MFTS - 'Getting Sticky'
I'm not convinced that the 6FTS 'Multi Engine Refresher' course was much better. It was my one and only experience of that flying abortion, the Jetstream T1, and was probably the biggest waste of time I've ever experienced.
After my Gnat/Hunter training at Valley/Brawdy, followed by what turned out to be a pre-Vulcan Buccaneer 'lead-in course...
', I'd flown 1000 hrs on the Vulcan without having had any Varsity or Jetstream flying. Then was binned from the F4 after 500 hours on that, to go to the VC10K. After 15 hours on the worthless Jetstream, I escaped from Finningley and held on 241 OCU until my course started. I learned infinitely more sitting and watching from a cushion on top of an Airlarda box behind various VC10 captains than I did from Learning Command's Let's Make Trucky-ing Look Difficult 'refresher' course.
I summed up one trip by saying "If it was really that hard to go from Finningley to East Midlands at 2.5 mile per minute, I'd go by train!".
After my Gnat/Hunter training at Valley/Brawdy, followed by what turned out to be a pre-Vulcan Buccaneer 'lead-in course...
', I'd flown 1000 hrs on the Vulcan without having had any Varsity or Jetstream flying. Then was binned from the F4 after 500 hours on that, to go to the VC10K. After 15 hours on the worthless Jetstream, I escaped from Finningley and held on 241 OCU until my course started. I learned infinitely more sitting and watching from a cushion on top of an Airlarda box behind various VC10 captains than I did from Learning Command's Let's Make Trucky-ing Look Difficult 'refresher' course. I summed up one trip by saying "If it was really that hard to go from Finningley to East Midlands at 2.5 mile per minute, I'd go by train!".
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Feb 2011 at 10:34.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Regrettably the dedicated "School of Refresher Flying" (utilising Jet Provosts, Varsities and Dominies) based at Manby and Strubby ceased to exist at the end of October 1973 and its pool of expertise was dispersed.
It is easy to disband a Unit like that - but it is extremely difficult to resurrect it again.
PS
I always understood that "Jetstream" stood for:-
Jet Environment Transport Student Turbomeca Random Engined Adrenalin Machine
Regrettably the dedicated "School of Refresher Flying" (utilising Jet Provosts, Varsities and Dominies) based at Manby and Strubby ceased to exist at the end of October 1973 and its pool of expertise was dispersed.
It is easy to disband a Unit like that - but it is extremely difficult to resurrect it again.
PS
I always understood that "Jetstream" stood for:-
Jet Environment Transport Student Turbomeca Random Engined Adrenalin Machine
Last edited by cazatou; 3rd Feb 2011 at 13:38.
Indeed. SORF knew its business very well; the JP element went to Leeming, but what happened to the rest?
Wasn't Manby one of the last users of the Meteor F8 a few years earlier?
Wasn't Manby one of the last users of the Meteor F8 a few years earlier?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Yes some of the JP's went to Leeming and the Dominies to Finningley. Throughput of Pilots for Refresher Flying halved - though that might have been because of the PCL.
Instead of a dedicated Refresher Flying Unit for Fixed Wing aircraft the RAF ended up with a total hotchpotch of different "solutions" and a far lower standard of training.
PS The Unit did operate Meteors at one time but even I am not old enough to remember that.
PPS Just found a reference re the use of Armstrong Whitworth Meteor NF(T)14s for the Staff Navigation Courses.
Yes some of the JP's went to Leeming and the Dominies to Finningley. Throughput of Pilots for Refresher Flying halved - though that might have been because of the PCL.
Instead of a dedicated Refresher Flying Unit for Fixed Wing aircraft the RAF ended up with a total hotchpotch of different "solutions" and a far lower standard of training.
PS The Unit did operate Meteors at one time but even I am not old enough to remember that.
PPS Just found a reference re the use of Armstrong Whitworth Meteor NF(T)14s for the Staff Navigation Courses.
Last edited by cazatou; 3rd Feb 2011 at 13:05.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref: DHFS Type selection.
There was a fly off competition in 1996 with regard to both single and multi engined types for use by DHFS. Aircrew considerations were included which is a bit novel and QinetiQ & Boscombe kept out of it which is positively advantageous. The BK 117 and Bell Jetranger were both considered and flown at SHY in the competition tender. I believe the aircraft were supplied by the respective manafacturers such was the value of a prospective fleet purchase.
