NAO report on MFTS
To know whether training is improving, the Department needs to set a performance baseline and the right performance measures. However, it does not effectively use the data it has to understand current training performance. For example, it does not hold data centrally on training activity and does not routinely analyse the pockets of data it has or subject them to comprehensive quality control. It therefore has no baseline for training times or costs from which it can measure Ascent’s performance or set meaningful performance targets.
Gotcha! The entire contractorisation game is headline budget cuts and nothing else.
The entire charade of Government/MoD has been "make the threat meet the budget" since the end of the Cold War, but external contractorisation and the NAO means that the mechanisms are now revealing it as such.
Personally, I think the UK should go the whole hog - let's contractorise the front line.
Exactly how effective is it to train and arm Iraqis who run away when IS turns up, leaving IS to collect said arms (and recruit a few of the trainees)?
Do me a cost-benefit analysis of lobbing PGMs at pick-up trucks from jets that cost hundreds of millions.
Can I see an Excel chart of campaigns won in the last 15 years please, Sales? Oh, that's zero is it? And your Target was....?
Personally, I think the UK should go the whole hog - let's contractorise the front line.
Exactly how effective is it to train and arm Iraqis who run away when IS turns up, leaving IS to collect said arms (and recruit a few of the trainees)?
Do me a cost-benefit analysis of lobbing PGMs at pick-up trucks from jets that cost hundreds of millions.
Can I see an Excel chart of campaigns won in the last 15 years please, Sales? Oh, that's zero is it? And your Target was....?
Paragraph 9 of the summary:
'There were also delays to new helicopter training because the Department thought it owned existing training aircraft when it did not.'
WTF?????
'There were also delays to new helicopter training because the Department thought it owned existing training aircraft when it did not.'
WTF?????
By transferring control of training to a contracted provider, the Department has less flexibility to increase or decrease training capacity without requiring contract renegotiations and incurring extra costs and time. Such negotiations could cause further delays and increase the risk of a gap in training that results in fewer trained aircrew than needed.
The 'Department' has, at a guess, zero chance of increasing training capacity if it's needed:
- Aircraft? Barely enough as it is.
- Aerodromes? You've closed most of them; reactivation costs would be very expensive indeed.
- QFIs? Where will you find those?
Still, if you will believe the snake-oil salesmen, what else can you expect?
2.34
The requirement for the Department to fund training aircraft using capital funding
meant that it faced particular challenges with funding for the new helicopter training
package. In 2012, it identified a £496 million capital funding shortfall. Further work by
the Department to reduce costs then decreased this shortfall to £388 million. It then
explored options to address the remaining shortfall, including delaying the start of the
new helicopter training until 2025. However, it could not do this when it found it did not
own the training aircraft it uses. The existing provider also did not wish to sell the aircraft.
The Department has instead had to extend the existing helicopter training contract by
six years to 2018. No further extensions of the contract are possible without breaking
EU procurement law. A solution to address the funding shortfall was agreed between
the Department and the three services in early 2015. Helicopter training is now expected
to start in April 2018.
The requirement for the Department to fund training aircraft using capital funding
meant that it faced particular challenges with funding for the new helicopter training
package. In 2012, it identified a £496 million capital funding shortfall. Further work by
the Department to reduce costs then decreased this shortfall to £388 million. It then
explored options to address the remaining shortfall, including delaying the start of the
new helicopter training until 2025. However, it could not do this when it found it did not
own the training aircraft it uses. The existing provider also did not wish to sell the aircraft.
The Department has instead had to extend the existing helicopter training contract by
six years to 2018. No further extensions of the contract are possible without breaking
EU procurement law. A solution to address the funding shortfall was agreed between
the Department and the three services in early 2015. Helicopter training is now expected
to start in April 2018.
Interesting that they think we don't successfully monitor our own flying training performance. Mildly disappointing too as I spent an entire year of my life on a desk job setting up a programme that did exactly that so that we would be able to compare our own performance to that of MFTS when it came in....
That was in 2005! Clearly someone didn't post enough holding officers in...
That was in 2005! Clearly someone didn't post enough holding officers in...
I see that another contractor training provider is trying to find someone to take on a post, despite the fact that the system for which the instructor is being sought doesn't actually work.....
https://thales.taleo.net/careersecti...SNtek.linkedin
No indication of salary or pension arrangements....
This whole PFI bolleaux is rapidly turning into a complete farce.
https://thales.taleo.net/careersecti...SNtek.linkedin
No indication of salary or pension arrangements....
This whole PFI bolleaux is rapidly turning into a complete farce.
NAO report on MFTS
BEagle.
You are right apart from one thing. It is not turning into a farce. It was a farce years ago. It will never go back to how it was though. So those of us still serving will just have to make do the best we can.
It's not all bad. We still get to go flying and get paid for it so no matter how it may look from the outside it's not always as bad as you think and people aren't necessarily as miserable as you may be led to believe.
