MFTS- A return to the old system?

[Bervie]

I wish to highlight, with the medium term introduction of MFTS, what I consider to be a return to the old system of flying training.
Has the RAF finally admitted defeat on a failing flying training system, one that does produce very competent pilots but at too slow a rate?

Pre "BFJT" all pilots did EFT on a piston ac type and then onto a JP course to Wings standard before streaming.
MFTS will surely offer a return to this method of training, especially as the first step of Wings post Linton has already been implemented.
With a well written contract and sufficient aircraft of a PC-9ish type the RAF would be in a position to offer all pilots adequate training and hours before making a streaming decision. This might put an end to the sporadic flying with a hangover (UAS) style training and streaming that 'most' wannabe RAF pilots have to contend with. (Not an ex-UAS mate either!)

And then there is the AFT/ATTU phase, what then?
Aircraft type, who knows?

Lets hope the RAF think this through before buying into a contract placing the wrong aircraft in crappy places in insufficient numbers, attracting too few instructors with limited experience and being able to train too few pilots?!

Anyone got any thoughts on this or know any more about its progress?

<img src="cool.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Al Titude]

Interesting post Bervie...surely some of the old-timers like BEagle will have something to say about it!
Not sure when MFTS is due to come in but surely it's a good chance to get some decent modern trainers in place. There's enough time for the legal eagles to write a decent contract and not cock it up ala Grob procurement etc etc etc

[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: Al Titude ]</p>

[Hengist Pod]

Al

If you started a thread about techniques for wiping your @rse I'm sure BEagle would have something to say about that as well.

[BEagle]

Gosh Hengist - what tremendous wit! I'm almost convulsed with laughter.........

MFTS - they wouldn't want me to comment, I'm afraid.......

[Bervie]

Come on BEagle I (and a few others gathered round) am genuinely interested in your opinion here, on MFTS that is.

I can wipe my own ar$e thanks anyway Hengist!

[Pete O'Heater]

Quite honestly I think BEagle is a pain in the @rse!

[KD]

Now then everyone ! There`s no need to flash up !

I reckon (stands up on soap box) that everyone should go to York and all do the same training before being streamed as opposed to balancing degree / flying career at uni or being a full time pilot being taught in JEFTS where the "lad tick" isn`t as much a player as it is on the UAS, causing you to whine about it for the rest of your time in a role you think you got wrongly given while a UAS guy nicked your Jet Slot.

" Why make them fly a Tucano when they are going METS / Rotary " ?

Why not ? It`s all airmanship/captaincy.Everyone can benefit from the time in the Tuc. Plus if hauling a Tincan around above Malton at 10 Grand is a bit too much for you then I`m sure no "stream" would want ya .We`re training military pilots here , not Ibiza Party Movers !

Send them all to basic . Enjoy York . If you like it , crack on to Valoir . If not , you know the drill . . . . ..

Thats what I reckon. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Where`s all the money coming from ? Downsize the UAS to a basic course , scrap Jefts .

(ducks for cover ) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[peterward]

KD, would standing on a soap box make that much difference......? Scrapping JEFTS isn't going to achieve anything-unless you're advocating that we ALL go to uni?! As I understand it though with the old system, you went straight onto the Tucano (JP) and if you weren't good enough for FJ, you were chopped as a pilot all together-in my mind a costly and time wasting system. I'm sure that no-one would complain about having to do the Linton course before streaming, but can you see the High Command paying for all the extra hours? Me thinks not. So, we are stuck with a variation of the current system, but with (hopefully) new aircraft which would be leased from industry-probably something similar to the NFTC programme. Thoughts and comments-with or without soapbox... <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Hengist Pod]

Didn't take long! Boring old b@stard, reeled in at the first attempt.

[Big Green Arrow]

Sorry to be a pain, but what's MFTS? And how do you get those rating bar jobbies?

[KD]

Rating Bar Jobbies ? You`ve been hanging around a certain rotary mad as five fish instructor at Linton BGA !!!!

[BEagle]

Not only lacking in wit, but libellous as well! What an excellent contributor you are, HPod.

Anyway - to correct perceptions of the 'old' schem which existed in the early 70s:

1. Either you flew at UAS (which knocked a few hours - about 15 - off the Basic JP course) or you started from scratch on the JP.