Elements that decided the eventual winners were no 'toy' undercarriage as students were likely to rip them off, and a cabin large enough to be able to cope with a rear crew student and instructor that had freedome of movement around the cabin without creating CofG issues and permitted winching and the lateral CofG loading that goes with having pilot / 'survivor +1' /winch operator +instructor all on the right hand side at the same time. Therefore skids were chosen for both types and the Griffin won over the BK117.
The DHFS Squirrel is I believe unique in its arrangement for both doors and transparencies (glass) to the point that attrition replacements have needed significant modification to get to standard DHFS appearance.
The aspiration to get a one-type-fits-all for DHFS will always be limited by the rearcrew requirements; therefore if I was a betting man, I would expect to see the squirrel around for some time whilst the Griffin could possibly be replaced with, or modified to a glass cockpit aircraft as that is the way front line helicopters either are already (Merlin) or will be shortly (Chinook).
Despite the ammount of UH1 that are decades old and still flying around the world, I am led to believe the Griffin life was only 15 years and then as they operate to FBH rather then Bell limitations to try and prolong their life. This may appear on face value a little draconian, so one must remember that the Bell 412 never was designed to be a trainer engaged in repetitive work cycles.
There was a fly off competition in 1996 with regard to both single and multi engined types for use by DHFS. Aircrew considerations were included which is a bit novel and QinetiQ & Boscombe kept out of it which is positively advantageous. The BK 117 and Bell Jetranger were both considered and flown at SHY in the competition tender. I believe the aircraft were supplied by the respective manafacturers such was the value of a prospective fleet purchase.
Elements that decided the eventual winners were no 'toy' undercarriage as students were likely to rip them off, and a cabin large enough to be able to cope with a rear crew student and instructor that had freedome of movement around the cabin without creating CofG issues and permitted winching and the lateral CofG loading that goes with having pilot / 'survivor +1' /winch operator +instructor all on the right hand side at the same time. Therefore skids were chosen for both types and the Griffin won over the BK117.
The DHFS Squirrel is I believe unique in its arrangement for both doors and transparencies (glass) to the point that attrition replacements have needed significant modification to get to standard DHFS appearance.
The aspiration to get a one-type-fits-all for DHFS will always be limited by the rearcrew requirements; therefore if I was a betting man, I would expect to see the squirrel around for some time whilst the Griffin could possibly be replaced with, or modified to a glass cockpit aircraft as that is the way front line helicopters either are already (Merlin) or will be shortly (Chinook).
Despite the ammount of UH1 that are decades old and still flying around the world, I am led to believe the Griffin life was only 15 years and then as they operate to FBH rather then Bell limitations to try and prolong their life. This may appear on face value a little draconian, so one must remember that the Bell 412 never was designed to be a trainer engaged in repetitive work cycles.
Instead of a dedicated Refresher Flying Unit for Fixed Wing aircraft the RAF ended up with a total hotchpotch of different "solutions" and a far lower standard of training.
Phoned desk officer:
DO "But you are going back onto a type you've flown before"
Me "I qualify and I would like some refreshing"
DO "Alright, but you'll have to organise it yourself, do you have any mates who are running a UAS?"!!
Me "Fine"
Contacted Jetstream Sqn at FY:
Me "Can you fit me in for a ME refresher please?"
JS "As you haven't flown the Jetstream that will be 2 weeks groundschool, plus another week refresher groundschool and 4 weeks to do the flying"
ME "I want fly it, not build it and I have two weeks max available, thanks"
Contacted RFS at Church Fenton:
Me "Can you fit me in for some refreshing please? I only have two weeks available"
RFS: "Yes, when do you want come and what do you need to do?"
I then had two separate weeks at CF, a day of groundschool and a dinghy drill next morning followed by as much flying as I could manage. Excellent way to blow away the cobwebs after a ground tour.
YS
SORF/RFS was excellent fun; I was lucky enough to have 3 sessions! One between Cranwell and my Gnat course, another after my abortive Buccaneer course and the last when going from the Vulcan to the F-4.
Not only was the flying superb, but so was the attitude and the crew room 'experience'. You'd often get Wing Commanders appearing from the bowels of the MoD-box to go back on flying acting like Flying Officers. During my second RFS session, an ATC chap told me in the bar that he'd watched 2 of the wicked old buggers indulging in a spot of Harry Doggers when they were supposed to be doing some night flying solo trip...
