PDA

View Full Version : UK MFTS Fixed Wing Flying Training : The Future


Pages : [1] 2

CoffmanStarter
29th Dec 2015, 16:18
Following various announcements some months back now, there seems to be a dearth of any further information on what the future UK MFTS Fixed Wing model will look like.

Ascent appointed Affinity who are seemingly to provide the Airframe Assets … But that seems to be the limit of joint MOD and Contractor comms for the moment.

So how is it all going to work ? Clearly the Aircrew Training pipeline isn’t going to be anything like the scale seen during the 60’s, 70’s or even the 80’s … but presumably it will need to be a continuous operation with some capacity to ‘flex’ when required, for example when the F-35 enters service.

By my reckoning we currently have about x100 Grob G115 Tutor T1’s, x35 Shorts Tucano T1’s and x8 Beechcraft King Air 200’s through a mix of ownership. I’m assuming the Tucano and King Air fleets will go completely … but what of the Tutor fleet ? I would have thought it unlikely that the proposed new ‘Elementary Trainer’, in the form of the Grob G120TP, would be suitable/economic for UAS and/or Air Cadet AEF use.

Looking at the new Training Assets … presumably airframe acquisition will be as near as possible to ‘off the shelf’ spec/cost (but no corporate leather trim for the Phenom 100 then :(). I guess the Grob G120TP will come with the ‘optional’ LW Ejector Seat … but things have clearly moved on for an RAF Elementary Trainer to have a retractable undercarriage.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1313_zpsrzqzsgd6.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1314_zpsl1rh99sa.jpg

Image Credit : Grob : G120TP

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1321_zpspdfiwgnj.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1317_zpsqg6flbbw.jpg

Image Credit : Embraer : Phenom 100

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1315_zpspibqjq1a.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1319_zpspgcf18mi.jpg

Image Credit : Beechcraft : T-6C

So without, hopefully, getting bogged down in the merits/demerits of PFI models or venturing into the current commercial territory of the Ascent/Affinity deal … I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what we are likely to see at Barkston Heath, Cranwell and Valley when MFTS is finally up and running. I expect a few members might like to offer a few perspectives on the choice of aircraft (Cue Leon :ok:) … the Ground School ‘systems’ element on the G120TP for Ab initio Bloggs could be a bit intense.

Best ...

Coff.

PS. Happy New Year to all :ok:

Lima Juliet
29th Dec 2015, 16:53
On cue, Coff, all I know is that UAS/AEF and VGS is outside of scope of MFTS. I also heard a couple of rumours:

1. 22 Gp is apparently keen to expand the AEFs with some of the excess Tutor aircraft to fill the gaps in the Air Cadet gliding program. The question is, where do the pilots come from? Are they going to relax the rules so that Service EASA PPL holders can fly the EASA Introductory Flight profile? Or something similar?

2. AIr Cmd said that they are looking at having to open up another MFTS Stn due to the increased numbers of aircrew required from SDSR15 - Pilots, WSOs and WSOps are needed for the extra Typhoon Sqns, P-8 and the increased number of RPAS.

3. Whilst we're on RPAS. There is a requirement in the RPAS pliots' course to fly solo. Therefore, a few more Tutors might be needed as this is also probably outwith the original MFTS requirements.

4. Multi-engine pipeline might have to use a commercial flying school to temporarily increase ME pilot throughput in the short-term.

All rumour from the crewroom, various briefs after SDSR and scuttlebutt with mates, so nothing confirmed. I suspect we'll start hearing more in the early New Year along with the Air Cadet gliding announcement.

As for a replacement trainer. How about a Lycoming powered Chippy like the Portugese ones? :ok:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2913/13893527906_60cbf88287.jpg

LJ

Courtney Mil
29th Dec 2015, 18:00
Nice pictures, Coff. Good luck with not getting bogged down in PFI stuff.

tarantonight
29th Dec 2015, 18:57
[QUOTE=CoffmanStarter;9223078]Following various announcements some months back now, there seems to be a dearth of any further information on what the future UK MFTS Fixed Wing model will look like.

Ascent appointed Affinity who are seemingly to provide the Airframe Assets … But that seems to be the limit of joint MOD and Contractor comms for the moment.

So how is it all going to work ? Clearly the Aircrew Training pipeline isn’t going to be anything like the scale seen during the 60’s, 70’s or even the 80’s … but presumably it will need to be a continuous operation with some capacity to ‘flex’ when required, for example when the F-35 enters service.

By my reckoning we currently have about x100 Grob G115 Tutor T1’s, x35 Shorts Tucano T1’s and x8 Beechcraft King Air 200’s through a mix of ownership. I’m assuming the Tucano and King Air fleets will go completely … but what of the Tutor fleet ? I would have thought it unlikely that the proposed new ‘Elementary Trainer’, in the form of the Grob G120TP, would be suitable/economic for UAS and/or Air Cadet AEF use.

Looking at the new Training Assets … presumably airframe acquisition will be as near as possible to ‘off the shelf’ spec/cost (but no corporate leather trim for the Phenom 100 then :(). I guess the Grob G120TP will come with the ‘optional’ LW Ejector Seat … but things have clearly moved on for an RAF Elementary Trainer to have a retractable undercarriage.

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1313_zpsrzqzsgd6.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1314_zpsl1rh99sa.jpg

Image Credit : Grob : G120TP

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1321_zpspdfiwgnj.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1317_zpsqg6flbbw.jpg

Image Credit : Embraer : Phenom 100

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1315_zpspibqjq1a.jpg

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/IMG_1319_zpspgcf18mi.jpg

Image Credit : Beechcraft : T-6C

So without, hopefully, getting bogged down in the merits/demerits of PFI models or venturing into the current commercial territory of the Ascent/Affinity deal … I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what we are likely to see at Barkston Heath, Cranwell and Valley when MFTS is finally up and running. I expect a few members might like to offer a few perspectives on the choice of aircraft (Cue Leon :ok:) … the Ground School ‘systems’ element on the G120TP for Ab initio Bloggs could be a bit intense.

Best ...

Coff.

PS. Happy New Year to all :ok:[/QUOTE

So sad it has come to this. Military training should remain completely within the military environment. I can't see a way back from this. My father joined the FAA in 1957 and will be turning in his grave now.

DunWinching
29th Dec 2015, 19:11
Anyone know how it is going so far with MFTS?

Double Hush
29th Dec 2015, 19:41
Coff,

If the rumours I have heard are anything to go by, T2s are all we will see at Valley. Maybe someone has finally seen sense and realised a (moderately) slow TP and a 'fast jet' don't mix too well in the same visual pattern. Instead, Wittering has been suggested as the T6 base. I personally would have preferred Yeovs, one of the other contenders.

As for the future look of MFTS, I like the sound of the rumour that says the RAF might be looking at buying out Ascent from MFTS. Or whatever it is that has to be done contractually for the military to reclaim control of aircrew training. My take on this is that the surge in aircrew numbers being discussed here look to be beyond Ascent. If ME aircrew need to be farmed out to civvy schools, if FJ aircrew need to be farmed out to NFTC, if separate arrangements are needed for RPAS aircrew, what's the point of MFTS?

One can but dream......

just another jocky
29th Dec 2015, 21:02
Too much rumour/speculation.

Decisions have not yet been made, many things are being looked at, quite rightly and all will be revealed when decisions are made.

But by all means carry on.....:ok:

Ken Scott
29th Dec 2015, 22:58
With the numbers of ac that Ascent are procuring - 9 T6s, 4 Phenoms, and I think around a dozen Grobs their ability to surge to meet any additional training throughput is going to be extremely limited, even with a higher reliance on simulators.

Martin the Martian
30th Dec 2015, 12:14
Perhaps I am missing something, but can anybody tell me how 9-10 T-6s is seen to be an adequate number to meet the basic flying training requirement?

Background Noise
30th Dec 2015, 12:24
Perhaps I am missing something, but can anybody tell me how 9-10 T-6s is seen to be an adequate number to meet the basic flying training requirement?

They are not 'basic' trainers. If they are a direct Tucano replacement they will only be for FJ streamed students. Everyone still seems to focus on the FJ pipeline when many more pilots are required for group 2 and 3 - or whatever those streams are called now. The low number of Grobs might be more worrying.

Background Noise
30th Dec 2015, 12:29
… but things have clearly moved on for an RAF Elementary Trainer to have a retractable undercarriage.


All the time the JP really was the initial trainer (filling the same role as the current 'elementary' trainer) it had retractable gear.

BEagle
31st Dec 2015, 08:14
I looked at that G210TP glass cockpit and wondered just how easy it would be to have a quick squint at the instruments during a decent tail chase...

With all that gucci glass, will Bloggs be spending longer time 'head-in' than was accepted in aircraft such as the Bulldog or JP?

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 08:43
Many thanks chaps for your contributions ... All quite interesting !

Leon ...

I guess the impact of SDSR15 is still being worked through on the MFTS proposals as I suspect the speculative airframe fleet numbers mentioned by Ken are pre the SDSR15 announcements ... even so, those numbers look incredibly thin.

Consider yourself posted to the 'Naughty Step' with respect to your Chipmunk remarks ... as a fully paid up member of the 'Vertical Pot, Cordite Sniffing Taildraggers Union' ... I view such remarks as heresy. I even had to have a lie-down in a darkened room some years ago on hearing the BBMF converted their two ladies to 'Electric Starters' ... and don't get me started on Cockpit Heaters :oh:

Courtney ...

I just thought we've bashed the 'PFI' topic enough ... and genuinely thought there is the makings of a good debate here :ok:

Taranto ...

I agree with your comments but 'we are where we are' or at least the UK Mil is.

PS. Looks like yo need to add a ] to make your quote work ;)

Double H ...

That all sounds logical. A cynic might say that recruiting Civilian T6C QFI's to live in North Wales might have presented a challenge :suspect:

More to come on the airframe types ...

Lima Juliet
31st Dec 2015, 09:27
Oh good, I enjoy an occasional visit to the 'naughty step'...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/26/article-0-0639D71E0000044D-398_634x546.jpg

In my opinion, the Portugese Chippes are little beauties in their own right - do you know if they aerobat them in Portugal as we can't aerobat the UK Lycoming Supermunks? The extra 35 horsepower gives the Lycoming Chippy some real extra oomph when it doesn't have a glider on the back. We operate them at ~£65/hr compared to the inverted oil set-up that is normally at least twice that. BBMF Chippies have been brought right up to date with electric starts, modern radios and a PowerFLARM. All good mods making these classic aircraft useable for the foreseeable future. :ok:

LJ

Bismark
31st Dec 2015, 10:07
2. AIr Cmd said that they are looking at having to open up another MFTS Stn due to the increased numbers of aircrew required from SDSR15 - Pilots, WSOs and WSOps are needed for the extra Typhoon Sqns, P-8 and the increased number of RPAS.

It seems nonsensical re-opening the WSO cadre just for 9 P8s. The logical step would be to give that role to RN ASW Observers who could then cross pollinate from the ASW Merlin Force.

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 10:57
Bis old chap ... I think you might be needing a [ to make your quote work :ok:

Ken Scott
31st Dec 2015, 11:01
Or how about in a fit of 'jointery' (not sure if that's even a word) the RN could train some RAF WSOs on its observers cse? After all we've trained their FJ pilots for years so there couldn't be any argument against, provided of course that the old Nav cadre didn't get too precious about 'their' training.

Just This Once...
31st Dec 2015, 11:01
Plus the WSO slots on E3, R-J, Sentinel, Reaper & Shadow….

devonianflyer
31st Dec 2015, 12:56
I looked at that G210TP glass cockpit and wondered just how easy it would be to have a quick squint at the instruments during a decent tail chase...

I wouldn't worry, tail chasing went out of the syllabus a while ago now.

The low numbers of airframes and surge capacity is enough to be worrying about for now, especially following the SDSR announcements and the upscale in EFT numbers heading our way.

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 12:57
G120TP

BEagle …

I think you have hit one of the nails firmly on the head with your comments about Glass/LED instrumentation and the need for Tyro Bloggs to develop from Day 1 a good lookout/instrument scan technique. To a lesser extent I recently wondered at the sensibility of some mounting Glass/LED instrumentation in something like a C172 … there seemed to be a disproportionate amount of time ‘Head In’ than ‘Head Out’. No harm moving to more sophisticated instrumentation once the basic skills are instilled.

Background Noise …

It’s probably just terminology, but I understand the G120TP is to cover Elementary Flying Training where as the T6C is for Basic Jet Training under the MFTS model. I accept that the JP was used for ‘all through’ jet training, but the RAF did return to the use of a fixed undercarriage airframe for Tyro Bloggs be he or she FJ, ME or RW streamed. It might just be my memory … but I think the SIAI Marchetti/Alenia Aermacch SF260 was once considered by the RAF as an Elementary Trainer but rejected by CFS because of the retractable undercarriage concern and the fact that the SF260 was considered comparatively easy to enter an ‘unintentional spin’.

Trying not to be too cynical … I wonder if we are seeing the first signs of attempting to train ‘Systems Operators’ as opposed to ‘Pilots’ (that’s pilot in the conventional sense most members will identify with). I recall seeing some marketing guff for the F-35 recently saying something along the lines of … ‘the technology is there to free the pilot from piloting allowing him or her to focus on the battle scene, enemy engagement and ordinance delivery’ …

All perfectly logical but how long before the ‘Accountants/Bean Counters’ push this philosophy down the training line with the aim of saving money. Greater use of so called ‘Synthetics/Simulation’ followed by a bit of actual airborne learning reinforcement … all quite scary really. I’m sure the vast majority of members wouldn’t disagree that there is no substitute for learning to fly with a few 000’ feet under your bum. Simulators have their place but no matter how ‘real’ the virtual experience … it isn’t flying.

It will be interesting to see what the MFTS Elementary Training course profile looks like in terms of the training mix.

Phenom 100

I’ve not seen the Phenom close up, but based on the imagery I have seen, I wondered at it’s ability to offer a reasonably challenging learning experience as far as asymmetric flight is concerned. Whilst outwardly similar but smaller than say the HS125/Dominie T1 the fan nacelles appear closer to the fuselage centerline and closer (more forward) to the (estimated) CofG. Also having in mind that the airframe is predominately for Civil Single Pilot/Owner operation (for those that can afford it), I would have thought asymmetric handling might be a bit benign by design ?