BV
You are right apart from one thing. It is not turning into a farce. It was a farce years ago. It will never go back to how it was though. So those of us still serving will just have to make do the best we can.
It's not all bad. We still get to go flying and get paid for it so no matter how it may look from the outside it's not always as bad as you think and people aren't necessarily as miserable as you may be led to believe.
BV
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Did I Tell You I Was A Harrier Pilot
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Even the report is a year late .
Chickens coming home to roost. I remember a visit I had to the not Abbey Wood establishment a good few years ago now - and I was introduced to the one person who's responsibility it was to assemble the whole infrastructure plan. To anyone with eyes anywhere but on their career, this was an obvious cluster from the outset. Some good people sold their souls, IMO.
.Chickens coming home to roost. I remember a visit I had to the not Abbey Wood establishment a good few years ago now - and I was introduced to the one person who's responsibility it was to assemble the whole infrastructure plan. To anyone with eyes anywhere but on their career, this was an obvious cluster from the outset. Some good people sold their souls, IMO.
Do tell, pba target.
Why was your system not used? Was it the cardinal sin of It Worked - (and therefore perhaps could show that contractorisation was not beneficial)?
p.s. I had a similar experience with the DfE
Why was your system not used? Was it the cardinal sin of It Worked - (and therefore perhaps could show that contractorisation was not beneficial)?
p.s. I had a similar experience with the DfE
Hold on!
I've just read the report, am amazed to hear that the contractor is proposing to buy a total of 10 basic fast jet training aircraft (the Tucano replacement)
TEN?
That seems ludicrous.
I've just read the report, am amazed to hear that the contractor is proposing to buy a total of 10 basic fast jet training aircraft (the Tucano replacement)
TEN?
That seems ludicrous.
The report talks about 'rear crew training' and gives an example as 'weapons system operator'(wso).
Didn't anyone tell them that in the Apache, the 'rear crew' is the pilot and the wso sits in front!
Didn't anyone tell them that in the Apache, the 'rear crew' is the pilot and the wso sits in front!
NAO report on MFTS
I haven't read the full report yet but ten. Really?! We worry that 28 Hawks aren't enough. Bearing in mind student attrition rates you usually train more guys on BFJTS than you expect to make it to AJT. How exactly can that be achieved with less aircraft?
I must be a simpleton.
BV
I must be a simpleton.
BV
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just the pointy end that this is affecting. A certain company who has large interests in training the UK military has as it's core ethos in recruiting is to find those who've completed 22yrs+ and want nothing more than their pension plus some beer tokens.
In years gone by when you could afford to pay your mortgage on your pension this would have been fine. However, todays service leavers cannot service their debts on a pension and need a decent income to suppliment their pension.
The thing that is being forgotten is the fact that todays service leavers are a lot more savvy as to their worth and will not return to whence they came albeit in a civvy suit, when they know they can make a lot more money with their transferable skills.
So the more the MoD rely on contract service agreements, the less the services will have a need to train for those tasks, hence the contractors will have less trained and certified manpower to recruit from. Eventually nobody will have anybody trained to do anything.
Downward spiral anyone?
In years gone by when you could afford to pay your mortgage on your pension this would have been fine. However, todays service leavers cannot service their debts on a pension and need a decent income to suppliment their pension.
The thing that is being forgotten is the fact that todays service leavers are a lot more savvy as to their worth and will not return to whence they came albeit in a civvy suit, when they know they can make a lot more money with their transferable skills.
So the more the MoD rely on contract service agreements, the less the services will have a need to train for those tasks, hence the contractors will have less trained and certified manpower to recruit from. Eventually nobody will have anybody trained to do anything.
Downward spiral anyone?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The buy of 10 (I must admit, I thought it was originally 12) is based on the fact that the T6 will have something like 98% serviceability. Considering these things are going to be parked on the old 203 Sqn line and therefore subject to a lot of salt spray, I find that most unlikely. Also, what happens when a student does a heavy landing and CAT 3s the thing. 10 is simply not enough.
And what about integrating a slow turboprop into a fast jet circuit? How's that going to work?
And what about integrating a slow turboprop into a fast jet circuit? How's that going to work?
So with only 10 T-6C and 23 G120TP available for pilot training, how will CFS deliver QFI training?
Although the RAF operated 3-400 Jet Provosts and later 130 Tucanos, before the 'core' number was cut to 40, plus 117 Tutors being replaced by only 23 G120TP, that means a reduction in EFT/BFT training aircraft numbers from 157 to 33.....
Have they really done their sums correctly?
Although the RAF operated 3-400 Jet Provosts and later 130 Tucanos, before the 'core' number was cut to 40, plus 117 Tutors being replaced by only 23 G120TP, that means a reduction in EFT/BFT training aircraft numbers from 157 to 33.....
Have they really done their sums correctly?