So, my 3 points then:
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.
Considerably more than me then - must be my banter.
there are [sic] a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?
Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?
Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?
Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate.
I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........
Again, let's see how it turns out. If it's awful, I promise to hold my breath for a very long time, to avoid any more oxygen theft.
that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.
I do believe you - but are you saying that this issue (or anything else) has stopped Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?