2. Everyone did a common core JP course of 125-140 hours depending upon whether you had a UAS background or not. At the end of the course if you passed you were presented with Wings and sent to AFTS: FJ to Valley on the Gnat, streamed onto future type at Valley, then TWU at Brawdy on the Hunter, then OCU. ME went to Oakington on the Varsity (later - briefly - the Wetdream before it was grounded), then streamed onto type and sent to OCU, RW to Ternhill on the Whirlwind, then to OCU.

3. That was perceived to be rather expensive - so the Gp 1 Phase 1 etc system started which streamed people after 100 hours - but at least all pilots had a basic JP background.

4. The current system now means that only future FJ fly a military basic trainer - and that's a turboprop not a 400 Knot jet like the JP which flew low level at 300 KIAS. ME fly light aeroplanes only, plus some hours in the Wetdream. This is a huge reduction in their military training; views have been made to the system but nothing has changed. RW go to Shawbury with some light aeroplane training, but the majority is carried out at Shawbury.

5. The Hawk is quite old now, the Jetstream is very old, the Tucano has to work petty hard, the light aeroplanes aren't RAF owned and have had some significant problems. Thus to replace all our military trainers, recruit enough military QFIs to dispense with 'contractors' after so many cuts, base closures etc over the years would be very, very expensive and would take years to achieve if indeed it ever could be achieved. So another method is being examined whereby the whole military flying training system would be entrusted to a contractor and the RAF would then buy training from that 'system' - if I understand correctly. So the contractor buys ac and recruits and pays for QFIs to fly them at whichever base he chooses..... Quite where these bases would be, where the QFIs are expected to come from etc is not the RAF's immediate problem, it's something the contractor has to sort out. But the contractor might have to attract his QFIs away from airline competition with sufficient salaries, pensions, terms and conditions to entice them - which won't be cheap! Neither will paying for a fleet of new training aircraft exclusive for RAF use - so some joint programme might be needed? Who can say??

6. So what looks relatively simple - contracting out all pre-OCU training - might prove rather difficult and although there wouldn't be the capital drain from the defence budget needed to acquire new ac for the RAF, training costs for individual pilots would be whatever the successful contractor charged, including his profit element. And when he puts the price up, where else could we turn......

Personal preference - all I'll say is that the JP/Gnat/Hunter system worked well but was expensive....and that I now see new pilots with very limited training backgrounds indeed coming to the ME fleets....

[ 15 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Suit]

Bervie,

Why do you make the rather large assumption that
....."MFTS will SURELY offer a return to the old system".......?

Why on earth should it? When, as it surely will be, this contract is let to BAE Systems, it will have one goal, to deliver share holder value to BAE Systems shareholders.
That means the cheapest possible combination of bases and resources to deliver the contractual performance indicators.

BAE urgently need to sell more Hawks, they have a tie up with Pilatus on the PC-9 (or maybe it's successor)and they have an asset management arm with spare turboprops coming out of it's ears.

There's your new training fleet!

As the mix of service and civilian instructors has yet to be fixed I am sure that this will see a majority of hours building civilian contractors at the ab-initio end leading up to higher ratio of service QFI's at the equivalent to AFTS.
I expect that any company with any savvy about them would have a clause in the contract that requires the RAF to make up any deficiency in the winning consortia's ability to recruit and retain sufficient instructors.(Market forces, force majeure etc etc)

BEagle,

While agreeing with you 'in general' about the old FTS system I would just point out that the elementary single phase was only missing for two distinct periods in the sixties and seventies. Prior to the period you describe there were those of us who spent some pleasant but tense hours hurtling around the Cotswolds in Chipmunks at South Cerney. This phase was re-introduced as the all through on the JP scheme was proving massively expensive and the chop rate was way too high.
For the same reason the old Chippie was then re re-introduced at Swinderby in a grading and then elementary phase after the all through JP scheme was AGAIN found to be too expensive. Do we ever learn?

Suit.....

[BEagle]

Suit - yes, the Chippie was indeed re-introduced at around the same time that the Gp 1 Ph 1 system started - just after my time. It certainly gave non-UAS background folk a good grounding.

