of them; reactivation costs would be very expensive indeed.
- QFIs? Where will you find those?

Still, if you will believe the snake-oil salesmen, what else can you expect?

[Davef68]

Paragraph 9 of the summary:

'There were also delays to new helicopter training because the Department thought it owned existing training aircraft when it did not.'

WTF?????

REALLY? Anyone with even a passing interest in DHFS would have known the aircraft were owned by the contractor? That was the whole point!


2.34
The requirement for the Department to fund training aircraft using capital funding
meant that it faced particular challenges with funding for the new helicopter training
package. In 2012, it identified a £496 million capital funding shortfall. Further work by
the Department to reduce costs then decreased this shortfall to £388 million. It then
explored options to address the remaining shortfall, including delaying the start of the
new helicopter training until 2025. However, it could not do this when it found it did not
own the training aircraft it uses. The existing provider also did not wish to sell the aircraft.
The Department has instead had to extend the existing helicopter training contract by
six years to 2018. No further extensions of the contract are possible without breaking
EU procurement law. A solution to address the funding shortfall was agreed between
the Department and the three services in early 2015. Helicopter training is now expected
to start in April 2018.

Interesting it reveals that the new training helicopters will be bought through conventional procurement.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Interesting that they think we don't successfully monitor our own flying training performance. Mildly disappointing too as I spent an entire year of my life on a desk job setting up a programme that did exactly that so that we would be able to compare our own performance to that of MFTS when it came in....

That was in 2005! Clearly someone didn't post enough holding officers in...

[BEagle]

I see that another contractor training provider is trying to find someone to take on a post, despite the fact that the system for which the instructor is being sought doesn't actually work.....

https://thales.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=R0004042&lang=en#.VXm7QfSNtek.linkedin

No indication of salary or pension arrangements....:rolleyes:

This whole PFI bolleaux is rapidly turning into a complete farce.

[Bob Viking]

BEagle.

You are right apart from one thing. It is not turning into a farce. It was a farce years ago. It will never go back to how it was though. So those of us still serving will just have to make do the best we can.

It's not all bad. We still get to go flying and get paid for it so no matter how it may look from the outside it's not always as bad as you think and people aren't necessarily as miserable as you may be led to believe.

BV

[DITYIWAHP]

Even the report is a year late :rolleyes:.

Chickens coming home to roost. I remember a visit I had to the not Abbey Wood establishment a good few years ago now - and I was introduced to the one person who's responsibility it was to assemble the whole infrastructure plan. To anyone with eyes anywhere but on their career, this was an obvious cluster from the outset. Some good people sold their souls, IMO.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Do tell, pba target.
Why was your system not used? Was it the cardinal sin of It Worked - (and therefore perhaps could show that contractorisation was not beneficial)?

p.s. I had a similar experience with the DfE

[pr00ne]

Hold on!

I've just read the report, am amazed to hear that the contractor is proposing to buy a total of 10 basic fast jet training aircraft (the Tucano replacement)
TEN?
That seems ludicrous.

[DITYIWAHP]

10 = 4 on the line! Or 10 on the line, if you don't consider serviceable for flying a requirement... :)

[chevvron]

The report talks about 'rear crew training' and gives an example as 'weapons system operator'(wso).
Didn't anyone tell them that in the Apache, the 'rear crew' is the pilot and the wso sits in front!

[Bob Viking]

I haven't read the full report yet but ten. Really?! We worry that 28 Hawks aren't enough. Bearing in mind student attrition rates you usually train more guys on BFJTS than you expect to make it to AJT. How exactly can that be achieved with less aircraft?

I must be a simpleton.

BV

[Fluffy Bunny]

It's not just the pointy end that this is affecting. A certain company who has large interests in training the UK military has as it's core ethos in recruiting is to find those who've completed 22yrs+ and want nothing more than their pension plus some beer tokens.
In years gone by when you could afford to pay your mortgage on your pension this would have been fine. However, todays service leavers cannot service their debts on a pension and need a decent income to suppliment their pension.
The thing that is being forgotten is the fact that todays service leavers are a lot more savvy as to their worth and will not return to whence they came albeit in a civvy suit, when they know they can make a lot more money with their transferable skills.
So the more the MoD rely on contract service agreements, the less the services will have a need to train for those tasks, hence the contractors will have less trained and certified manpower to recruit from. Eventually nobody will have anybody trained to do anything.
Downward spiral anyone?