Given the mix of ‘Heavies’ the RAF now has and expects to acquire in the future … a good asymmetric training airframe seems to be an absolute necessity.

T6C

On paper (public domain stuff) the T6C appears a good feed-in to the Hawk T2. But in this brave new MFTS World FJ Bloggs won’t have got his or her hands on a jet as yet. So if the T6C is to replace the Hawk T1, will there be a need to start FJ Bloggs earlier on the Hawk T2 … ergo more Hawk T2’s will be needed ?

Enough for the moment … What are the views of others ?

Cheers …

Coff.

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 13:12
Leon ...

In 1997 seven Chipmunks were converted with 180 HP Lycoming O-360-A1A engines. Apart from being able to confirm that the FAP deployed them for use as Initial Pilot Screening (which I understand was very similar to the RAF FSS) I'm afraid I can't catagorically say if they were aerobated.

Dora-9 might know, should he pop up on this thread :ok:

Cheers ...

Coff.

Cows getting bigger
31st Dec 2015, 13:15
Any chance of some of these instead?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/0/8/7/0084780.jpg

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 13:25
CGB ... Santa's Wish List has closed for this year mate ;)

Cows getting bigger
31st Dec 2015, 13:28
Bu&&er. Now where's that winning lottery ticket? :sad:

BEagle
31st Dec 2015, 14:35
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that tailchasing has been taken out of the dumbed-down post-Marston report UAS syllabus, but surely not for anything beyond that?

Lima Juliet
31st Dec 2015, 14:49
Thanks Coff

The only reference I could find was at 2:40 of this Chipmunk-porn video (of which I'm sure you'll enjoy!). There is a Lycoming Chippy doing a formation loop at 2:40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILylmS5Ivp8

sharpend
31st Dec 2015, 15:01
With some 20 years instructing under my belt, having flown fast jets with HUDs, Chippies and Bulldogs with good old analogue instruments, 737 and cirrus with full glass cockpits, personally I think we should all start on analogue instruments. Fast jet and complex airliners need them. But there is no substitute for basic training.

CoffmanStarter
31st Dec 2015, 16:16
Many thanks Leon ... Consider yourself 'rehabilitated' off the Naughty Step with that little video clip :ok:

devonianflyer
31st Dec 2015, 17:02
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that tailchasing has been taken out of the dumbed-down post-Marston report UAS syllabus, but surely not for anything beyond that?

I meant the EFT syllabus. I expect the UAS's are now the only ones with time to even consider tail chasing these days.

Bob Viking
31st Dec 2015, 21:32
Whatever system comes in during the next few years suffice to say it'll be different in many ways to its predecessor.

Different isn't always bad it just needs an open mind to adapt to it.

For better or worse (and it's very easy to find fault, quite another thing to find workable solutions) the system has enough of the right people in the right places to ensure the product coming out the other end will still be just fine.

The next generation may not be able to use astro-navigation and a dalton computer to navigate to Timbuktu and back but I reckon they'll cope fine with whatever is thrown at them. It's a brave new world out there.

Can our collective New Years resolution be to quit whining and just accept change?

BV:cool:

klingonbc
31st Dec 2015, 22:54
Foreboding? Is that the feeling you get when deep down you look at what has been done to RAF aircrew training over the last few decades and see what is likely to happen in the next few years? Sometimes I think our trainee aircrew succeed despite our training system, not because of it. I doubt that much of the current training is DSAT compliant due to "make it happen" attitudes of VSO when pressured by financial constraints of the past decades. What the civilian contractors have planned will probably be inflexible and too taut financially to meet the variable needs of the Services. But what is really a concern is it might take another Haddon-Cave inquiry in ten years time to expose the folly of the decision to go in the direction planned by MOD and UKMFTS. I truly hope I am wrong - but foreboding?
kbc


Nearly Forgot - Happy New Year to all!!

chopper2004
1st Jan 2016, 10:49
Happy New Year all

Take Elbit Systems model for the IDF/AF. The same airframes as Ascent will for EFT and BFT ; Grob 120 and T-6. On the RW side its the Bell 206B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRHdeHni5Ic

(Quick note Elbit are pitching the Bell 407GX for the rotary wing aspet of MFTS)

Bismark
1st Jan 2016, 12:12
Or how about in a fit of 'jointery' (not sure if that's even a word) the RN could train some RAF WSOs on its observers cse?

Ken,

My comment wasn't a challenge to the RAF, the RN Obs course is part of MFTS and thus open to all. It was more about the RAF trying to establish a cadre that would only be about 25 -30 strong (eventually). Career management would be a nightmare. I hadn't realised you had lots of WSOs in the other fleets as the RAF stopped WSO training some years ago.

Lima Juliet
2nd Jan 2016, 08:35
I believe that if we don't give the current/future generation of aircrew a glass cockpit then they will feel cheated and underwhelmed. Put an old duffer in a glass-cockpit machine and watch them falter over the myriad of menus and button pushes - put a youngster in the same machine and its 'duck to water' time.

We have to move on with our fleets. We found that with Hawk T2 studes that although they were poorer at 'head down' work than their T1 peers, their ability to cope with Typhoon cockpits was much improved by the T2 studes than the T1 - there were of course exceptions, but they were the future 'exceptional' pilots.

LJ

LOMCEVAK
2nd Jan 2016, 10:01
Coff,

Returning to your earlier post about the merits of the types chosen. The ME platform was always going to be the most challenging to select. The EFT platform has to prepare the students for 3 types: T6, Phenom and whatever the rotary platform is chosen to be. I know little of the rotary world so I will say no more about that. Students from the T6 will progress only to the Hawk T2 so platform suitability for that role is relatively straightforward to ascertain. The students from the ME platform choice will graduate from it onto Shadow/Avenger, E3/Air Seeker, A400M, Voyager, C130 etc. And then there are the Islander/Defender variants. To get a 'one size fits all' ME trainer was always going to be interesting!

I have flown the Phenom 100 and, like many others, before I flew it I had doubts about whether its asymmetric flying qualities would be adequate to teach ME students. However, at low speeds large rudder inputs are required to counter the asymmetric thrust if the aircraft is flown wings level, and the rudder pedal forces are manageable. Also, the loss of thrust requires a significant reduction in the pitch attitude in order to maintain the required speed. The major consideration is roll control. The aircraft has no lateral stability (dihedral effect) and there is no propwash over the wings. Therefore, once stabilised there is no aileron deflection required to maintain a constant bank angle. However, it does feature a spring interconnect such that when a large rudder pedal input is made a lateral control force is required in the opposite sense in order to maintain the required aileron angle so some opposite force on the yoke is needed. The other aspect with respect to roll is that if 5 deg of bank is applied towards the live engine then the aircraft can be flown essentially rudder free. Overall, and considering the range of roll control strategies required by the in-service ME platforms for flight on asymmetric power the Phenom can, in my opinion, provide satisfactory training in flight on asymmetric power.

LJ,

I agree totally about the fact that our next generation trainers need glass cockpits (although there will be some scratching of heads for students then graduating onto platforms with analogue cockpits such as the Islander/Defender but there are other solutions). However, if we want good, capable pilots we still need to teach them the basics of how to fly and apply good airmanship because they will need to be able to cope with reversionary modes if they are to be truly effective. Please note that I am not implying that you have said otherwise! Piloting skills will always be about flying an aeroplane and will always be required for high calibre operators. Rely too heavily on automation at ones peril!

Happy New Year

L

CoffmanStarter
2nd Jan 2016, 10:53
Lomcevak ...

Many thanks for your very informative contribution ... very interesting from a practical 'piloting' standpoint in respect of the Phenom. Just goes to show that the appearance of an aircraft can be deceptive in terms of assumed handling characteristics ... you have to fly it to know ;)

CoffmanStarter
5th Jan 2016, 14:42
I'm sure we'll find out more on this topic as 2016 unfolds. Let's hope there will be more airframes available than has currently been speculated here ... ;)

Just a passing thought ...

With the prospect of Mil ME students being 'farmed' out to civilian training schools before the new MFTS is up and running ... along with an influx of Ascent civilian licensed FW MFTS QFI's ... perhaps it's time for RAF aircrew to log flight times in their F414's 'Chock' to 'Chock' as opposed to 'Wheels Off' to 'Wheels On' ... :uhoh:

Best ...

Coff

TorqueOfTheDevil
6th Jan 2016, 11:55
perhaps it's time for RAF aircrew to log flight times in their F414's 'Chock' to 'Chock' as opposed to 'Wheels Off' to 'Wheels On' ... :uhoh:


Oooh you devil! Maybe in fact the civvies should change to adopt the mil system where flight time means flight time! ;)

Danny42C
6th Jan 2016, 12:36
LOMCEVAK,
...Piloting skills will always be about flying an aeroplane and will always be required for high calibre operators...
In '41 the USAAC drove that message home by making us fly our first 60 hours in the Stearman with no ASI on the panel !


CoffmanStarter and TorqueoftheDevil,

In my day, we always logged "chock to chock" as a taxying accident was treated exactly the same as a flying accident. Don't know the position now.

Happy New Year ! Danny42C.

phantom2430uk
6th Jan 2016, 16:09
There's quite a good report on the G120TP in the current issue of Pilot

DaveUnwin
6th Jan 2016, 19:44
Glad you liked it Phantom. Re the glass/analogue debate, personally I think it's advantageous to be training in a glass cockpit from the outset. Many of the future pilots who will train in the G120TP will only ever fly glass, and not just in their military and later civil careers. I've flown quite a few LSAs that were purely glass, not even standby analogue ASI and altimeter. Even the standby instruments on the 120 are digital!
I still think that the first ten hours should be in something really basic, like a T-61. The long wings really help develop co-ordination due to adverse yaw, while the monowheel sharpens up anyone's footwork on the ground, plus the analogue ASI and altimeter can be covered up in the circuit, and the engine even shut down in flight (both exercises are excellent confidence-builders). BUT, to put analogue instruments in a modern turbine-powered retractable would be a retrograde step, IMHO of course.

DaveUnwin
7th Jan 2016, 15:24
Oh, and FWIW, I thought the G120TP to be a very fine flying machine!

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 06:53
The announcement by the MOD yesterday on the award of the MFTS £1.1billion Contract to AFT (Ascent Flying Training).

Headline MOD 'Infographic' ...

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-03%20at%2007.39.57_zpsmq5cvt9m.png

Image Credit : MOD

More info here ...

MOD MFTS Contract (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/11-billion-investment-by-mod-in-future-military-flying-training)

But no news yet around any 'interim' arrangements until AFT are fully up an running.

23 Prefects (Grob G120TP), 10 Texans (Beechcraft T-6C) and 5 Phenoms (Embraer P100) ... 230 Students a year ... which I assume is a total of RAF, RN and Army Students ?

This did make me smile in the Press Release ...

Personnel will also be able to fly Voyager aircraft - used for air-to-air refuelling - on completion of their training.

... Well that's good then :rolleyes:


Thanks to ORAC for picking up the announcement yesterday ... :ok:

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 07:52
Good lord who thought up the name 'prefect'? 'Tutor' sort of made sense but what did a prefect ever teach? (Cue all sorts of fagging jokes - 'go & warm the toilet seat for me boy' etc). Who would wish to fill their logbook with 'Prefect T1'?

I assume that they were attracted by the close spelling to 'perfect'. Surely that can't have been reason enough to give it a daft name?

It also seems to be a very small number of ac to train 230 pilots a year even assuming excellent availability. Quite where they're going to find all the instructors, civil & military, is also a big question. I hope they intend offering market rate salaries & not 'pension offset' ones especially if they hope to fill the Valley slots.

Just This Once...
3rd Feb 2016, 08:02
By the early 90's the Tucano fleet had increased to 130 aircraft.

We now require just 10 aircraft to replace them.

:ouch:

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 08:52
Ken ...

I suspect that 230 number might not just be Net New Pilots ... Hopefully someone will elucidate further.

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 09:35
Coff: from the NAO report on Mil Flying Training (12 Jun 15):

1.4 Currently, around 250 UK aircrew (150 pilots and 100 rear-crew) begin training. Trainee aircrew may be direct officer recruits, selected serving officers, senior non-commissioned officers or, in the Army, selected non-commissioned officers. 2

so the 230 looks to be the total number of all aircrew, front end & rear crew, which makes the students per ac ratio marginally better although the rear crew trades still need to go in one sometimes.

Onceapilot
3rd Feb 2016, 10:45
Ken, I believe that anyone in reciept of a service pension may find the pension abated (reduced) if the combined pension and new (service) pay exceedes their previous pay scale.:oh:

OAP

Bob Viking
3rd Feb 2016, 11:14
I doubt Ken was talking about FTRS/military pilots. Ascent will potentially be employing civilian (albeit it ex-military) QFIs.

BV

BEagle
3rd Feb 2016, 12:05
BobViking wrote: Ascent will potentially be employing civilian (albeit it ex-military) QFIs.


And when the supply of ex-military QFIs dries up, as inevitably it will, what then? Whence will come the snake-oil salesmens' next instructors?

Even in the lowly GA world, more and more FIs are being picked up by the airlines as airline recruiting gathers pace. Now that the RAF has let its previously excellent flying training system fall into the hands of mercenaries, how will future instructor requirements be sustained.

Doomed, I tell ye, doomed you are!

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 12:35
Thanks Ken ... I thought as much :ok:

So if we assume 150 Student Pilots annually ... and apply a Chop Rate of X% (any offers on a speculative CR% ?) ... then it would be interesting to speculate on the number of FJ or ME first tourists joining the OCU's in a year. Feels like low numbers to me :(


Sorry for using 'Chop Rate' above ... but I couldn't come up with a more New World PC 'Descriptor'.

And I think BEagle's observation on sourcing future Mil QFI's is very apposite ... But I doubt we'll get an answer to that one for some while yet ...