The added value from mingling with most senior officers in the crew room was superb. They had a wealth of war stories and were keen to share their experience with others.
One day I was talking to colleagues and mentioned that "There was a good article in one of the Flight Safety magazines about some clot who'd flown a Swift through some trees in Germany back in the 1950s due to press-on-itis"....
"Indeed", said the quiet voice of an Air Commodore, "That clot was me - but you're absolutely right". He then told us the story - fascinating!
But another was a miserable old sod. He came back off the first trip of the day one Monday and his QFI offered him a post-flight cup of tea - which he accepted. Poking about in the fridge, the QFI uttered an oath and said "There's no milk, would you like coffee mate?"
To which came the response, "Young man, there is a limit to informality!"
"Sorry, Sir", replied the QFI, "There's no milk, Sir - would you like Coffeemate in your tea, Sir?"
Not only was the flying superb, but so was the attitude and the crew room 'experience'. You'd often get Wing Commanders appearing from the bowels of the MoD-box to go back on flying acting like Flying Officers. During my second RFS session, an ATC chap told me in the bar that he'd watched 2 of the wicked old buggers indulging in a spot of Harry Doggers when they were supposed to be doing some night flying solo trip...
The added value from mingling with most senior officers in the crew room was superb. They had a wealth of war stories and were keen to share their experience with others.
One day I was talking to colleagues and mentioned that "There was a good article in one of the Flight Safety magazines about some clot who'd flown a Swift through some trees in Germany back in the 1950s due to press-on-itis"....
"Indeed", said the quiet voice of an Air Commodore, "That clot was me - but you're absolutely right". He then told us the story - fascinating!
But another was a miserable old sod. He came back off the first trip of the day one Monday and his QFI offered him a post-flight cup of tea - which he accepted. Poking about in the fridge, the QFI uttered an oath and said "There's no milk, would you like coffee mate?"
To which came the response, "Young man, there is a limit to informality!"
"Sorry, Sir", replied the QFI, "There's no milk, Sir - would you like Coffeemate in your tea, Sir?"
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Feb 2011 at 17:50.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFS Fenton in '86 was indeed a refreshing environment. Right until two chaps managed to ram each other tail chasing on a Friday afternoon. 
No serious injuries etc but rather a large amount of egg on face as Linton had to provide crash guard. Most of Fenton had either disappeared for the weekend or was propping up the bar.
No serious injuries etc but rather a large amount of egg on face as Linton had to provide crash guard. Most of Fenton had either disappeared for the weekend or was propping up the bar.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: west lancs uk
Age: 76
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SORF
Beags, your tales of SORF struck a chord. Ex Towers on JP, holding at Gaydon, then to a splendid crewroom ambience at Manby. Standard b.....g for ex Towers types was dont call me "Sir" in the "I have control" patter?
Amazing array of all ranks who didnt stand on ceremoney with the Standard NATO, and the ever diminishing grey cells recall a member of the MACAWS who sported a rather fetching mohair sweater over his growbag. Where else would you be gifted a JP with the briefing "just go and throw it around - enjoy yourself"
Amazing array of all ranks who didnt stand on ceremoney with the Standard NATO, and the ever diminishing grey cells recall a member of the MACAWS who sported a rather fetching mohair sweater over his growbag. Where else would you be gifted a JP with the briefing "just go and throw it around - enjoy yourself"
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where else would you be gifted a JP with the briefing "just go and throw it around - enjoy yourself"
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR
As someone who spent 4 Years as a Refresher Instructor in the '70s I would categorically state that the comment you complain about is nothing more than overblown hyperbole. No such attitude would have been tolerated during the time I spent on that Unit.
As someone who spent 4 Years as a Refresher Instructor in the '70s I would categorically state that the comment you complain about is nothing more than overblown hyperbole. No such attitude would have been tolerated during the time I spent on that Unit.
Caz, unfortunately there were certain cowboys at SORF in the PCL's time. Probably the only time I've ever felt scared in a JP was with one QFI, who decided to demonstrate 'operational' low flying to me one day in LFA17. Without warning, he suddenly rolled inverted and pulled over a ridge in LFA17, recovering at around 100ft; it scared the living cr*p out of me.... Another of his favourite tricks was unauthorised low level 'gear down barrel rolls'.