[Double Hush]

The buy of 10 (I must admit, I thought it was originally 12) is based on the fact that the T6 will have something like 98% serviceability. Considering these things are going to be parked on the old 203 Sqn line and therefore subject to a lot of salt spray, I find that most unlikely. Also, what happens when a student does a heavy landing and CAT 3s the thing. 10 is simply not enough.

And what about integrating a slow turboprop into a fast jet circuit? How's that going to work?

[BEagle]

So with only 10 T-6C and 23 G120TP available for pilot training, how will CFS deliver QFI training?

Although the RAF operated 3-400 Jet Provosts and later 130 Tucanos, before the 'core' number was cut to 40, plus 117 Tutors being replaced by only 23 G120TP, that means a reduction in EFT/BFT training aircraft numbers from 157 to 33.....

Have they really done their sums correctly?

:\

[chevvron]

Will there still be the UAS/AEF system with their own fleet of aircraft?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

F3wmb,

It did work and successfully identified a few areas where the trg system had some obvious gaps quite quickly.

The main problem with the system was that it was never properly manned, as it really needed someone light blue to run it, probably as 50% of a full time job. Iirc the duty was given to a civil servant typist or equiv to run after I left, which meant that there was no one to kick the results up the chain when there were discrepancies in output and input standards, and therefore I suspect that the whole system was forgotten about in the PTC relocation.

I certainly haven't seen evidence of it's existence in about 6 or 7 years I don't think, though the results of the initial year of operation did come to fruition about 5 years after we id'd some easy changes in courses.

[Professor Plum]

I think just 5 phenoms is a tad ludicrous too.

As the previous poster mentioned, would be interested to hear what the uas/aef will be flying.

[just another jocky]

UAS/AEF, assuming they survive the next set of defence cuts, will continue to fly the G115E Tutor.

The numbers of ac do look small....but I'm sure the company & RAF have done their sums correctly.

Did I just say that out loud?

[BEagle]

I read that the UAS scheme now aims to get a student to solo standard before the end of their second year.....:\

It was always my aim to get my students (who arrived in the New Year) to have finished their circuit consolidation before their first Summer Camp - so that I didn't have to sit watching them from the control tower. I always managed that!

But 2 years to solo? :eek:

Still, I suppose it gives them more time for all that playing pongoes stuff they seem to do these days....:hmm:

Will the UAS scheme survive? Who knows - but I gather that there's an 'option' paper in draft. So I wouldn't bet on it.

[Martin the Martian]

With regard to AEF flying I do wonder how long it will be before someone decides it is more cost effective to buy flying hours at local flying clubs to supply flying for air cadets.

[Wander00]

MtM - but again it is also about "ethos" - at least an AEF is part of the Royal air Force, which is also what the scheme is about promoting. Sounds like the whole flying training operation is "going to hell in a handcart!" Sad

[Lordflasheart]

Perhaps history will be forced to repeat itself ?
The Texas Air Base Where NATO Fighter Pilots Are Forged (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a10741/the-texas-air-base-where-nato-fighter-pilots-are-forged-16920796/) ........... :E ... LFH

[brokenlink]

Mind you, following the move of the AEF in this neck of the woods to another base beginning with "W" there is no cadet flying until at least September I am told. So that's no flying or gliding and not much "Air" in "Air Cadets" locally just now.

[just another jocky]

But 2 years to solo? :eek:


The emphasis on flying was reduced several years ago so therefore the time taken to any particular phase will be longer.

Mind you, following the move of the AEF in this neck of the woods to another base beginning with "W" there is no cadet flying until at least September I am told.

I'd stop listening to who "told" you that then. 5 AEF have been flying cadets at Wittering for well over a month.