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 12:54
Mind you the RAF has had a 'Prefect' in the past :E

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/IWM-ATP18815B-Prefect.jpg

LlamaFarmer
3rd Feb 2016, 13:00
Prefect is a terrible name. Surely they could have come up with something better than that.

Just This Once...
3rd Feb 2016, 13:13
It's nicely inconspicuous; perhaps named by a Douglas Adams fan?

212man
3rd Feb 2016, 13:29
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/9/9/1366993.jpg

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 13:46
212 :ok:

And the Avro 'Prefect' was developed from the Avro 'Tutor' ... History/Heritage Box Ticked then ;)

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 14:36
Without Google the Avro Prefect would be almost unheard of outside the RNZAF museum environs so perhaps an apposite precedent for the Grob Prefect as the ac that follows the Tutor?

I still thinks its a silly name.

Concur fully with Beagle's comments re RAF QFIs, there is a severe shortage in the ME world (can't comment on the FJ or RW fleets), we no longer train them in sufficient numbers since the UASs went predominately FTRS so we don't have enough for our own current needs & consequently the supply into the future will surely dry up which doesn't bode well for Ascent's recruitment plans even if they don't offset salaries for pensions (for ex-mil QFIs).

You reap what you sow.

If Ascent is unable to staff all of its civil posts will the military be expected to make up the shortfall? Could this actually lead to an increase in the number of mil QFIs in the future? With the manning cap & the extra ac & sqns post SDSR would there even be enough pilots to make up the shortfall?

pr00ne
3rd Feb 2016, 17:01
BEagle and Coffmanstarter,

Your points about military QFI's...

I thought that a document released a year or so back on the exact numbers of aircraft and staff confirmed that 75% of all instructors and 100% of AFTS instructors would be serving military?

Since then we have had SDSR2015 which increased the need for qualified aircrew and MoD announced that they were negotiating to increase throughput of MFTS, yet the very same numbers of aircraft appear in that infographic?

Odd.

10 T-6? Yet the equally privatised RAAF equivalent is going to utilise 49, for a much smaller outfit.

Even odder.

Hawk98
3rd Feb 2016, 17:22
10 Texans to me (I'm just a cadet so feel free to ignore my opinion) seems ridiculous, is this assuming 100% availability and 0% attrition of the fleet through its lifetime?!

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 17:28
Hawk98: you might be 'just a cadet' but you've spotted what ought to be the obvious flaw in the plan! Either you're a very astute & wise young man or Ascent have planned a little below the optimum number - or both!

Bob Viking
3rd Feb 2016, 18:02
Whilst I can only agree that 10 Texans seems a little on the conservative side, you are of course assuming the course will be the same as it always has been. That may not be a fair assumption.
BV:eek:

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 18:12
A fair point BV & I believe the intention is to do much of what was traditionally done on the BFJT cse on the Tucano on the 'Prefect' syllabus given that types greater complexity.

devonianflyer
3rd Feb 2016, 18:26
A fair point BV & I believe the intention is to do much of what was traditionally done on the BFJT cse on the Tucano on the 'Prefect' syllabus given that types greater complexity.

Then how can 23 'Prefects' replace the ~25 Tutors required on the line each day for the current EFT, let alone any down loaded BFJT work. The numbers really really don't add up for me.

Unless of course Grob/Ascent/Affinity have guaranteed the Prefect will never break or need routine maintenance...

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 19:03
Also ... at the other end of the of the FJ training 'machine' ...

The T6C is to be the feed-in to the Hawk T2. But in this brave new MFTS World FJ Bloggs won’t have got his or her hands on a jet as yet. So if the T6C is to replace the Hawk T1, will there be a need to start FJ Bloggs earlier on the Hawk T2 … ergo more Hawk T2’s will be needed ?

:confused:

Lima Juliet
3rd Feb 2016, 19:48
The Grob 120TP is to be called 'Prefect' - what a sh!te name....

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/49427/201600201_UKMFTS_pilot_training_info_L.jpg

Ken Scott
3rd Feb 2016, 20:10
At the risk of sounding like a spokesperson for Ascent, which I'm not, I believe the intent is to use the Texan to bridge the gap between the Prefect & the T2 in performance terms with advanced simulation to ease the transition, not to replace the T1. The Prefect cse would cover more than the old Tutor/ Bulldog/ Chipmunk syllabi so they are not really equivalent, the Texan I guess doing higher speed LL Nav & higher energy manoeuvres.

Personally I think the RAF & the other services could've done it better themselves for the £3 billion the PFI will cost but the projected 'saving' of £1billion was obviously too good to resist coupled with the post-RAF career opportunities for a few VSOs.

Bob Viking
3rd Feb 2016, 20:21
I'm afraid you and a few others betray your slight lack of knowledge on the subject. The T6C is not intended to replace the Hawk T1. Students currently move from Tucano straight to Hawk T2. IV Sqn is 208 and 19 Sqns in old money. There never has been a Hawk T1 transition to Hawk T2.

The T6C will replace the Tucano with a shorter course.

I hope I have now spelt it out in obvious enough terms.

Whether the numbers of airframes are sufficient is for the bean counters to work out. I'm just the pilot!

BV
:rolleyes:

CoffmanStarter
3rd Feb 2016, 20:51
Thanks Bob ... Understood :ok:

LlamaFarmer
3rd Feb 2016, 22:41
No matter how the course is, that's surely not enough aircraft.

Unless they DO now bring in the Hawk T1 between Texan and T2 to bridge the gap :rolleyes:

Jerry Atrick
4th Feb 2016, 17:12
Hawk T1 OSD still 2020, so that won't work. :)

Thomas coupling
4th Feb 2016, 17:22
Couple of Q's for someone:
Why is the T6 simulator now not going to Valley?

What about MFTS (RW)? Any update?

TC

Bob Viking
4th Feb 2016, 18:10
Regardless of the Hawk T1 OSD there would be absolutely no sense, now or ever, flying a bridging course on a T1 before flying a T2.

Try looking at it as a whole package (Prefect, Texan and T2) rather than trying to relate it to its predecessor. Times are moving on. We move with them or move aside.

BV:ooh:

Hueymeister
4th Feb 2016, 18:11
So will the MoD retain the Tutor?

chopper2004
4th Feb 2016, 19:05
That was my next question what will be the UAS's mount now? Laughingly the Kiwis have more T-6 than us, by one airframe :)

Btw will 45(R) continue their display team after the introduction of the Phenom? I saw the Emirates Academy Phenom 100 perform at DAS2015 (my photos below)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1269_zpstafvgh8k.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1274_zpsa6mhuupo.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1317_zpsbxe2bsmt.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1319_zpsmpggzaei.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1321_zpsijulmc2d.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1344_zpsb83o23xn.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger012/IMG_1346_zpso7pxjbff.jpg



cheers

LlamaFarmer
4th Feb 2016, 22:57
Regardless of the Hawk T1 OSD there would be absolutely no sense, now or ever, flying a bridging course on a T1 before flying a T2

Not sure about the others, but mine was a comment of throwaway sarcasm about how few a/c they were getting and having to supplement them with a T1 bridge course

Davef68
5th Feb 2016, 01:15
I had hoped (on a heritage basis) the T6C would be called Harvard.

A and C
5th Feb 2016, 06:17
From the aircraft numbers it would seem there is to be a large reliance on simulators.

Only time will tell if this is a good thing for crew training, but no doubt the bean counters have decided already it's worth a try.

chopper2004
5th Feb 2016, 08:09
Davef68

The Canadians call theirs the Texan II

CT-156 Harvard II | Trainer | Aircraft | Royal Canadian Air Force (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/ct-156.page)

cheers

Davef68
5th Feb 2016, 09:43
Yes, I had hoped we would follow suit. And given the Phenom a suitable scholarly name.

Lynxman
5th Feb 2016, 10:45
The T6 can't be called Harvard as there is still a Harvard active on the military register.

chopper2004
6th Feb 2016, 11:56
Anyone seen the new Affinity website ?

Home - Affinity Flying Training Services (http://www.affinityfts.co.uk)

Cheers

Bill Macgillivray
6th Feb 2016, 20:23
"Affinity" training ! Wow!!!! I do like the bit about formation training with other aircraft, that is novel!! The T-6 fighter trainer??? The Phenom with two student pilots and an instructor in the "fifth" seat!!

Also, I do hope that all these aircraft will either be put on the UK military register or, at least, the UK civil register and not with the various registrations shown on this Company's web-site!! (A bit of Photo-shop or similar might have helped!).

Hopefully it will work, and one should not go back to the days of Chipmunks, P. Provosts, Vampires, Meteors, Bulldogs, J. Provosts, Gnats, Hawks etc.!!

I liked it as it was, and it worked!! (Silly old f***) !!

Bill.

Lynxman
6th Feb 2016, 21:30
They're all going on the mil reg.
The 5th rear seat is correct as the website says '...two flight crew in the cockpit, with space in the cabin for up to five passengers. For UK MFTS, this will be two student pilots, four student rear crew, and an instructor in the fifth rear seat'. Makes perfect sense.

LlamaFarmer
6th Feb 2016, 23:49
I'm assuming they're gonna do away with the biz jet interior plush leather seats.

Have to say the Grob looks like a nice trainer... although possibly quite complex for elementary training... I wonder if they fly it gear down until they're more experienced and venturing out of circuit and onto solo sector recces

Bill Macgillivray
7th Feb 2016, 10:46
Lynxman,

It was "tongue-in-cheek"! I hope it works as it should!

Bill.

DCThumb
7th Feb 2016, 10:48
Llama farmer, we seemed to manage without mishaps in the days when ab-initios went straight onto the JP5a!

LlamaFarmer
7th Feb 2016, 13:13
Llama farmer, we seemed to manage without mishaps in the days when ab-initios went straight onto the JP5a!

Fair point... I imagine a JP is a lot more complex to fly than a glass cockpit FADEC.

BEagle
7th Feb 2016, 13:28
Fair point... I imagine a JP is a lot more complex to fly than a glass cockpit FADEC.

Hardly! Just one engine control and 3 gauges - RPM, JPT and oil pressure.

Pre-landing checks were very simple:
Below 140 KIAS
Airbrakes in
Landing gear button pressed.
3 reds...3 greens
Fuel sufficient
Flap T/O
Harnesses checked
Brakes on (holding)...off (exhausted)

Or something like that - it was 42 years ago!

One UHF radio (back up was a single channel UHF), Eureka only in the 3/4/5, but VOR/DME in the 3A/5A which also had V/UHF.

So - no ****ing glass screens to stare at - and MUCH more time better spent l00looking out for others (who would probably be trying to bounce you!).

pr00ne
7th Feb 2016, 13:35
DCTHumb,

No ab initio ever went straight in to a JP5. They either started on the JP3, for a short time until they reintroduced the Chipmunk at selection then primary level, or there were the folks who started at Cranwell on the JP5, all being ex UAS with many hours on Bulldogs.

BEagle
7th Feb 2016, 13:42
I have a vague recollection that about 3 chaps on 13GE went straight onto the Mk5, despite never having flown before?

It was in the period when the Mk3s were going to Warton for conversion into 3As and the system was trying to rationalise how best to use the fleet without excessive training delays.

But they coped OK.

There used to be a trip known as the 'conversion handling check' to assess whether a student was ready for the Mk5. But it was early in the course and wasn't a reasonable test - indeed, one chap was nearly chopped after doing rather poorly.....

....but he later scooped the top pot at ETPS and became a top TP. So much for pointless early assessments!

Yellow Sun
7th Feb 2016, 18:09
I have a vague recollection that about 3 chaps on 13GE went straight onto the Mk5, despite never having flown before?


I do believe that you may be correct Beagle. Inspection of my logbook shows that in October 1973; when 13GE names first appear; I flew with 4 students from that course. Three were on the Mk3 and one on the Mk5. However I have a vague recollection that they were given a few hours; 10-15?; on the Chipmunk at various UAS before coming to us.

YS

CoffmanStarter
7th Feb 2016, 18:11
Defence News have a little more detail on the deal ...

UK Signs Major Deal for Military Aircraft, Training (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2016/02/02/uk-signs-major-deal-military-aircraft-training/79686008/)


Embraer said in a press release accompanying the announcement Feb. 2 that it's contract includes "an option for additional follow on aircraft." Other suppliers are reckoned to have similar arrangements in place.

Iain Chalmers, Affinity's managing director, confirmed platform numbers could rise subject to future customer requirements.

"We have commercial arrangements in place with our suppliers in the event that the needs of our clients should change in the coming years," he said ...

Ruby Con
7th Feb 2016, 19:16
pr00ne

Or they did 30 hrs on a Cessna 150 on a Sixth Form Scholarship and then went onto the JP 5a!

TorqueOfTheDevil
9th Feb 2016, 16:32
What about MFTS (RW)? Any update?

TC


All progressing according to 'the plan'. Trees being chopped down as we speak!

10th Feb 2016, 07:18
Beagle - ISTR on the 3A the 'fuel - sufficient' check came before the gear and you identified your target threshold speed based on fuel load:ok:

As for the engine - 'variable noise, constant thrust' and a long wait for the power when you elected to overshoot. Happy days.:)

Bill Macgillivray
10th Feb 2016, 08:57
Crab,

Not as long a wait as in the Vampire!! Seemed to take forever, as I remember!
Great times!!

Bill

27mm
10th Feb 2016, 19:31
The first JP trip on our CFS course was on the mighty JP3; no probs for most of us, but the Harrier mate took a while to get airborne. The QFI gave him control for t/o; Harrier mate goes full throttle, releases brakes and then slams tbrottle to idle. "WTF" goes QFI; Harrier mate replies "Well, I released the brakes and nothing seemed to be happening......"

DCThumb
11th Feb 2016, 13:55
Au contraire I'm afraid Pr00ne!!!

