UK MFTS on or off the rails?
And here he ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyVBIVCB1Cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz_SHidVfk he does give a no-holds barred view of the shoddy state of UK politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz_SHidVfk he does give a no-holds barred view of the shoddy state of UK politics
All very well, but what actually is the state of UK MFTS?
Do I hear that the King Air contract hasn't been renewed due to cost - and that until the Phenom arrives, ME pilots will have to be trained at Kidlington or similar? Assuming, of course, that they actually meet the input standard....
Do I hear that the King Air contract hasn't been renewed due to cost - and that until the Phenom arrives, ME pilots will have to be trained at Kidlington or similar? Assuming, of course, that they actually meet the input standard....
I thought that the Phenoms are arriving now and some have already arrived?
Not sure, Comrade.
This from the snake oil people's website seems a bit odd:
This from the snake oil people's website seems a bit odd:
The Embraer Phenom 100 is a business jet aircraft piloted by 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.
Thread Starter
Not necessarily Oxford by the way. But defo some outsource even after MFTS starts. The issue is that MFTS was put on contract before we bought shiney new P8s and other shiney bits of kit in SDSR15.
PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?
PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?
Not necessarily Oxford by the way. But defo some outsource even after MFTS starts. The issue is that MFTS was put on contract before we bought shiney new P8s and other shiney bits of kit in SDSR15.
PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?
PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?
Thread Starter
When you only put on contract 23x light aircraft, 10x turbo-prop jet lead ins, 5x multi-engine trainers and 28x Hawks then what do you expect? They are wringing every last bit of capacity out of those poor frames and so if an SDSR delivers more shiney toys as planned then the only choice is to go to market or leave your students to wait even longer waiting for someone to build more aircraft. Nothing new really, we impressed aircraft and outsourced at the start of WW1 and WW2 to get our aircrew numbers up in quick order...I just hope we aren’t looking at the start of WW3!
Glad you mentioned the rotary side, that is looking more and more like a bag of sh*te every day.
Got to say that I am genuinely concerned by the levels of outsourcing and contractorisation right the way across the Forces. Whilst I guess there will always be niche areas, contractorisation should IMHO be left to those niche areas and not viewed as a silver bullet or doing routine business on the cheap. It's neither. And I suspect thoughts of copying the US miss the point that for all their own issues, the US retains a sizeable uniformed force.
Contract things out and we suddenly find don't own the assets or expertise (wasn't it the Jag that we owned outright and could do whatever we needed cheaply and in short order?), getting timely support in the middle of a conflict zone is difficult if not eye wateringly expensive and when you go so far as to contract core elements of routine business, guess what, people (especially those past pension points) will invariably be attracted by life out of uniform thus perpetuating the retention issues. Like outsourcing your thinking to management consultants, wholesale contractorisation is illusory and frankly requires contract monitors not senior leaders potentially putting the notion of command at risk.
Contract things out and we suddenly find don't own the assets or expertise (wasn't it the Jag that we owned outright and could do whatever we needed cheaply and in short order?), getting timely support in the middle of a conflict zone is difficult if not eye wateringly expensive and when you go so far as to contract core elements of routine business, guess what, people (especially those past pension points) will invariably be attracted by life out of uniform thus perpetuating the retention issues. Like outsourcing your thinking to management consultants, wholesale contractorisation is illusory and frankly requires contract monitors not senior leaders potentially putting the notion of command at risk.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett, you are of course, spot on.
However, your thinking seems based on the premise that the decision making is in the interests of the service, or indeed, of the defence of the realm.
Clearly, but not clear enough for some on here who used to bang on about how much we couldn't not have LRMPA, the driving force behind things nowadays is money. Not of course, the saving of it, but the spend in the right places. Buying capacity to do the job well is not as important as lining the pockets of the few, one way or another.
Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?
If the idea had been to provide excellent housing at affordable costs, then the MOD would have retained and improved the quarters, and had somewhere for the troops to live. But when the plan was to sell off the housing stock for next to nothing ,so that a mate could buy it up and make a killing, then obviously some work needs to be done before the sale.
Once you accept that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, you can see how it all makes perfect sense.
However, your thinking seems based on the premise that the decision making is in the interests of the service, or indeed, of the defence of the realm.
Clearly, but not clear enough for some on here who used to bang on about how much we couldn't not have LRMPA, the driving force behind things nowadays is money. Not of course, the saving of it, but the spend in the right places. Buying capacity to do the job well is not as important as lining the pockets of the few, one way or another.
Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?
If the idea had been to provide excellent housing at affordable costs, then the MOD would have retained and improved the quarters, and had somewhere for the troops to live. But when the plan was to sell off the housing stock for next to nothing ,so that a mate could buy it up and make a killing, then obviously some work needs to be done before the sale.
Once you accept that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, you can see how it all makes perfect sense.
Agree with Melchett01
The contractorsiation of people, process and capability has now reached such a scale that it is 'normal' to spend the majority of the daily interaction engaging with civilians doing, what were 5-10 years ago, military roles.
Example:
I arrive at the Stn and FP is provided by a 'rotund' contractor in a high-viz ill fitting jacket, who is stood with his hands in his pocket (next to a sign that says verbal will not be tolerated). I then speak with my 'HR department' not PSF!, and engage with a jobsworth D grade CS, who has her own interpretation of the JSP for claims. I then need to get my PME, so I wonder off to the Med Ctre and have a contracted Doc give me the once over (If only). It's now lunchtime and I fancy something to eat, the civilian on the Mess reception checks my i.d. and 'tells' me that lunch is a restricted menu due to staffing challenges. The hotplate is then filled with pretty average food, metered out by a less than interested individual. In the afternoon, I decide to visit stores to obtain some pre-det kit and exchange some other stuff - sucking of teeth not sure we can issue that says another 'rotund' contractor. And it goes on......