[Melchett01]

How on earth does such incompetence, veering on negligence happen? Who is being held to account? The report criticises the MOD's failure to hold Ascent to account, but is whomever was responsible for staffing and signing off on this disaster being held to account?

Or have they been given a gong, promoted and shuffled off to a cushy office somewhere?

[BEagle]

The emphasis on flying was reduced several years ago...

Even so, 2 years to solo is a total waste of time.

Clearly there's not much 'Air' in 'University Air Squadrons' these days either.....:mad:

[Courtney Mil]

...and not much 'Squadron' if they send them to a flying club.

[1.3VStall]

M01,

Who is being held to account?

No-one, of course! That's the problem with the public sector it doesn't matter how many squillions are wasted on projects (that sometimes don't even come to fruition), or daft ideas that anyone at the coalface can see won't work, or demonstrations of sheer neglect, or incompetence etc etc - no-one ever gets their feet held close to the fire and we never seem to learn.

Looking at the RAF we have had Nimrod fiascos, both AEW3 and MRA4, MFTS, AirTanker PFI and combining BZN and LYE: and, coming along shortly, possibly, the F35 (don't mention the carriers!).

It's depressing really, particularly in regard to a Service to which I devoted nearly 28 years of my life.:ugh:

[Davef68]

Perhaps history will be forced to repeat itself ?
The Texas Air Base Where NATO Fighter Pilots Are Forged (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a10741/the-texas-air-base-where-nato-fighter-pilots-are-forged-16920796/) ........... :E ... LFH

Or participate in NFTC again.....:E

[Bob Viking]

This place has it's own problems. It would not be able to cope with an influx of Brit pilots for a while yet and the contract finishes in 5 years anyway. Best to look somewhere else. Or do what I suggested about five years ago. Send the T2s to Cold Lake and solve the RAF and RCAF problems in a stroke.

BV:eek::ok:

[brokenlink]

JAG - True they are flying UAS cadets but AEF is on hold until September according to the e-mail my Adj got.

[tmmorris]

If the 2FTS farce is anything to go by, they won't be outsourcing AEF to private providers. They're just not ready to take the 'risk' that the civilian flying training environment allegedly represents. In fact, one of the first things they did after the 'pause' in gliding was announce that the existing arrangements for permitting flights in civilian light aircraft would no longer apply. Just when I was seriously considering it to supplement the meagre AEF available.

My crystal ball says we will have nothing but the VGS system left in 10 years, if that.

To the credit of Comdt AC, though, she did present a graph of air cadet numbers against hours flown - almost a perfect fit (they crashed together) and described it as the biggest risk to the organisation. She understands but can she do anything about it?

[Jackonicko]

I remain astonished that no real effort was made to maintain the 'Gold Standard' flying training system that worked so well, even with a dwindling number of RAF students.

Surely to god excess capacity could have been sold to overseas air forces, or could have been used to promote the UK's interests as a kind of 'soft power'/military diplomacy exercise?

Or a mixture of both?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Ah, pba target.
Plan A seems to be Don't Measure/Inspect it.
Plan B If you're measuring it, under-resource the measurement/inspection so it is ineffective.

It would appear they went to Plan B in your case.

p.s. So I guess getting 144 hours in 3 years (including solo formation) on the UAS doesn't happen much any more? ;)

[just another jocky]

JAG - True they are flying UAS cadets but AEF is on hold until September according to the e-mail my Adj got.

M8, I can guarantee you that 5 AEF are flying air cadets at Wittering and have been for a while now. :ok:

Both UAS's are flying students as well. And both EFT squadrons are set up and running.

[typerated]

The ratio of 10 T-6C's and 28 Hawk T2s seems upside down.


I'd guess there has always been more JP/Tucanos than Gnats/Hawks in service?


Presumably there will be a fair few students that fly the T-6C but don't get to the Hawk (chopped or move to Multi/Helis)


With only ten AC students can't do many hours in the T-6C's - I can only imagine they will be just used as a screening program for the Hawk?


And the Hawk will be used earlier in a students training - where currently they would still have been flying Tucanos?