My BFT course was made up of a few of us on 'short course' who had done EFTS at Swinderby on the Chipmunk, but the remaining 8 'long course' guys had no flying experience. We were at Cranwell on ......the JP5a

chopper2004
11th Feb 2016, 16:06
I scanned these from the RAF Official Annual Review 2016 (bought off the shelf from WH Smiths :) )

cheers

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger018/IMG_7984_zpszkqairh5.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger017/IMG_7985_zpsdettlnif.jpg

Lyneham Lad
5th Jul 2017, 16:59
Something positive!
Snipped from a Flight Global article (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/embraer-delivers-first-phenom-for-uk-training-progra-439037/) today:-
Embraer has delivered its first Phenom 100 to be used during multi-engine pilot training for the UK armed forces, with the adapted business jet to appear in the static display at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) later this month.

ETOPS
5th Jul 2017, 21:48
Not sure about that shade of blue...

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/3/4445369.jpg?v=v46408847634

DCThumb
5th Jul 2017, 22:03
DCTHumb,

No ab initio ever went straight in to a JP5. They either started on the JP3, for a short time until they reintroduced the Chipmunk at selection then primary level, or there were the folks who started at Cranwell on the JP5, all being ex UAS with many hours on Bulldogs.

Just came back to this thread.

Au Contraire pr00ne!

At Cranwell there was 'Short Course' for the likes of me, from Swinderby, UAS etc, and 'Long Course' made up of ab initio's. The Long Course, as I recall, mainly had extra sorties in the early stages i.e Straight and Level, and usually an extra sortie or 2 for each new skill like formation, nav etc.

Davef68
6th Jul 2017, 10:17
Not sure about that shade of blue...

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/9/6/3/4445369.jpg?v=v46408847634

Looks like someone left their Learjet out in the rain

Martin the Martian
6th Jul 2017, 10:18
Mm, it's certainly not the most elegant of bizjets, is it?

Wander00
6th Jul 2017, 10:30
And not on G- registrations?

Bing
6th Jul 2017, 10:34
And not en G- registrations?

Looks like that's still in Brazil with the manufacturer, are they getting G reg or is that a mil serial under the black strip?

sangiovese.
6th Jul 2017, 10:35
Or robust for students....good for city hopping though, and yes I have been flown in one for a demonstration. Grob 120 looks and sounds lovely though.

Can anyone explain how since contract agreement (2008 was it), they have only finally managed to get 5 Phenom aircraft, 23 Grobs, a few Texans and been provided with the Hawk (which admittedly has been going a few years now)

How much has been spent on this so far to replace a system that works?

(no comment on the helo side as I know nothing about them whatsoever)

ACW342
6th Jul 2017, 13:57
Sanggiovese, probably being run by the same people who fo¢ked the Air cadet fleet. No apologies for the language, it's appropriate for the situation.

A342

Lynxman
6th Jul 2017, 14:43
To be military registered as ZM333 to ZM337. PH-PRK is ZM334.

TorqueOfTheDevil
7th Jul 2017, 15:00
How much has been spent on this so far to replace a system that works?


But it doesn't work that well, does it? There have been enormous difficulties over the years caused by (and I generalize) poor availability of the existing fleet (Tutor, Tucano and Hawk have all been grounded for significant periods at some point). I'm not expecting the new aircraft to be perfect but the issues on the legacy fleet have been one of the causes of the carnage in the training system for quite some period.

The other main cause (ie inconsistency at Government level about how many people need to be trained) will create as much havoc in the brave new world of MFTS as it always has done. Something of a shame that the civil serpents couldn't see that when they recommended we take this path.

Just This Once...
7th Jul 2017, 16:48
DCTHumb,

No ab initio ever went straight in to a JP5. They either started on the JP3, for a short time until they reintroduced the Chipmunk at selection then primary level, or there were the folks who started at Cranwell on the JP5, all being ex UAS with many hours on Bulldogs.

Quite a few ab initio went direct to the JP5 at Cranwell during the period when Linton had already moved to the Tucano and the JP3 had long-since retired.

Brain Potter
7th Jul 2017, 21:10
Cranwell converted to the Tucano well before Linton.

Towards the end of the JP at Linton there were one or two courses that were straight through on the JP Mk 5, but the Mk 3 was still going to almost the end. Most of those who started BFTS were ex-UAS/EFT, There were a few who had the toughest deal of having done just enough PPL/Flying Scholarship to be denied the EFT - but these were a minority. I am fairly sure nobody flew the JP as their very first experience in the period of late-80's through to the end of the JP in 1993.

silverfoxx
7th Jul 2017, 21:26
I am fairly sure nobody flew the JP as their very first experience in the period of late-80's through to the end of the JP in 1993.

I did, also a few of my compatriots in the late 80s.

In those days if you had a PPL the first aircraft you flew was the either the JP3 at Linton or the JP5 at Cranwell. If you didn't have a PPL you went to FSS (Flying Selection Squadron(?)) for 15 hours in the Chipmunk before BFTS in the JP.

Lima Juliet
8th Jul 2017, 13:54
'twas EFTS on the Chipmunk in my day...
https://guideimg.alibaba.com/images/shop/2016/08/02/97/royal-air-force-raf-efts-elementary-flying-training-squadron-embroidered-badge-patch_22616097.jpeg

Lima Juliet
8th Jul 2017, 13:59
How come the Phenom isn't painted in the high-contrast black paint scheme as a trainer. Or is that another piece of RAF corporate knowledge thrown away?

https://i0.wp.com/www.aeroresource.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/00414.jpg?w=720&h=514&crop

camelspyyder
8th Jul 2017, 14:39
The old Grob isn't Black.

The KingAir 200 and GT aren't Black.

The Jetstream was still around when the Dom went Black but it stayed Red.

Lima Juliet
8th Jul 2017, 22:01
Camelspyder

The Grob "Plastic Pig" can't be painted black as it will go a bit 'saggy'! :ok:

IIRC the King Air's had dark blue (nearly black) undersides to contrast with a sky backdrop and white on top to be easily seen if low level from above?

http://www.military-airshows.co.uk/photographs/cosford2008/img_6157.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/RAF_Raytheon_B200_King_Air_Lofting-1.jpg/1024px-RAF_Raytheon_B200_King_Air_Lofting-1.jpg

LJ

camelspyyder
8th Jul 2017, 22:20
I know about the Grobs and being white it makes them a menace in congested airspace.

My point was - not all RAF trainers are black.

camelspyyder
8th Jul 2017, 22:21
The KA are owned by RBS - hence blue and white?

SwitchMonkey
10th Jul 2017, 18:45
I was told* that the King Airs were painted that scheme because the OC45(R) of the day liked the look. Little or no consideration given to the conspicuity study which saw Tucano, Hawk, Dominie & helicopters featuring predominantly black schemes.

*second hand info - caution, may not be true!

GipsyMagpie
10th Jul 2017, 19:43
Camelspyder

The Grob "Plastic Pig" can't be painted black as it will go a bit 'saggy'! :ok:



But if someone wanted to you could apply some pretty big decals to the bottom (see the display scheme a while back). And you definitely can put a dark scheme on a Tutor...

http://www.airnieuws.com/movements/seppe/sep12/PH-SPH%20EHSE%2016-09-2012.jpg

Makes you wonder why we haven't done the same to our "stealth" Tutors?

The B Word
10th Jul 2017, 21:01
What's up with the ejection seat warning stickers on the Texan - they're nearly bigger than the RAF roundels!! :yuk::yuk:

http://aerossurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ukmfts-texan-1.jpg

BEagle
10th Jul 2017, 21:40
What an ugly looking thing that T-6C is.....

What with that, the Grob Prefect and the Phenom, Arse-scent seem to have captured the market for ugly looking aeroplanes.

Martin the Martian
10th Jul 2017, 22:12
What's up with the ejection seat warning stickers on the Texan - they're nearly bigger than the RAF roundels!! :yuk::yuk:

http://aerossurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ukmfts-texan-1.jpg

As they will be operating out of Valley perhaps they've had to make them bigger to allow the Welsh translation to be printed on them? Just like the road signs and police cars.:E

And yes, they are totally pug-ugly.

Lima Juliet
10th Jul 2017, 22:13
Its older sister the PC-21 is a far better looking aircraft...
http://www.airforce-technology.com/uploads/project/pc_21/images/pc-21_6.jpg

TorqueOfTheDevil
11th Jul 2017, 10:42
What an ugly looking thing that T-6C is.....

What with that, the Grob Prefect and the Phenom, Arse-scent seem to have captured the market for ugly looking aeroplanes.


Agree, and the helicopters are no better. Spindly tail booms but grotesquely big fenestrons...

Bob Viking
11th Jul 2017, 13:50
LJ.

Whilst I agree the PC21 is better looking than the Texan it can't really be described as a sister. Distant cousin maybe?

Looks aside, the PC21 is far more aeroplane than you need. T6 is actually perfect for the job and well proven. But ugly.

As for helicopters, they're all ugly.

BV

Lima Juliet
11th Jul 2017, 15:29
BV

I agree "butt ugly" it is! :p

LJ

chopper2004
11th Jul 2017, 18:03
LJ.

Whilst I agree the PC21 is better looking than the Texan it can't really be described as a sister. Distant cousin maybe?

Looks aside, the PC21 is far more aeroplane than you need. T6 is actually perfect for the job and well proven. But ugly.

As for helicopters, they're all ugly.

BV

So what is beautiful in your humble opinion ? lol

I will be attending RIAT friday and sat on professional level thus all of Ascent's assets will be there even Juno and Jupiter

Cheers

Davef68
11th Jul 2017, 23:17
Rathyeon took a reasonably attractive aircraft in the PC9 and made it ugly. Probably to make future A10 and F18 drivers feel better about their mounts

Bob Viking
11th Jul 2017, 23:49
Chopper.

Anything with a spinning roof is inherently wrong.

Remember in simple terms an aeroplane should land and then stop. Not stop and then land.

I should point out that right now I am the wrong side of a well developed game of Tink and couldn't even name my first born child.

BV

12th Jul 2017, 18:57
perhaps they've had to make them bigger to allow the Welsh translation to be printed on them dim ejectio ???????:) or simply 'allan':ok:

Or, in the vein of 'poppity-ping' for a microwave, perhaps 'bangitty seat yeah'

Lyneham Lad
2nd Aug 2017, 15:35
Flight Global article RAF weighs training balance as new fleet nears use (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-weighs-training-balance-as-new-fleet-nears-use-439824/)

Snipped:-
Speaking to FlightGlobal at the Royal International Air Tattoo on 14 July, Air Marshal Sean Rey*nolds, deputy commander capability and air member for personnel and capability, said the RAF was assessing its training needs and delivery methods for the incoming fleet. His target is to reduce the time taken to prepare a new fighter pilot from five to 3.5 years, and cut its multi-engine crew training period by 30%, from two years currently.
(My bold/italics)

Given the complexity of current & future single-seat FJ operations, a realist target?

Roland Pulfrew
3rd Aug 2017, 14:51
I am fairly sure nobody flew the JP as their very first experience in the period of late-80's through to the end of the JP in 1993.

If you discount my first ever solo, which was in a Kirby Cadet Mk III, then my first ever powered solo was on the JP.

just another jocky
3rd Aug 2017, 15:18
If you discount my first ever solo, which was in a Kirby Cadet Mk III, then my first ever powered solo was on the JP.

My first ever was the JP3. :ok:

Brain Potter
3rd Aug 2017, 18:15
QUOTE=Roland Pulfrew;9850998]If you discount my first ever solo, which was in a Kirby Cadet Mk III, then my first ever powered solo was on the JP.[/QUOTE]

My first ever was the JP3. :ok:

My first-hand knowledge of the flying training sytem spans the period 1987-1993. I am clearly mistaken, but I had recalled that without apprx 30 hours powered flying (eg a Flying Scholarship) pilot trainees went firstly to EFTS on the Chipmunk. I think this scheme was preceded by one that involved a Flying Selection Sqn, again on the Chipmunk, but I don't know when this changed over. It does seem puzzling that, if these schools existed as I recall, that candidates with no flying experince were going straight to BFTS.

I do recall that, having done a Flying Scholarship, I felt that getting experience on the UAS was vital as I would miss out on EFTS. Wasn't there also a long/short option at BFTS? I can't recall how that was decided.

F.O.D
3rd Aug 2017, 18:31
In 1980, when I started RAF flying training, my first experience of flying was 14 hours on the Chipmunk followed by the JP5A at Cranwell. As students did not go solo on the Chipmunk at that time, my first solo experience was at the controls of a JP5A. Happy days indeed.

sharpend
3rd Aug 2017, 20:59
If you discount my first ever solo, which was in a Kirby Cadet Mk III, then my first ever powered solo was on the JP.

Me too in a JP3

just another jocky
4th Aug 2017, 10:49
In 1980, when I started RAF flying training, my first experience of flying was 14 hours on the Chipmunk followed by the JP5A at Cranwell. As students did not go solo on the Chipmunk at that time, my first solo experience was at the controls of a JP5A. Happy days indeed.



Indeed, that sounds about right. By my recollection, ex-UAS students went straight to Cranwell to fly the JP5.


The rest of us went via Flying Selection Squadron at Swinderby for 14 hours in the Chippie, no solo, then onto Linton & Fenton for the JP3. Fast Jet guys then went JP5 at those stations.

Roland Pulfrew
4th Aug 2017, 11:30
My first-hand knowledge of the flying training system spans the period 1987-1993. I am clearly mistaken, but I had recalled that without apprx 30 hours powered flying (eg a Flying Scholarship) pilot trainees went firstly to EFTS on the Chipmunk. I think this scheme was preceded by one that involved a Flying Selection Sqn, again on the Chipmunk, but I don't know when this changed over. It does seem puzzling that, if these schools existed as I recall, that candidates with no flying experience were going straight to BFTS.

To be fair Brain you are correct. Sadly I am that old and I went through Flying Selection Squadron, just like JAJ. Those with no previous flying experience went to FSS, got 14 hours on the Chipmunk T10, were taken to solo standard but never sent solo :( and were only assessed as suitable to move on to BFTS or not; one or 2 from my course were assessed as not and went on to other branches. For the rest it was off to one of the 3 Basic FTSs (CF, Cwl or L-o-O) for the JP and our first solos.

For those worried about EFT with retractable undercarriages, well that's what runway caravans and flare pistols are for. Do we still have runway caravans and flare pistols? :uhoh:

Davef68
4th Aug 2017, 12:11
The original JP courses in the 50s took student pilots with no previous flying experience straight onto the JP.

just another jocky
4th Aug 2017, 13:23
The original JP courses in the 50s took student pilots with no previous flying experience straight onto the JP.

