Originally Posted by
Bigpants
While a supporter of AEF flying and the UAS system.....in my opinion it is not value for money as operated under Babcock with the Tutor.
More flying and better training could be achieved for less if the whole system was handed over to a civilian operator under CAA rules.
For starters, the Grob Tutor was not a good choice of aircraft, the prop and engine combo wrong. To add to the misery the aircraft was nominally operated under RAF rules but G Registered and serviced by a civilian contractor. Lastly, it has to be flown by crew wearing bone domes and parachutes which is all a bit silly.
Extra 300L? Too sporty for Elementary Training?
Well based on some of the other threads on here discussing experiences with contractorised flying training, I think you'll have a hard time convincing many of the military that it's a good idea to farm more of their roles out to contractors or civilian organisations.
Plus, and one thing that is often missed in the rush to farm out 'non-essential, non front line' (and I use quotation marks deliberately) is that these posts are invaluable as respite tours for those who want to remain operational but need time away from the tip of the spear. Not only that, but being able to pass operational experience first hand on to students is not only invaluable from a student perspective, it also allows the relating of stories, tales of daring do, stupidity and all the other insanity of ops to hopefully inspire a warrior ethos and encourage the studes beyond learning about the simple mechanics of operating an aeroplane. That was certainly the case with my UAS OC who used to tell me about his days as an F-4 driver and my CGI who would relate tales of getting it wrong as a test pilot. And my flirtation with the training environment was such that nearly all of us were operational types brought in to embed that operational experience from day 1 of Phase 2 training.
In sum, I think contractorisation to save a few quid, will in the long run prove to be a bit silly.