So when you analyse the functions that have been contractorised and, more importantly, the secondary and tertiary roles that these trades once provided in an operational environment - FOB FP/ HNS Engagement/ MERT/ Field Kitchen/ COLPRO etc etc it is a good job that we live in a stable and non-expeditionary world - or B.
WRT MFTS, and having had a trg role in the 'old' system, all that was really needed (and I simplify) was a strategy that managed the trg ac fleets and bases appropriately - not a PFI that has systematically destroyed one of the world's finest aircrew trg systems. I also wonder, much like Brexit, if the decision to go with MFTS was reviewed, which way the vote would go? However, unlike Brexit, I think it is pretty certain that those individuals that made the original decision will not have to suffer the consequences.
Saturday morning rant complete - enjoy the weekend!
The contractorsiation of people, process and capability has now reached such a scale that it is 'normal' to spend the majority of the daily interaction engaging with civilians doing, what were 5-10 years ago, military roles.
Example:
I arrive at the Stn and FP is provided by a 'rotund' contractor in a high-viz ill fitting jacket, who is stood with his hands in his pocket (next to a sign that says verbal will not be tolerated). I then speak with my 'HR department' not PSF!, and engage with a jobsworth D grade CS, who has her own interpretation of the JSP for claims. I then need to get my PME, so I wonder off to the Med Ctre and have a contracted Doc give me the once over (If only). It's now lunchtime and I fancy something to eat, the civilian on the Mess reception checks my i.d. and 'tells' me that lunch is a restricted menu due to staffing challenges. The hotplate is then filled with pretty average food, metered out by a less than interested individual. In the afternoon, I decide to visit stores to obtain some pre-det kit and exchange some other stuff - sucking of teeth not sure we can issue that says another 'rotund' contractor. And it goes on......
So when you analyse the functions that have been contractorised and, more importantly, the secondary and tertiary roles that these trades once provided in an operational environment - FOB FP/ HNS Engagement/ MERT/ Field Kitchen/ COLPRO etc etc it is a good job that we live in a stable and non-expeditionary world - or B.
WRT MFTS, and having had a trg role in the 'old' system, all that was really needed (and I simplify) was a strategy that managed the trg ac fleets and bases appropriately - not a PFI that has systematically destroyed one of the world's finest aircrew trg systems. I also wonder, much like Brexit, if the decision to go with MFTS was reviewed, which way the vote would go? However, unlike Brexit, I think it is pretty certain that those individuals that made the original decision will not have to suffer the consequences.
Saturday morning rant complete - enjoy the weekend!
An excellent rant though cbtl -
Guys, I think I can see a plan in this...
. Maybe the new training schemes are actually well designed to produce exactly what will be needed for the UK Armed Forces in 2020! 
OAP
. Maybe the new training schemes are actually well designed to produce exactly what will be needed for the UK Armed Forces in 2020! OAP
airpolice,
You say;
Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?
Er, seeing as our training aircraft are built in Germany, Brazil, France and the USA how on earth do you work that one out?
As to the rest of your post, now nice to see that you are a Socialist, congratulations!
You say;
Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?
Er, seeing as our training aircraft are built in Germany, Brazil, France and the USA how on earth do you work that one out?
As to the rest of your post, now nice to see that you are a Socialist, congratulations!
For those that may have not watched the video link in the initial post - do!!
The male panel member is on the ball and does not give any qtr to the 3 'witnesses'. More importantly, the spin coming from Ascent's rep, and the selective use of data from both the NAO report and the company is incredible. Good job that individual has been promoted and moved on into the LM hierarchy.....
Also, an interesting quote whereby the rep identifies the 'great work that Ascent has undertaken to generate some 6000 course streams' (lessons in normal parlance), which is interesting when the large majority were in fact 'cut and pasted' from extant CFS approved courseware - certainly for rear-crew. He then goes on to discuss IPR, which in the context of the grilling he was under at the time was laughable. Has the RAF/AAC or Navy (correction) Fleet Air Arm been used as a guinea pig to sell the process elsewhere? The panel member asks? - What has just been demonstrated is, the Ascent contract, by taking ownership (oh the irony) of the courseware, now has the ability to sell 'their' product to a 3rd party. Outstanding commercial practice on their part!
Second rant for the day.... Yes, I need to get out more.
The male panel member is on the ball and does not give any qtr to the 3 'witnesses'. More importantly, the spin coming from Ascent's rep, and the selective use of data from both the NAO report and the company is incredible. Good job that individual has been promoted and moved on into the LM hierarchy.....
Also, an interesting quote whereby the rep identifies the 'great work that Ascent has undertaken to generate some 6000 course streams' (lessons in normal parlance), which is interesting when the large majority were in fact 'cut and pasted' from extant CFS approved courseware - certainly for rear-crew. He then goes on to discuss IPR, which in the context of the grilling he was under at the time was laughable. Has the RAF/AAC or Navy (correction) Fleet Air Arm been used as a guinea pig to sell the process elsewhere? The panel member asks? - What has just been demonstrated is, the Ascent contract, by taking ownership (oh the irony) of the courseware, now has the ability to sell 'their' product to a 3rd party. Outstanding commercial practice on their part!
Second rant for the day.... Yes, I need to get out more.
airpolice,
Ah, I see, sorry.
But to be fair there is no real alternative to Warton/Samlesbury is there?
Ah, I see, sorry.
But to be fair there is no real alternative to Warton/Samlesbury is there?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: england
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole system is broken. How can it take "the service" to put a pilot in the RH seat of the Sentinel 6 years (who holds a frozen ATPL/IR) , in civil world it could be done in 14 months from scratch.
Its time we wake up and get a commercial head on......
Its time we wake up and get a commercial head on......