TBH though, you couldn't call FSS much of a flying experience. It was all 'monkey see, monkey do' with no explanation, much less teaching.

wiggy
4th Aug 2017, 13:41
As I vaguely recall it in the late 70s (78 I think, when I was going through Cranwell as a student) there was a least one DEP JP 3 course (? 1 DEP aka "The wooden tops") where the guys had nil previous flying. By the time I got back to Sleaford Tech as a QFI in the mid 80s all courses were on the 5, the short course guys were generally from the UASs, the long course students had come via Chippies/Swinderby..

Dan Winterland
5th Aug 2017, 07:28
From 1985, the Swinderby students were doing the 65 hour EFTS course and did the JP5 short course at Cranwell.

teeteringhead
5th Aug 2017, 08:20
One recalls that the straight through JP pilots were known as "Kerosene Kiddies" - not necessarily affectionately.........

BEagle
5th Aug 2017, 09:07
When I was a university undergraduate, one of our ULAS QFIs was an ex-Cranwellian, who'd been on one of the last Provost / Vampire courses. He and his course colleagues had been rather disparaging about the lowly JP3 when it arrived for the first of the College's 'straight through jet' basic flying training courses in 1961.

I was lucky enough to have been on one of the last of the traditional 'common core' JP3/5 courses in 1974 before the course was changed and the 'Group 1 Phase 1' thing started in 1975. Everyone, whether destined for Harriers, Vulcans or Wessex did exactly the same 125/140 hour course, with only UAS graduates doing the shorter course.

No doubt it was an expensive way to train, but it achieved excellence and was also great fun!

Haraka
5th Aug 2017, 11:31
Hi Beags:
You might like to read this about how our current Service" plans" for future excellence...

https://www.raf.mod.uk/role/futureoftherafprototype.cfm

Hell's teeth!

BEagle
5th Aug 2017, 12:11
Hi Haraka - as I only speak English, a smattering of French and German and can usually order a meal in Spanish, I didn't understand most of that link with its peculiar mixture of upper and lower case words, initialisations and bizspeak wanquewords.

What's CAS' FASOC beacon FFS? Something like the rudely named inland lighthouse which you will remember was on top of College Hall?

MPN11
5th Aug 2017, 12:46
I'm with you, BEagle ... what a pile of MBA scribble-speak. In my days in MoD at least we spoke and wrote in English, and our bosses were Air Officers and not Chief Executives.

Haraka
5th Aug 2017, 13:03
I just wonder what the likes of Trenchard,Smuts,Henderson and Sykes would have made of all this........

Al-bert
5th Aug 2017, 13:12
Hi Beags:
You might like to read this about how our current Service" plans" for future excellence...

https://www.raf.mod.uk/role/futureoftherafprototype.cfm

Hell's teeth!

Well, it's all perfectly clear to me, even as an old ex spec aircrew f@rt.

That is, it's clearly why we have the :mad: RAF that we have today :hmm:

Bob Viking
5th Aug 2017, 14:37
I think it's best for all of us that you lot are ex-aircrew. That's banter by the way.

I'm not pretending I understand any of that rubbish either I just don't waste a single second of my day caring about it.

BV

Haraka
5th Aug 2017, 16:14
Although long retired and in my dotage, I was sure that the RAF's Merlins were handed over to the RN from 28 (AC) and 78 Squadrons around three years ago now.
However this is seemingly not the case, according to the text and colour pictures spread across the "Agile Adaptable and Capable " perpetrators of the overall website I quoted from in #147.
I expect they got all the senior appointment bio's up to date though.....

Lyneham Lad
5th Aug 2017, 16:35
The plethora of "when I was..." is all very interesting but so far no-one has answered the question I posed in Post #133 regarding the fast-jet training period reduction from 5 to 3.5 years.
Or does the "Adaptable and Capable" part of the slogan cover it?

Anyone?

Bob Viking
5th Aug 2017, 18:03
Lyneham Lad.

Maybe I can attempt to answer it. It's much like when the government include Nuclear deterrent and pensions in the 2% of GDP figure for the defence budget. You can say you have reduced the timescale to anything you like. It just depends on the level to which your graduate has been trained.

The bottom line is anything is possible. I was CR on the Jag after 4.5 years from the day I joined as a graduate direct entrant. I spent 20 months of that time holding. I would say efficiency is the key.

We can now spend the next 5 pages debating if that's possible or just enjoy our evenings instead and wait and see.

BV

DunWinching
5th Aug 2017, 18:48
I sense a "thought shower" mentality approaches. Just what got the 1000 bomber raids sorted. Not.

The B Word
5th Aug 2017, 18:51
From that link came the RAF Strategy

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/B9FB695F_5056_A318_A8BC2CA5A1362C13.pdf

alfred_the_great
5th Aug 2017, 19:22
I sense a "thought shower" mentality approaches. Just what got the 1000 bomber raids sorted. Not.

But probably what got Barnes Wallis thinking on the right track...

just another jocky
6th Aug 2017, 06:23
For those worried about EFT with retractable undercarriages, well that's what runway caravans and flare pistols are for. Do we still have runway caravans and flare pistols? :uhoh:


Cranditz has a caravan because the King Air's operate(d) out of there but Wittering doesn't as it's only the fixed-undercarriage Tutor that routinely operates out of there. They both still have flares.



The plethora of "when I was..." is all very interesting but so far no-one has answered the question I posed in Post #133 regarding the fast-jet training period reduction from 5 to 3.5 years.
Or does the "Adaptable and Capable" part of the slogan cover it?

Anyone?
Clearly they believe they do and I can see no real reason to disbelieve it. With greater use of simulators and CBT, plus a hugely more efficient use of aircraft there is clearly a plan to graduate from EFT in shorter order. One presumes the same will apply to T6 & T2, hence the time-saving postulated. No reason why it couldn't happen.

just another jocky
6th Aug 2017, 06:25
And if anybody wants to visit Barkston Heath, the Prefects have started flying.

BEagle
6th Aug 2017, 06:35
The venerable JPs had a UUPI - an ultrasonic undercarriage position indicator which gave a short burst of beeps when a transmission was made with landing gear down. Inaudible to the pilots, but picked up by ATC - so if no beeps were heard, a 'check gear' call would be made.

I can recall only one of my colleagues making a gear up approach and getting a red flare. He did the same thing in a Hunter...and eventually became a navigator.

No doubt with progress, such things are no longer considered 'cost efficient'? (UUPIs, I mean, not navigators. But then again....:E )

teeteringhead
6th Aug 2017, 07:06
I sense a "thought shower" mentality approaches. What used to be called "brainstorming" I think.

But that phrase is now non-PC because it may offend epileptics.

And no - sadly - i'm not making that one up.......

spekesoftly
6th Aug 2017, 08:30
The venerable JPs had a UUPI - an ultrasonic undercarriage position indicator which gave a short burst of beeps when a transmission was made with landing gear down. Inaudible to the pilots, but picked up by ATC - so if no beeps were heard, a 'check gear' call would be made.

The JP also had a small bright white lamp on the nose that flashed continuously when the landing gear was down. Another useful indication to ATC and the caravan controller during night flying.

BEagle
7th Aug 2017, 09:32
Reading Robert Jackson's book Hawker Hunter The Operational Record*, it is interesting to note the number of fast jet pilots trained on the Hunter alone in 1955:

The first Hunters, all F.1s, arrived in April 1955 and the first course started on 15 May. From then on a new course arrived every three weeks; four courses were in progress at any one time, and each course lasted twelve weeks. Most of the students were in the twenty to twenty-one age bracket and fresh from FTS, although there was a sprinkling of more experienced pilots taking refresher courses after a ground tour.

When once we had an air force, eh BV?

*That's me taxying in on p 48, not 'taking off' as the picture caption states! Summer of '76 and a single-seat Hunter - it was a fantastic time!

Martin the Martian
7th Aug 2017, 10:29
Just a shame that the Hunter F.1 could not fire its weapons at altitude without flaming out most of the time. And when it did the cartridge shells damaged the underside of the fuselage. That's always assuming the aircraft could get far enough from its home airfield before the fuel ran out.

Perhaps not the best example to use as an example of 'when we had an air force'. Now if you'd said Hunter F.4...

Bob Viking
7th Aug 2017, 13:54
Cheap shot BEagle! ;)

I've never debated if it was bigger back then. Those who remember it will all undoubtedly say it was better.

I'm not going to give my 'times have changed' speech but consider this.

An entire wing of Hunters with 1950s vintage bombs and a four ship of Typhoons with modern weapons.

How many targets could each reliably claim to destroy? And which could defend itself better at the same time?

I feel sure I would have loved the Air Force of yesteryear as much as you evidently did, but as I sit, beer in hand, by the pool of a lovely hotel in Muscat I don't exactly hate my job.

BV

Brain Potter
7th Aug 2017, 19:11
Another perspective:

If you began with 4 Typhoons and trained realistically for a year; at the end you would still have 4 Typhoons and all the the pilots . What would the attrition rate have done to your force strength of Hunters?

Of course, much of the improvement is down to better equipment design and maintenance, but how much of the reduction in accident rate has been achieved by improved training? A significant proportion of the accident rate of previous generations is attributable to the aircrew, who were the products of training system that is regarded as so much better than today's by the rose-tinted spectacle brigade.

BEagle
7th Aug 2017, 19:31
And if just one of your Typhoon pilots was down with a cold, you'd have lost 25% of your fleet strength.

Quantity has a quality all of its own....

Bob Viking
7th Aug 2017, 20:09
I had a bet with myself (which of course I can't prove) that the 'quantity has a quality of its own' quote would materialise imminently.

I'll grant you the illness angle. I'll still wager the targets would be better served by a 3 ship of Typhoons.

BV

charliegolf
7th Aug 2017, 21:33
Pilot illness.

Are Typhoons on a one pilot- one airframe crewing ratio then? Shirley not.

CG

BEagle
7th Aug 2017, 21:48
BV wrote: I'll grant you the illness angle. I'll still wager the targets would be better served by a 3 ship of Typhoons.

Which assumes that the targets aren't too widely dispersed. Although the Typhoon is supremely capable, unlike the 'Hunter wing' to which you referred earlier, it cannot be in 2 parts of the world at the same time...:hmm:

From Hawker Hunter The Operational Record:

By the summer of 1981 about fifty Hawks were operational at Chivenor, while thirty more were in service at Brawdy, alongside forty Hunters.

Those 120 jets were just TWU aircraft, of course 4FTS had its own Hawks too.

Whereas now....:rolleyes:??

t43562
8th Aug 2017, 05:15
Wouldn't the "real" choice now be between Typhoons with modern weapons and more of something as cheap to make as a Hunter that also had modern weapons?

flighthappens
8th Aug 2017, 06:15
Wouldn't the "real" choice now be between Typhoons with modern weapons and more of something as cheap to make as a Hunter that also had modern weapons?

Unless you equip the Hunter with DAS, ECM, Expendables, TRD, Link16, radar, AMRAAM, Litening pod, AAR etc then it is still not as survivable/useful in a high threat environment. Might as well go with the typhoon.

BEagle
8th Aug 2017, 07:18
The Hunter was already hampered by the lack of any AAMs back in the 1970s...

On the topic of numbers, at the end of 1956 the RAF had 16 squadrons of Hunters stationed at Biggin Hill, Church Fenton, Duxford, Leuchars, Linton-on-Ouse, North Weald, Odiham, Tangmere, Waterbeach and Wattisham. A total of 8 radar-equipped 'night fighter' squadrons, flying either the Venom NF3 or Meteor NF12/14, were stationed at the same aerodromes, together with several RAuxAF squadrons of Meteor F8s........

pr00ne
8th Aug 2017, 15:50
BEagle,

What a lovely airshow Air Force we had! And just a year later most of it was gone, and for good reason.There was precious little for the fleets of Hunters and Javelins to do. They were defending against an almost non existent threat. The Russian manned bomber force barely existed and was being run down quickly and severely. The main threat to the UK was from the large force of MRBM's and future ICBM's and SLBM's, a threat to which there was no answer, certainly of a defensive type, the Hunters and Javelins were totally and completely ineffective against them, the main defence being the building V Force. Fighter Command was no longer responsible for defending the UK from air attack, it was purely responsible for defending the V and Thor force and letting it get off the ground, even the about to be introduced Bloodhound SAGW force was positioned entirely to defend the deterrent for a few hours.
The Tory 1957 Defence cuts removed the conventional element of RAFG and all that was left were nuclear Canberras and 2 Hunter FR10 squadrons of 9 a/c a piece, and a small AD force for our national Germany/Berlin air policing commitment.
So all the Hunters and Venoms in Germany went too, leaving a tiny RAFG and a tiny Fighter Command.

Bob Viking
8th Aug 2017, 19:02
t43562.

I believe the real choice is exactly as I said. If you have read the conversation then I'm not sure how you came up with your scenario. As someone else alluded to, a Hunter with modern weapons would be a Typhoon!

BEagle.

I'm not sure why I persist with this conversation. If you haven't got it yet I guess you never will.

My overriding question is that if you are so patently unhappy with the modern RAF why don't you just let it go? I can clearly only speak for the FJ community but from where I'm sat it's not all that bad. A student passing through the modern system (different from what you remember but still very good) has a choice of Typhoon or F35 (or Creamie!). What's not to like?

As for the numbers of Hawks. The RAF needed lots of them when it had more cockpits to fill. We don't need so many any more. I know you think this reinforces your point but just as modern jets beat the 1950s vintage aircraft in terms of capability the same is true of the aircraft they directly replace.

I dearly loved the Jaguar, for instance, but a single role jet with limited loadout does not really have a place in a modern Air Force. I realise I won't be welcomed at jaguar reunions for saying it but it's true.

Anyway I'm sure you'll take issue with what I say again but that's your choice.