Sadly, only a few years later he had a fatal accident in a Jaguar. It had only been a matter of time.
Sadly, only a few years later he had a fatal accident in a Jaguar. It had only been a matter of time.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo Rouge
There was a fly off competition in 1996 with regard to both single and multi engined types for use by DHFS. ...and QinetiQ & Boscombe kept out of it which is positively advantageous.
Boscombe involvment was sought by the Project Team for the fly-off, in conjunction with support from many other units, and a small team of 2 x test pilots and engineer flew all types over the 2-3 weeks of the fly-off. There was also additonal Boscombe Down support requested at other sites over the next few months as the down-selection took place, and when the Squirrel and Griffin had been selected Boscombe Down again provided support when the civilian flight manuals etc were incorporated into a Release to Service.
QinetiQ, of course, didn't exist until many years later - all Boscombe Personnel were at that time part of MOD.
Last edited by DaveW; 4th Feb 2011 at 15:08. Reason: Reflections on the year
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Yes I remember IRH and he had more than one "Hats On" one sided interview with "Authority" (and several unofficial ones with his peers) with regard to his low flying. I left the Unit in Summer '75 and IRH went to Jaguars where he eventually "tent pegged" into a hillside in IMC .
Yes I remember IRH and he had more than one "Hats On" one sided interview with "Authority" (and several unofficial ones with his peers) with regard to his low flying. I left the Unit in Summer '75 and IRH went to Jaguars where he eventually "tent pegged" into a hillside in IMC .
Last edited by cazatou; 4th Feb 2011 at 14:42.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to get back on topic, I wonder how Ascent will cope with the reduction in scale of military flying training?
I would imagine that, with the government's desire to cut back PFI projects, and the cuts to pilot training, there will be some big savings to be made in the MFTS contract.
I would imagine that, with the government's desire to cut back PFI projects, and the cuts to pilot training, there will be some big savings to be made in the MFTS contract.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LFFC..Well of course there will be significant reductions in the scale of the MFTS system and its outputs...such are the results of the SDSR.
That said, unlike the FSTA or SAR-H PFIs for example, The MFTS PFI has some inherent felxibilities "built in" as part of its design concept. The former were all about a fixed scale of "service" over a long period...in FSTA's case 14 330s etc etc.
In the MFTS concept, ASCENT has a fixed contract for delivering a management service , one of the major aspects of which is contracting out the different training streams. In that aspect is the flexibility, and in bidding for the initial contract all bidders understood that the eventual value of the workstreams were dependent on a variety of factors, including the eventual and sometime variable IPS needs. Given that not all these major sub contracts are yet signed there is already scope to massage the outcomes to reflect SDSR IPS requirements. Others of course will require more "painful" realignment ..such as the AJT using the Hawk. No doubt the ME output will have to take a signficant hit too...but at the end of the day, if the flying isn't needed..commensurate reductions can prove suitably profitable.
Fortunately, the rotary contract and basic FT contracts have yet to resolved...so no doubt these will now be let to reflect the SDSR IPS needs.
While there is no doubt reduced value to ASCENT over the coming decades given all the reductions now falling out of the SDSR, it is an inherently flexible management concept that will allow much wriggle room to get things sorted.
That said, unlike the FSTA or SAR-H PFIs for example, The MFTS PFI has some inherent felxibilities "built in" as part of its design concept. The former were all about a fixed scale of "service" over a long period...in FSTA's case 14 330s etc etc.
In the MFTS concept, ASCENT has a fixed contract for delivering a management service , one of the major aspects of which is contracting out the different training streams. In that aspect is the flexibility, and in bidding for the initial contract all bidders understood that the eventual value of the workstreams were dependent on a variety of factors, including the eventual and sometime variable IPS needs. Given that not all these major sub contracts are yet signed there is already scope to massage the outcomes to reflect SDSR IPS requirements. Others of course will require more "painful" realignment ..such as the AJT using the Hawk. No doubt the ME output will have to take a signficant hit too...but at the end of the day, if the flying isn't needed..commensurate reductions can prove suitably profitable.
Fortunately, the rotary contract and basic FT contracts have yet to resolved...so no doubt these will now be let to reflect the SDSR IPS needs.
While there is no doubt reduced value to ASCENT over the coming decades given all the reductions now falling out of the SDSR, it is an inherently flexible management concept that will allow much wriggle room to get things sorted.