Curiously enough, one of those who was trialled by what was to become the Preliminary Flying Grading System was told that, had they then had the power, he wouldn't have been accepted for pilot training. But he went on to become a Lightning mate and eventually became OC CFS Hawk....

[Hengist Pod]

BEagle

You're very sensitive. What makes you think I was talking about you? Have you got something to hide?

[BEagle]

Not worth a response - whether measured or trite.

[Tonkenna]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, so just because you don't like BEagles, (or that he has a lot of them, most valid) doesn't mean you have to be bl00d y rude chaps.

On the subject, the RAF can't fill all its QFI slots, so what chance will a contract company trying to do things on the cheap have. As for getting the right ac, well we have vast experience of getting the wrong ones as some of us are painfully aware (well maybe not the wrong one, just not sorted before we get it) so whilst we need to get the flying training system sorted lets not rush into hasty decisions and lets not go for the cheapest option.

Please ?? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Tonks

[KD]

Tonks

Do you think , being a UAS QFI , that the UAS is system is the best way for someone to get there career in the RAF off the ground ? ( no pun intended ). I was on one as a filthy student and as a top up officer . Guess which I found better for performing in the most crucial course you`ll do ( esp if you WANT that FJ slot )

Not posing the question to illicit a certain response as such , just wonder how you view it from your side .

[Max Burner]

Don't forget about ENJJPT, I had a ball!

As a redundant civvie now, I'll take a QFI job in RMAS Chivenor when they reopen it, what a great place!!!

Why did they fix something that wasn't broken.

Buy a Lada get a Lada. PFI.

[Hengist Pod]

That's it! Three bites and you're out. And so it has been proven, this weeks prize catch is some old tool who gets annoyed and rants when people disagree with him and clearly has no life to speak of. Hurry up and retire Grandad.

[uncle peter]

H P
I find your posts on this thread unnecessarily objectionable bordering on the offensive. if you cannot contribute effectively to the thread i suggest you dont bother.
if you have issues with beags take them up via alternative means.

[BEagle]

Whilst I may agree with you, uncle peter, I'm quite prepared to give the child Hpod a chance to post something worthwhile. Which he has yet to.....

...and I'm still unsure as to the reason for his libellous comments; regrettably I have to reply via this thread as Hpod prefers to hide behind anonymity and not to provide an e-mail address.

Aplogies to everyone for the distracting comments made by certain people on this thread; it will indeed be interesting to watch the outcome of the MFTS saga. I would certainly agree that a Chivenor-based flying training school would be excellent indeed! 'Heaven in Devon' it certainly was - it should never have been relinquished to others!!

[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Hengist Pod]

Four! My net's not big enough for this.

[Bervie]

Hengist Pod - You must be a real thorn in the ass of anyone that knows you. A little prick that never seems to dissapear. Why dont you go and insult someone that gives a ***** and let BEagle pass on some of his DECENT knowledge on subjects you obviousely have no idea about.

I wonder if you can even spell MFTS, let alone know anything about it? This thread was meant to bring out some decent for and against arguments and any news that people knew about MFTS, since some of us are actually interested in the shape of things to come.
Prove me wrong...............I doubt that will happen.

Have a nice day though

[KD]

In all honesty, H Pod , your posts are making me laugh but in the meantime , mate , your also making an ar$e of yourself .

Start a thread on something derogatory about Rotary Crew or AAC . You`ll get some great catches there !

Sorry Bervs , back to MFTS .

Ps . How are things over the other side ? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: KD ]

[ 17 January 2002: Message edited by: KD ]</p>

[Al Titude]

Hengist Pod you really are a w@nker! Why so much BEagle baiting? OK he seems to post on every forum but usually comes out with some decent gen. Info on MFTS is relevant (or soon will be) to a lot of people and informed opinions are welcomed. Your crap is just annoying!

If you want to slag someone off go and have a go at that admin chap who thinks all aircrew are t*ssers on another thread.

On topic I hope the contractors organise a decent PC9 equivalent with all the kit, and a Hawk along the lines of the Aussie 200 series with MPDs up the ying yang. We're not training Hunter pilots anymore where clock map ground is the law and the sooner kite command enters the modern age the better!