BV

Wrathmonk
8th Aug 2017, 19:12
BV

I can clearly only speak for the FJ community

Unlike many on here, but still do anyway ;)

Of course, the biggest problem with so few aircraft types if you have fewer fallback plans when you get chopped....:E

BEagle
8th Aug 2017, 19:33
BV, I'm not saying that the RAF should still have as many aircraft, pilots and aerodromes as was the case 60 or even 35 years ago.

But I do question the massive reduction in numbers and the creeping cancer of MFTS contractorisation of the last 15 or so years.

Hopefully there won't be, but should there ever be a surge requirement for more front line pilots, the RAF simply won't have the capacity to meet it as it once could. So few aerodromes, very few pilots on ground tours who could be spared ( a mate in the Air Box was tasked to research that before he retired - there just aren't people hidden away as there used to be) and very few training aircraft...

just another jocky
9th Aug 2017, 03:50
t43562.

I believe the real choice is exactly as I said. If you have read the conversation then I'm not sure how you came up with your scenario. As someone else alluded to, a Hunter with modern weapons would be a Typhoon!

BEagle.

I'm not sure why I persist with this conversation. If you haven't got it yet I guess you never will.

My overriding question is that if you are so patently unhappy with the modern RAF why don't you just let it go? I can clearly only speak for the FJ community but from where I'm sat it's not all that bad. A student passing through the modern system (different from what you remember but still very good) has a choice of Typhoon or F35 (or Creamie!). What's not to like?

As for the numbers of Hawks. The RAF needed lots of them when it had more cockpits to fill. We don't need so many any more. I know you think this reinforces your point but just as modern jets beat the 1950s vintage aircraft in terms of capability the same is true of the aircraft they directly replace.

I dearly loved the Jaguar, for instance, but a single role jet with limited loadout does not really have a place in a modern Air Force. I realise I won't be welcomed at jaguar reunions for saying it but it's true.

Anyway I'm sure you'll take issue with what I say again but that's your choice.

BV


Nicely put BV. :ok:

just another jocky
9th Aug 2017, 03:54
BV, I'm not saying that the RAF should still have as many aircraft, pilots and aerodromes as was the case 60 or even 35 years ago.

But I do question the massive reduction in numbers and the creeping cancer of MFTS contractorisation of the last 15 or so years.

Hopefully there won't be, but should there ever be a surge requirement for more front line pilots, the RAF simply won't have the capacity to meet it as it once could. So few aerodromes, very few pilots on ground tours who could be spared ( a mate in the Air Box was tasked to research that before he retired - there just aren't people hidden away as there used to be) and very few training aircraft...

Beagle, but how can you justify the expense of such excess capacity sitting idle awaiting some unquantified surge requirement?


I think it is still early days to be calling MFTS a creeping cancer. All reports from those already flying the 120TP seem very positive. Why don't we just wait and see instead of opinionating them to the dustbin so soon?

alfred_the_great
9th Aug 2017, 15:22
Beagle, but how can you justify the expense of such excess capacity sitting idle awaiting some unquantified surge requirement?


I think it is still early days to be calling MFTS a creeping cancer. All reports from those already flying the 120TP seem very positive. Why don't we just wait and see instead of opinionating them to the dustbin so soon?

Because this is PPRUNE, and if it's not the 70s and/or a conspiracy to deny pilots the unfettered ability to go updiddly up, it can't possibly be a good thing.

just another jocky
9th Aug 2017, 15:50
Because this is PPRUNE, and if it's not the 70s and/or a conspiracy to deny pilots the unfettered ability to go updiddly up, it can't possibly be a good thing.

Good point, what was I thinking? :ok:

BEagle
9th Aug 2017, 18:33
just another jock y (sic), the reference to people 'hidden away' meant all those who used to be on various ground tours, QFI-ing on UASs or on various 'aircrew annotated' posts.

My Wg Cdr colleague who was tasked to research the number of aircrew in such posts soon discovered that things had changed considerably since the days which the Air Officer who set him the task remembered. This was about 5 years ago.

Many of the posts which the Air Officer thought must still be manned by aircrew had in fact been either civilianised or contracted out. So the assumed vein of 'misemployed' aircrew simply didn't exist. (Such as the idle bugger who was OC Sims at a certain station in the mid-70s and had a monthly FJ SCT allocation which he never used....:uhoh:)

Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....

Bob Viking
9th Aug 2017, 19:38
It's far too easy to look into the future and see nothing but doom and gloom. That just makes us feel miserable.

I prefer to believe that things will all work out fine just as they always do. It makes me far happier to view life that way.

I may be wrong but I'll worry about it when it happens. It's just like Brexit in that regard. The doom mongers can say what they like. The fact is nobody has the first idea what's going to happen in the future.

So to bring it back into context, MFTS is different from what preceded it, but it is working so far and is still producing pilots of good quality. Those of us that are actually involved with it can either spend our lives whinging about it or we can get on with life and be happy.

I dare say if you're not actually part of the current system it is just possible that you don't know what it is actually like.

Sorry for my bluntness but half a bottle of wine removes my usual filters.

BV

Speed Twelve
10th Aug 2017, 00:38
Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....

OK, I'll bite. BEagle, I've read your opinion on the contractorisation of military flying training on PPrune. I've been a civvy contractor Tutor QFI for the last 12 yrs. Consistently assessed by CFS & 115 as 'above average', yet did not serve as a Qualified Service Pilot. The problem is....?

just another jocky
10th Aug 2017, 07:01
just another jock y (sic), the reference to people 'hidden away' meant all those who used to be on various ground tours, QFI-ing on UASs or on various 'aircrew annotated' posts.

My Wg Cdr colleague who was tasked to research the number of aircrew in such posts soon discovered that things had changed considerably since the days which the Air Officer who set him the task remembered. This was about 5 years ago.

Many of the posts which the Air Officer thought must still be manned by aircrew had in fact been either civilianised or contracted out. So the assumed vein of 'misemployed' aircrew simply didn't exist. (Such as the idle bugger who was OC Sims at a certain station in the mid-70s and had a monthly FJ SCT allocation which he never used....:uhoh:)

Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....


Beagle (sic), so what you're saying is we should take current pilots off the front line and put them in sh1tty ground jobs just in case we need to surge pilots sometime?


I do, however, wonder along with you about your last statement and despite the post by Speed Twelve, I believe we still need ex-front line pilots within the training system to inculcate the military ethos into the cockpit and ground training.

BEagle
10th Aug 2017, 07:33
No mate. What I meant was that it used to be quite common for aircrew to be in various ground posts - and when the need arose, they could be hoiked out and given some refresher flying before returning to flying duties.

The archetypal 'OC GD at Machrihanish' was always implied as a threatened 'bad boys' posting for aircrew - but I don't think it was ever for real. But sadly there actually were a few 'aircrew' quite happy to receive flying pay who actively sought successive ground tours.

I vaguely recall a 'QFI trawl' in the early 1980s when 2 of our sqn captains were dragged back to the UAS system to free up ex-FJ pilots who could be refreshed and posted elsewhere, allowing others to be sent to join the build up of the Tornado force. Or so the story which filtered down to us went. But the system had enough flex to cope.

Similarly, I was liberated from UAS QFI-ing for about 6 months for GW1, when I returned to operational flying - as also was my FSS Chipmunk QFI co-pilot, F3 simulator navigator and air engineer from Boscombe Down.

The paper to which I referred was an attempt to identify the number of aircrew still in non-flying appointments, the assumption being that there must be quite a few. The truth turned out to be rather different.

As for speed twelve, I have nothing but sympathy. Being stuck in EFTS training for 12 years and with no chance of escaping back to operational flying is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Ironically, a few weeks after returning from KKIA I was back at the UAS when some young lady rang up from Binnsworth asking me to sign some 'war appointment' notice for her records - the appointment being to fly the Bulldog around the southern UK as some sort of recce asset or similar. "You really expect me to do that if there's a war, do you?", I asked her. "Well, yes".... I then explained in simple words that there'd just been a war and I'd indeed been sent away from the UAS - but not to fly Bulldogs! But she sounded so nice that I agreed to sign her form anyway.

Regarding the future sustainability of the MFTS system with ex-front line QFIs, I asked that very question at an MFTS brief at people-formerly-known-as-GAPAN. The response was what Blackadder once described as 'Guppy fish at feeding time'....:rolleyes:

iRaven
10th Aug 2017, 07:33
There is a need for some non-flying tours. After 11 years of non-stop FL FJ flying I needed a break, so a 3 year ground tour in flight safety was just the break and change I needed. If we don't have a suite of interesting non-flying jobs for our aircrew then we run the risk of burning them out. To be quite honest, even an instructor tour on a phase 2 trg unit would not have provided the break away that I felt I needed to support my family.

I think there are around 2,000 officer aircrew and 1,000 non-commissioned aircrew in the RAF. With only around 500 airframes to fly, then the numbers are probably about right at 6:1 if you consider that on average there are 2 aircrew per aircraft. If you man your Sqn about 2 crews to every airframe then that allows for a spare crew in the ground post system.

As for MFTS, there are pluses and minuses. We bought a system of trg that was designed to deliver aircrew pre a decision to buy more aircraft in SDSR15. So that means that the trg system is very very taught. Also, we were railroaded into buying Hawk T2 with a bang seat that has a crew weight limitation of 14kgs less than the T1 - so that means that the larger youths of today can't train on T2 even though they would easily meet the bang seat limits for Typhoon. We also have the Phenom which I understand has an issue with Cranwell's runway length if it uses the anti-icing system and wants to fly close to MAUM. There is the debacle of the Jupiter/Juno helos beinng too small for rear crew trg and so we'll likely have to buy something else in addition. No-one expected to do WSO(Nav) trg again, but now with Poseidon, Protector, Rivet Joint and E3D all needing Navs then WSO(Nav) trg will need to start again. Then there is the proposed shoehorning of everything into Cranwell, WIttering and Valley - it's just about feasible on paper but then in practice it will not work when slot times slip. However, I'm with Bob Viking in that we'll make it work, but we don't half make it difficult for ourselves!!!

iRaven

Speed Twelve
10th Aug 2017, 21:53
just another jocky; BEagle.

There are plenty of ex front-line people in the training system. Of the five at my current unit, 3 have plenty of time flying ops in everything from Corporate to Herrick, one is ex- Ground Branch commission, then myself, a mere ex officer cadet.

The customer appears inordinately happy with the product. I fully understand that there was a time when everything was done 'in-house', but times move on. Some of the punchiest QFIs I've flown with didn't serve full-time. It isn't a prerequisite. It also doesn't necessarily result in a lack of military ethos.

iRaven
10th Aug 2017, 22:45
Here is the Phenom 100 flight manual that I found online. This is the perf page for SL-1000ft prssure alt with anti-icing on:

http://img.pixady.com/2017/08/807247_img1317.png

I also note in the same flight manual the maximum that the demonstrated crosswind is max 17kts. So the Phenom would need to leave fuel behind at Cranwell if the wind is southerly or northerly by 17kts or more. Pretty sure that the King Air doesn't have the same issues and that the Citation doesn't need as much concrete either?

BEagle
11th Aug 2017, 06:33
iRaven, that table states that it is a 'simplified' take-off analysis.

Although it would seem to show that at +5°C, the aircraft could only use the short RW at Cranwell with 54% fuel, it takes no account of surface wind.

Presumably there would be no need to use the short RW unless the crosswind component on the main was out of limits. So it would be interesting to see the take-off and landing performance figures under the same conditions, but with a headwind of, say, 20 kts.

Incidentally, while I admire your optimism regarding 'making it work', I gather that the aircrew outflow rate is now so serious that the shortfall cannot be made up with the current training rate, particularly for FJ pilots...:\

Dominator2
11th Aug 2017, 07:44
Of course, as we all know Cranwell is on a hill with 2 of the 4 runways having slopes which severely degrade performance. Also, 3 of the 4 have obstacles which are a factor!

Obviously all of these factors were investigated and understood when it was decided to purchase the Phenom and operate from CWL.

We got away with it in the Dominie because no one in power wanted to understand the problem despite being told many times!

just another jocky
11th Aug 2017, 08:10
just another jocky; BEagle.

There are plenty of ex front-line people in the training system. Of the five at my current unit, 3 have plenty of time flying ops in everything from Corporate to Herrick, one is ex- Ground Branch commission, then myself, a mere ex officer cadet.

The customer appears inordinately happy with the product. I fully understand that there was a time when everything was done 'in-house', but times move on. Some of the punchiest QFIs I've flown with didn't serve full-time. It isn't a prerequisite. It also doesn't necessarily result in a lack of military ethos.

Speed Twelve, I wasn't decrying the use of non-military QFIs at all, just that military QFIs, in my opinion, should form the backbone of a QFI cadre in training. There are plenty of excellent civilian contractor FIs and if you took any other meaning from my posts, I apologise.


I think the issue is where do we get military QFIs in the future?

Speed Twelve
11th Aug 2017, 11:07
Ah, fair enough old chap. Yes, I do agree that the 'core' ethos should come from those who have been there, done that, on ops. I don't know how the military will sustain a flow of QFIs in the future either. Quite a few that I've worked with have been 'established' in the training system for multiple years/tours and are effectively lost to the front-line. But when they go....

BEagle
18th Aug 2017, 11:57
Do I hear right? Does the latest 'common core' EFT syllabus really include no aerobatics before pilots are streamed? So that those going to the Phenom will never have turned their bums to the sun by the time they gain their wings :mad:??

At a time when EASA Opinion 06/2017 proposes mandatory UPRT / LOC-I training for multi-crew pilots, it seems odd that the RAF does not appear to have embraced a parallel training requirement:

This Opinion proposes to integrate upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) requirements and provisions into the EU pilot training regulatory framework. The proposed training requirements aim to provide pilots with competencies to prevent upsets or to recover from developed upsets. The main focus of the new training standards is on pilots who intend to pursue a pilot career with a commercial airline. Such pilots would likely complete either an aeroplane airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) or a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) integrated training course, followed by training to act as a pilot in a multi-crew environment on respective aircraft. The proposed pilot training aims to deliver enhanced pilot competencies through additional upset-prevention- and upset-recovery-related theoretical knowledge (TK) and flight instruction for the commercial aeroplane licences. The newly developed advanced UPRT course, which is to be mandated as an addendum to ATP and MPL training courses and also to serve as a prerequisite prior to commencing the first type rating course in multi-pilot operations, is seen as an important step towards enhancing a commercial pilot’s resilience to the psychological and physiological aspects often associated with upset conditions. In support of the new standards, the proposals place greater emphasis on the training of instructors involved in the flight and synthetic training who are foreseen to deliver the various UPRT elements.

Full text here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Opinion%20No%2006-2017.pdf

I also hear that the new 'common core' EFT syllabus includes a mere 1:05 of solo circuit consolidation, but no other solo flying before the luckless student is sent off on a 1:00 solo navex. No solo sector recce, no solo PFL / steep turn exercises - and yet it's OK to send the poor sod off for the first time on his own out of the circuit on a 1:00 navex? Who on earth did the risk assessment for that piece of folly?

Has the RAF training world gone completely tonto...:\

18th Aug 2017, 12:33
Has the RAF training world gone completely tonto...yup! and it's happening in the RW world as well.

just another jocky
18th Aug 2017, 17:09
Beags, Incipient Spinning and Stalling are still part of EFT, which is what UPRT seems to be aimed at, especially since more & more modern aircraft wont let you inadvertently spin or stall and even if the flight controls failed enough to let you, that very failure would prevent a recovery.


I hear that the current "Interim" Common Core Syllabus may revert back to the original Common Core Syllabus as it was just an interim measure.

BEagle
18th Aug 2017, 18:29
UPRT is not part of a basic flight training course; please see EASA Opinion 06/2017 for a more complete explanation. And direct the attention of 22Gp to the topic....

I recall once talking to a ba A320 TRI. He was emphatic that it was impossible to stall an A320; sadly, he had little idea of the flight envelope protection available in anything except Normal Law, yet he was an instructor on type.

Nevertheless, what sort of idiot would ever allow a student to fly a solo navex without having flown either a sector recce or other out-of-circuit solo consolidation exercise beforehand?

That 'outline interim common core syllabus' doesn't even include solo flapless or low level circuits. 'Familiarisation' and EoC 1/2 are allocated 1:00 in total... But what on earth is 1:00 of 'circuit turns'?

Bonkers....:mad:

Onceapilot
18th Aug 2017, 19:09
So to bring it back into context, MFTS is different from what preceded it, but it is working so far and is still producing pilots of good quality. Those of us that are actually involved with it can either spend our lives whinging about it or we can get on with life and be happy.

BV

Hi Bob, I cannot compare the present Pilot training standards with the past but, given similar standards, one has to expect that, less training equals less learning?

OAP

beardy
18th Aug 2017, 19:52
Friday night was always a good brainstorming time.


BEagle , 18th Aug 2017 19:29

I agree with your sentiments. 👍

Bob Viking
18th Aug 2017, 20:29
OAP.

The simplest way I can think of to answer your question is to state that the input standard and output requirement have both changed drastically. It is therefore nigh on impossible to compare the past with the present.

You can read into that what you will. None of us can serve for long enough to state categorically if it is for the best or not. All I can say is that in my personal sphere of influence we are still producing students that meet the output standard.

I'm sure that in 20-30 years time I too will be appalled by the 'yoof of today'. For now I'm willing to give the system a chance.

BV

Bob Viking
18th Aug 2017, 20:36
Having read my post maybe I could add an example to explain what I mean. 30 years ago a single seat fighter pilot had to fly in a cockpit that was not ergonomically designed in an aeroplane that was probably not very forgiving. He (deliberately worded as such) was also probably employed in a single role.

The single seat fighter pilot of today gets to fly an aeroplane that can largely look after itself but must deal with multiple systems and sensors. He/she will be fulfilling multiple roles at once.

Do we all believe that the training system should remain unchanged or move with the times?

I may be deluded (I am more than willing to admit when I'm wrong) and can only speak for the FJ world, as I continually state, but the current system works as well as it ever did.

Based on my experience I can only suggest that those in the other streams give the system a chance and it may just turn out alright.

BV

19th Aug 2017, 05:37
The simplest way I can think of to answer your question is to state that the input standard and output requirement have both changed drastically. It is therefore nigh on impossible to compare the past with the present. Which is terribly convenient for those trying to foist a 'streamlined' training system onto those who should know better.

Unfortunately it will take time and effort to identify the real shortcomings of the new and shiny system and eventually the wheel will have to be re-invented.

BEagle
19th Aug 2017, 07:16
The simplest way I can think of to answer your question is to state that the input standard and output requirement have both changed drastically. It is therefore nigh on impossible to compare the past with the present.

To quote General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett:

“That's the spirit. If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through”

:hmm:

Onceapilot
19th Aug 2017, 08:19
BV
Thanks for your comments which, seem to fit the "less training needed" POV.
Although I have not flown the Typhoon or F35, I don't think that the war-winning military type flying skills requirement has changed that much. Certainly, the need for IT / Interface skills has grown, but the core hand, eyes, ears, stick, brain capability within the dynamic flying environment remains. The comprehensive flying training I received certainly built the mental workload to the maximum within the military flying workplace (bum often to the sun / moon at the same time etc...).
Overall, I suggest that the RAF needs FJ pilots with the greatest depth of flying skill, experience and ability possible. Cruising around and pressing buttons on a nice day is not what it should be about. ;)

OAP

DCThumb
19th Aug 2017, 11:48
The trouble is that once upon a long ago, the RAF set the standard for flying training. The civilian training system followed and removed those areas felt unnecessary and, most important, uneconomic. Over the years, civilian training has evolved under unrelenting commercial pressure to provide the minimum training possible at the lowest possible cost. Look at UPRT - it started out as a desire to train pilots how to diagnose and recover from situations out of the norm. As this was going to be expensive - simulator envelopes needed expanding in order to accurately replicate more of the envelope (and perhaps have a stab at some outside the envelope conditions) - this has been dumbed down to UPRT avoidance training. This is just one example of how civil training is entirely cost driven. The RAF used to train for excellence. This has in itself been watered down over recent years, but there is a huge element of risk in following civilian 'best practise' for military training in order to reduce costs. Now, I have had no sight of what the MFTS syllabus offers but what I do know is that since leaving the RAF, I have been exposed to a huge disparity in the quality of the civilian pilots I have flown with. The best are as good as anything the RAF has to offer, however I have flown with some qualified pilots (including Captains) who are nowhere near as aware or capable as someone fresh out of 45 Sqn (standard of 5 years ago!). I await to see (from afar) what MFTS produces....

LOMCEVAK
19th Aug 2017, 11:51
I have instructed only in a very narrow band of advanced training (flight testing) and have done so for many years. It has been interesting to compare the skill sets that our students (who are 'above average' front line pilots) have at the start of the course. Based on this I have come to the following conclusion:

Today's military pilots have the same ability that they always have. However, 'ability' relates to the potential to learn skills, and the skills required to operate military aircraft have changed over the years. Obviously, front line pilots have the required skills for the present which demonstrates that the flying training system is providing adequate training. I think that where the angst is generated amongst pilots of an older generation (mine!) regarding flying training is that the stick and rudder skills and, perhaps, judgement that were needed 30 or 40 years ago are not needed to fly modern aircraft. Therefore, why teach them? It is interesting how the perception of the Tornado has changed. When it entered service it was 'the electric jet' but now, compared to Typhoon and F-35, it is the platform that 'needs to be flown'. There is a very similar analogy in the commercial aviation world. However, there is then an interesting debate to be had when it comes to operating in degraded flight control system or cockpit display modes modes which may well require the handling and piloting skills of older aircraft. Big picture, do you spend time and money in training to cater for a low probability event or do you accept the cost of a loss if a pilot does not have the skills to handle certain infrequent events? This is the AF447 conundrum.

For many years I held the view that 'in a decade true stick and rudder skills will reside only in sport aviation'. Perhaps that decade has now passed? What would be interesting to know is if and how the Red Arrows' training has changed over the years to cater for any differences in skill sets between pilots trained in the old way and those trained more recently. That may well be the best metric for demonstrating changes in pure flying skills.

Heathrow Harry
19th Aug 2017, 12:56
"what I do know is that since leaving the RAF, I have been exposed to a huge disparity in the quality of the civilian pilots I have flown with. The best are as good as anything the RAF has to offer,"

But that is partly due to the far greater number of pilots who are trained commercialy cp the RAF. Back in WW2 there were some great RAF pilots but I'm willing to bet a lot were average asthey had thousands of aircarft to fill. When you have a very small number of aircraft that don't fly v much (cp a commercial operation) you choose a very small cadre of the very best. When you need dozens of pilots to fly around Europe 24/7 you are by definition going to have a broader range of abilities.

Onceapilot
19th Aug 2017, 13:30
LOMCEVAK
Always a pleasure to read your take! :ok: Yes, I agree that the successful RAF pilot students probably do have similar ability to learn and perform as they ever did. However, the cost and military importance of the aircraft that they will operate has grown enormously. I suggest that their piloting abilities and experience when moving into the seat of a £150,000,000 F35 should be grounded in a comprehensive depth of military flying training, not a "minimum cost package". Certainly the training should have proven that the student has faced similar (or greater?) demands on their flying skills and decision making under stress such that they represent virtually no training risk on the hugely expensive frontline FJ.
As for the AF447 conundrum. This should be a warning for all modern pilot training systems. The airlines will make the commercial decisions that fit the regulations. The military should ensure that their training produces the standard of product that is essential on the frontline.
Combat flying by pressing buttons, yes the GR1 Tornado could fly at LL , bomb the target all IMC without touching the controls after T/O, until landing. However, it is now regarded as a "hands-on" airframe. Maybe the F35 etc is different? Maybe an F35 can operate LO in a benign scenario and drop weapons casually from medium level and tootle home for tea and medals? Or, will our tyro have to operate dirty and observable, in a heavy threat environment and have to tangle with some Su30's on the way home?:ooh: Cheers

OAP

just another jocky
19th Aug 2017, 14:05
UPRT is not part of a basic flight training course; please see EASA Opinion 06/2017 for a more complete explanation. And direct the attention of 22Gp to the topic....



I wasn't suggesting it was. Incipient Spinning & Stalling (and UP Recovery) are what UPRT appears to be about, and they are all taught at EFT. Is that easier to understand?


Please get off your high horse of outrage. It's a very unpleasant symptom of this place and it gets boring listening to outsiders rant on about how bad decisions are, that nothing works and that new kit is rubbish etc etc.

LOMCEVAK
19th Aug 2017, 14:12
OAP,

I think that the fundamental difference between 'then and now' is that back in the day the fast jet combat role involved flying an aircraft that could depart, that you could exceed g, IAS and Mach limits, that required rudder co-ordination, and where the weapons went where you pointed the aircraft (or followed a radar). Therefore, the emphasis in training was upon gaining the skills to enable a pilot to manage such an aircraft. Now, most combat aircraft have envelope protection for most parameters, FADEC engines, and precision guided munitions. The operational requirements are far more concerned with avionic system and sensor handling. Therefore, the training needs to reflect that. Even though training aeroplanes do not typically have envelope protection, the training syllabus needs to lead far more into the use of weapons systems that the trainee will employ.

Personally, what I enjoy about flying is controlling a machine that allows direct control in 4 degrees of freedom and can generate very high rates in them. It is the precise control of the aircraft's flightpath, especially when close to the ground or to another aircraft, that is the challenge that I seek and that gives me satisfaction. When I started military flying, those skills were what was needed and what was taught; that is why I joined the RAF. Those pure piloting skills are no longer the prime requirement of a military fast jet pilot; the emphasis has changed to sensor manipulation and system operation. Therefore, the training system has to accommodate that.

The bottom line is that we need to train pilots for the requirements of today rather than train for pure piloting excellence as we once did. But be sure, I am so glad that my flying career spanned the years and the generations of aircraft that it did!

BEagle
19th Aug 2017, 14:24
FCL.745.A is:

A new advanced UPRT course is introduced to enhance students’ resilience to the psychological and physiological aspects associated with dynamic upsets. The course is mandated for ATP integrated and MPL training courses, and as a prerequisite for the first single-pilot class or type rating in multi-pilot operations, multi-pilot aeroplanes type rating and single-pilot high-performance complex aeroplane type rating training courses.

It is not the same as those 2-3 hours of stalling and spinning of that 'common core ' EFT course; I note that fully-developed spinning is 'demo only'.... And even flapless and low-level circuits are dual only.

just another jocky
19th Aug 2017, 15:26
FCL.745.A is:



It is not the same as those 2-3 hours of stalling and spinning of that 'common core ' EFT course


So what is it that is more dynamic about it than you would find in stalling/spinning/UP recoveries? Do they cross the event horizon into a black hole or something or is it just another wodge of fancy words to describe something you & I both know very well and British military flying students are introduced to at the earliest stages?

Rigga
19th Aug 2017, 15:36
It lovely to see the paradigm's being broken here! Old versus new.
If the negative the statements on this thread were put into a ground crew thread of the same sort of changes - your mechanics and technicians would still be taught how to straighten wooden battens ready for the next F35 flight.

Bob Viking
19th Aug 2017, 15:59
BEagle.

Remind me when you last flew a military FJ? You can prattle on about EFT and ME all day long since I (unlike you) won't pretend I know anything about a part of the system I am not involved with.

Call me arrogant but when it comes to the current RAF FJ training system I feel fairly confident I know more about it than you.

Your posts used to be respected on this forum but you are increasingly sounding like a bitter old man with a grudge.

Sorry to be blunt but I'm afraid it needed saying.

BV

goldcup
19th Aug 2017, 16:49
x...........

BEagle
19th Aug 2017, 17:19
BV, I haven't actually been commenting about the FJ training system! Your comment about input and output I took to be generic - it is equally applicable to EFT output to ME.

The need for something akin to FCL.745.A advanced UPRT prior to flying the Phenom I believe to be essential.

I'm well aware that Hawk T2 training is, by all accounts, working entirely satisfactorily. But I am frankly astonished that ME and RW pilots of the future might never have flown aerobatics during training.

I harbour no grudges, merely regret at the direction some training is taking and sadness that many ab initio pilots simply won't have had the training experiences of their predecessors.

Cows getting bigger
19th Aug 2017, 18:09
I had occasion to visit IV(R) Sqn at Valley this week. FJ training ethos has certainly changed since I last saw it some thirty years ago but, without doubt, the quality of the training and that of the students remains exceptional.

just another jocky
19th Aug 2017, 19:57
I had occasion to visit IV(R) Sqn at Valley this week. FJ training ethos has certainly changed since I last saw it some thirty years ago but, without doubt, the quality of the training and that of the students remains exceptional.

Lordy, don't let the truth enter this debate. The naysayers will revolt!

Dan Winterland
20th Aug 2017, 05:18
While the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....

I was around at the start of flying training contractorisation and it was clear at the time the plan was for the new units to be staffed by ex-RAF QFIs. Only a very few did these jobs because it was looked from the offered remuneration that the contracts had gone to the lowest bidders, and there seemed to be an expectation that the QFIs would work for less because they had an RAF pension! Nearly all of my peers (similar age and experience) went to the airlines.

Dan Winterland
20th Aug 2017, 05:37
Modern commercial airline training is proficiency, or competency based. I call this 'just enough to pass training'. Training is a cost to be bore and whether it's the airline or the pilot paying for it, the less the better. My airline trains it's own cadet pilots, who bear no part of the cost of their training. In the time I have been in the airline, the training hours for the CPL course have dropped from 250 to 165. And now we have MPL cadets who get to sit in the right hand seat of an A320 with only 95 hours in the air. The philosophy is that these pilots have less time practising irrelevant skills such as visual navigation and more relevant training in a simulator. However, the lack of 'core skills' is evident, particularly with regard to motor functions.

Unfortunately, it's the modern way of training to a price set by accountants. Proficiency based training is not the training for excellence that I was bought up with. It's almost as if the industry has accepted that there will be accidents and it's possible to train to mitigate, but the cost is too high and a certain level of loss is acceptable.

Heathrow Harry
20th Aug 2017, 07:19
and any Military System of training is designed to produce just enough pilots to fit into the forecast aircraft availability plus a small cushion for wastage etc.

No-one can tell me that if the Traesury went mad and gave the RAF enough cash for 100 more F-35's the training system would say - "sorry we can only deliver 20 pilots"

80 guys and girls who would have "failed" would suddenly be "the world's best trained pilots" (MoD 2019 Press release)

Haraka
20th Aug 2017, 10:13
I note Dan Winterland's comments. In the wider civilian Multi-engine world the reduction of the flight crew role to that of ever more junior partners in an FMS seems to be steadily evolving .
The resultant eventual extrapolation would seem to be apparent; just a matter of time and public acceptance.
My gran wouldn't go in a lift without the presence of a lift operator..............

tescoapp
21st Aug 2017, 07:25
In the wider civilian Multi-engine world the reduction of the flight crew role to that of ever more junior partners in an FMS seems to be steadily evolving .

Depends on the type to be honest.

The long haul 5 landings a month if they are lucky out of 90 hours flying then yes its done to the hilt. But then we get incidents like DXB failing to ensure that TOGA button push results in the power levers going forward.

Regional aircraft we still fly them. The turbo props don't have auto throttles and have various limitations which mean you have to get your hands on the stick. eg Q400 with basic approvals you can't do a coupled ILS with flap 35.

Plenty of aircraft still out there without Vpath or a level change button.

TorqueOfTheDevil
29th Aug 2017, 15:58
yup! and it's happening in the RW world as well.


Could you give some examples please?

29th Aug 2017, 18:17
Not until MFTS RW is up and running but reducing the amount of actual flying in favour of synthetic trg is something that finds favour with bean counters and those trying make a name/career for themselves.

Reduced time in a real cockpit reduces airmanship, handling skills and decision-making and ultimately captaincy ability.

No-one wants to listen to those who have been involved in flying training for 30 plus years because our opinions don't match the fiscal desires and career aspirations of those involved.

TorqueOfTheDevil
4th Sep 2017, 07:55
Not until MFTS RW is up and running


Ah, so your previous post needs an edit. It should have read:


yup! and it might possibly happen in the RW world as well, but this is pure speculation because I don't have any knowledge of what Ascent will deliver (and my involvement with DHFS has been peripheral at best so I don't really know what they do either)


Feel free to copy and paste :ok:

DunWinching
4th Sep 2017, 18:46
A little cutting. The problem is that there is no obvious reason why MFTS is a good idea. Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved. And there is a lot of both. Telling, I think, that when the previous PuS was challenged (while sitting next to Baz North) by the Parliamentary Committee as to whether MoD would have gone down the MFTS route again, he finally said (after much obfuscation), no. One could reasonably infer that the project is not delivering, or not expected to deliver, the promised improvements. More than a hint of MR4a, but no chance of this one getting a 9mm double tap. Glad I am old.

Davef68
4th Sep 2017, 19:47
Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved.

I suspect rather than 'privatisation is better' the real mantra should be 'buy now-pay later is better' - less upfront capital costs are what the Treasury likes.

4th Sep 2017, 20:24
Feel free to copy and paste there we are, that was easy:ok:

But you would prefer a non-tested, very ambitious training system which aims to 'sweat the assets' to achieve the promised efficiencies despite some very obvious shortcomings in its planned flypro generation and 'taxi-rank' system of aircraft availability?

There are some fundamentals of flying training that do not change, however much you apply corporate spin and 'blue-sky' thinking to them and these have been largely ignored by whoever signed up to this.

I may be on the periphery of DHFS but so many people within it have serious doubts about the success of MFTS I am afraid I can't ignore them.

However, in the face of adversity, doubtless a pig-headed refusal to see the obvious will be the position of those in charge and the only ones to benefit from the ensuing mess will be the contract-lawyers.

MACH2NUMBER
4th Sep 2017, 20:31
Crab I agree,
Well I may be an old military FJ pilot, but I bet I have made more landings in my life than many 40,000hrs plus civilian airline pilots. And i'd still rather have my hands on the stick at most stages of flight.
I am sure I will be damned for saying so...

TorqueOfTheDevil
5th Sep 2017, 11:32
But you would prefer a non-tested, very ambitious training system which aims to 'sweat the assets' to achieve the promised efficiencies despite some very obvious shortcomings in its planned flypro generation and 'taxi-rank' system of aircraft availability?


No - if what you say above comes to pass. Be careful about who you listen to at Shawbury, because there is a lot of conjecture and doom-mongering from people with very few facts about the future to base it on! I'm sure I remember an old saying about innocent until proven guilty, but maybe we got rid of that as an efficiency measure.

However, at the same time, it's inevitable, the same is happening elsewhere, and in some respects it's demonstrably better than what we have at the moment. I agree that more time in the air would be preferable in the ideal world, but the real world appears to have drifted some distance from the ideal...


The problem is that there is no obvious reason why MFTS is a good idea. Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved.


True, although I'm sure that many people said much the same 20 years ago when DHFS was starting. And yet it turned out pretty well after the inevitable, and significant, teething troubles.

5th Sep 2017, 17:19
True, although I'm sure that many people said much the same 20 years ago when DHFS was starting. And yet it turned out pretty well after the inevitable, and significant, teething troubles. And therefore you acknowledge the likelihood of inevitable and significant teething troubles in a new venture.

MFTS is not a like for like DHFS replacement, it is an attempt to reduce training costs - very admirable in intent but where do those savings come from?

Trying to get more effort out of less instructors and aircraft to speed up the pipeline sounds like a great idea - in theory!

DHFS wasn't, to my knowledge, broken so why replace it with untried and untested ideas when actually we probably just needed replacement aircraft.

I, like many here, have run many flypros on a daily basis and the one constant requirement is flexibility and the need to adapt to problems with aircraft, students and particularly the weather - this computer-generated flying programme will need to be double-super-flexible since they have removed any fat from their training system.

The problem with teething troubles in the modern world is that any ambiguities in the contract will result in each side blaming the other and the military being exploited - again - by contractors with better lawyers.

If the new system doesn't work, what will we do about it and what will we replace it with - if that is even possible contractually?

TorqueOfTheDevil
6th Sep 2017, 11:17
And therefore you acknowledge the likelihood of inevitable and significant teething troubles in a new venture


In an undertaking of this size, I think there's a fair chance that there will be at least the odd ripple to sort out along the way. Surely noone would expect any different?


DHFS wasn't, to my knowledge, broken so why replace it with untried and untested ideas when actually we probably just needed replacement aircraft


I agree, and one of the challenges Ascent face is that DHFS has worked pretty well over the years. However, even an aircraft replacement/major upgrade programme within the existing set-up would cause significant turbulence for a period - how could it not?


If the new system doesn't work, what will we do about it...


You've got me there!

7th Sep 2017, 09:45
I think we might see more than the odd ripple - the decision not to have a dedicated flight/sqn down at Middle Wallop for the tactical/NVG phase is a massive error.

The claim that they will be able to deploy every few weeks and get the whole package done in 2 weeks is absolute fantasy.

If that is the quality of their planning then Shawbury is in for a rough ride.

DunWinching
7th Sep 2017, 18:18
Plainly it cannot be done in the same way as DHFS did it or someone might wonder what the point of it all is. Different = better. Or possibly not, time will tell.

chopper2004
11th Sep 2017, 14:45
I popped into the Scampton Airshow which was umm interesting - ok but not as good as RIAT , and very very small turnout.

However I did come across this lovely gem of a Prefect (I did not take photos of Prefect, Phenom or Texan at RIAT) so here are my photos from yesterday

cheers

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4390/36979542352_d5bb131553_k.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4336/36979538442_9af361811f_k.jpg

The B Word
11th Sep 2017, 18:12
Never mind the latest carbuncle of the plastic pig, look at the beautiful Chipmunk in the background - phwoar!! :ok:

Ken Scott
17th Sep 2017, 14:43
Gentleman, having perused the numerous threads on MFTS a common theme is that Ascent is offering low salaries in the expectation that the candidate has a pension already to add up to a living wage. Is there anyone here who can actually put a figure on what salary level they are paying? Serious answers only, please! (Yes, I know this is pprune.....)

chopper2004
8th Apr 2019, 23:33
Looks like contingent from 22 Group went to states to see Pilot Training Next program at Randolph (?) to see how we can speed up training lol. And to see an AAC Lt C 2ic /Deputy of RAF Flying Training

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-visit-american-ptn-in-attempt-to-speed-up-pilot-training/?no_cache=1&fbclid=IwAR2e1qkRjATAs-r4CAAqVYcOfaamhCmnGOfVegTa4A_0QoS-jvdYZU2lfmo

I know in the 80s that some AAC pilots who went through CFS for the course had the pleasure of flying JP (one of which ended up as instructor in RAFO then came back and led the Islanders during Desert Storm) so do some of the chosen few AAC instructors fly the Tucano and shortly the T-6?

Cheers

pr00ne
24th Jun 2019, 20:03
Surprised that this hasn't been mentioned here before?

On Tuesday the Managing Director of Ascent announced that they were to "increase the output and capacity of MFTS by procuring more aircraft, adding to the infrastructure as well as increasing the numbers of staff and simulators."

Whilst this has been expected ever since the SDSR 2015 increased the need, and the original MFTS output and aircraft/instructors complement was based on the 2010 SDSR, am intrigued by the "adding to the infrastructure" statement.

Just more buildings or hope for Linton on Ouse and or Scampton?

Timelord
24th Jun 2019, 20:17
Welcome, but not exactly a rapid response to SDSR15 changes. And just in time for a Corbyn government to reduce the requirement again!

pr00ne, see your PMs

TL

pr00ne
24th Jun 2019, 20:44
Timelord,

True, though I doubt that we will see a Corbyn Gov't anytime soon.

I do wonder what he means by infrastructure though.

PM's checked, reply sent.

UAV689
25th Jun 2019, 11:36
i was recently pretty shocked to discover that the RAF farms out some of its training to L3/CTC. Incredible. Taught by a mixture of retired old airliner types or instructor hour builders.

BEagle
25th Jun 2019, 11:55
UAV869, it's had to do that because MFTS ME advanced training on the Phenom has yet to be delivered. Wrong aircraft in the first place as it was never designed for the training role - not helped by the fact that 2 of them were involved in a mid-air collision whilst showboating during practice for the 100th anniversary flypast.

Davef68
25th Jun 2019, 12:19
I do wonder what he means by infrastructure though.



More simulators?

Parson
25th Jun 2019, 13:21
i was recently pretty shocked to discover that the RAF farms out some of its training to L3/CTC. Incredible. Taught by a mixture of retired old airliner types or instructor hour builders.

Or dedicated career instructors

UAV689
25th Jun 2019, 15:28
Or dedicated career instructors

true, but is the training given by a career civilian instructor, (that has never stepped foot into a herc or the like) going to be able to teach a military student? Not all the training you get is purely down to what is put on the white board, its hearing the stories, being taught the relevant airmanship, immersing oneself into the RAF way of flying.

yes straight and level is straight and level, but there is a whole lot more these guys will be missing out from.

on the flip side, perhaps the civilian way is more current in its thinking? probably more embracing of CRM concepts, I dont know, pure speculation on my side. But I was surprised and saddened by it non the less.

Parson
25th Jun 2019, 17:01
true, but is the training given by a career civilian instructor, (that has never stepped foot into a herc or the like) going to be able to teach a military student? Not all the training you get is purely down to what is put on the white board, its hearing the stories, being taught the relevant airmanship, immersing oneself into the RAF way of flying.

yes straight and level is straight and level, but there is a whole lot more these guys will be missing out from.

on the flip side, perhaps the civilian way is more current in its thinking? probably more embracing of CRM concepts, I dont know, pure speculation on my side. But I was surprised and saddened by it non the less.

I wasn't commenting on the capability of career instructors, or otherwise - just pointing out that there are other types of commercial instructors out there that you seemed to have overlooked.

Typhoondriver
8th Jul 2019, 16:47
So, the latest wonderful rumour I've heard suggests that pilots are now being sent to become Air Traffic Controllers during their 3 year hold between IOTC Cranwell and Elementary Flying Training. Can there really be any truth to this?