MFTS - 'Getting Sticky'

[Could be the last?]

Came across the following article ref MFTS. There appeared to be no mention of the project in the recent SDSR, anyone shed any light on the future? Is it going to go the same way as the PFI at St Athan?

UK MFTS - ARE THINGS GETTING STICKY? - Military Training and Simulation News (http://www.twpltd.com/news-events/UK+MFTS+-+ARE+THINGS+GETTING+STICKY%3F/585)

[Could be the last?]

Maybe that's why I am asking you AR&^............

[Co-Captain]

Official line is that MFTS is being 'rationalised'.

That doesn't sound good, going on other results of rationalising! Suppose we slash the number of pilots we need to train and all of a sudden the assets we already have in the training system do the job quite well and last much longer. Which of course begs the question...

I would imagine the decision makers are looking at any possible means of making savings. I suspect 'rationalisation' does not bode well for MFTS. :hmm:

[Tallsar]

Its an intriguing situation from many perpsectives. This major PFI is in the middle of its roll out following contract award and then HMG decides to fundamentally change the game by radically changing the IPS requirements for every role except perhaps rotary stream...although there will be reductions there too given the apparent demise of some rotary tasks within the FAA. The multi-engine and rear crew training streams are going to be ripped apart along with signifcant reductions to FJ IPS.

Clearly, apart from the detailed rationalisation changes to resources etc that the contractor is going to have to plan in now....Ascent is going to have to consider carefully whether these change alter the programme so signifcantly that it is no longer worth them staying with it. While I am sure they will look at every aspect to keep it going..the bottom line is if it can't make them a profit now...they will wish to go. The fortunate thing is that apart from the Initial contract creatng the Ascent JV and the FJ stream, the whole thing was sensibly phased that each training stream required new contracts following appropriate bidding. Much of this I think is therefore more open to the flexibility required post the Review. How much they are in over their heads for FJ training is undoubtedly an issue...surely FJ IPS is now to be halved.

I would be surprised therefore if the thing folds given that it was already about significant rationalisations of resources and closing some airfields....not things to go back on in our apparently dire financial circumstances......

[LFFC]

Tallsar,

You sound suprised that the aircrew training requirement can go down as well as up! I thought that was a mandatory warning given to everyone taking out a new mortgage these days.

It certainly shouldn't have come as a surprise to Ascent because the aircrew training requirement (for civilians as well as military) regularly hits peaks and troughs. Surely they didn't believe Gordon Brown's mantra, "No return to boom and bust"!?

As for rationalisations and closing airfields; it seems that the MOD can do that quite well by itself!

[KPax]

If Valley are only getting half the number of new Hawks, then Linton will require in theory only half the number of Tucano replacement which could go to valley. Strawbs is open for another 25 years, and they probably won't shut Cranditz, looks like a money saver to shut Lin, Top and Chu Fen.

[BEagle]

Why not simply return to the proper way of doing things? Officer and Basic Flying Training for all pilots at RAFC Cranwell (where it truly belongs), advanced flying training at Valley for FJ and ME (relocate the King Airs - there's no need to keep them at Cranwell and there'll now be plenty of room at Valley) and retain Shawbury for RW.

[Jig Peter]

Back in the '50s, u/t pilots at one Flying Training School in England but not far from Wales were advised (by instructors with medals and in one case, burns, to prove they knew what military flying was about) to keep well away from "Sleaford Tech", where "they take years to teach you some flying, but you leave quite sure you know which fork to eat your soup with".
In those days you got flying training to Wings standard plus a goodly ration of officer training too - and all in 18 hard-working months.
New aircrew ex-FTSs fitted into squadron life OK, but some graduates from the Fens needed quite a bit of "re-adjustment".

(To be fair(ish), in civil life, the above comment applied also to graduates from some prestigious engineering schools - wet behind the ears and full of the end products of bovine digestive processes. After a while they all sorted themselves out, of course).

[Tallsar]

Hi LFFC - no surprise to me friend...only reflecting on the likely projections of IPS that Ascent and the MoD will have used to support the resource plan for the 25 yr MFTS PFI. While some variation will have been accounted for it will have been based on the most like force levels pre SDSR. This radical change post the SDSR will for sure cause significant recalculations for all training streams, and some greater cuts, reductions and closures than were already envisaged as part of the MFTS roll out. The fundamental question is whether the sum of the changes makes it still worth while (ie still profitable) for Ascent to continue. My overall deduction is that the flexibility left within the continuing contractura lprocess proabbly means it can....but time will tell.

[wigglyamp]

Who are the contenders for the various parts of the MFTS that aren't yet placed - elementeray, multi-engine and what-vere they call the Tucano replacement?

[LFFC]

Tallsar,

I wonder which is the most important; whether Ascent makes enough profit for them to continue, or if they add enough value for the MOD to continue?

As you say, I guess time will tell.

[ORAC]

Defense News: 3 Teams Bid for U.K. Fixed-Wing Training Deal (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5381969&c=EUR&s=AIR)

LONDON - Industry teams from Britain and Israel delivered bids Jan. 4 to secure the fixed-wing aircraft service provision contract for the British armed forces as part of the Lockheed Martin/Babcock Military Flying Training System (MFTS) program.

BAE Systems, Elbit and Cobham-led consortia all delivered submissions to gain the fixed-wing service provider deal. Contenders for a similar competition in the rotary-wing sector are scheduled to deliver their bids Jan 14. The three teams are vying to secure a 25-year private finance initiative contract to replace the Tutor elementary flying trainer aircraft, the Tucano basic trainer and King Air 200 multiengine machines.

Downselect is expected by early next year and the new capability is planned to be available by 2015, according to Sir Barry Thornton, the managing director of Ascent Flight Training. Ascent is the Lockheed Martin/Babcock joint venture company awarded the contract by the Ministry of Defence to conduct tri-service training of pilots and crew over the next quarter of a century. Ascent is competing for the various elements of the multibillion pound MFTS program.

Some parts of the new industry-led training regime, such as new aircraft for rear crew training and advanced jet training, along with various parts of the ground based infrastructure, are already being delivered.

MFTS remains on schedule even though the deep cuts to aircraft numbers across the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy as a result of the recent strategic defense and security review are having an impact on the program. The fixed-wing deal, which includes availability and support, could be worth up to 1 billion pounds ($1.55 billion). The rotary-wing is expected to be worth a similar amount. BAE declared its intention to lead a consortia to bid for the fixed-wing service provider element late last year but this is the first time Cobham and Elbit have been named as contenders.

The bid from BAE also includes Babcock Aerospace, the Gama Group and Pilatus Aircraft. The consortium didn't name the platforms it would be offering in its original statement, but a company spokesman Jan. 5 said selections for elementary flying training and basic training requirements are an "upgraded Grob 115 with a digital cockpit and a Pilatus PC21 with a Hawk T2 optimized cockpit. For multiengine training, we have selected the Cessna Citation Mustang, which is widely recognized as the emerging multiengine training platform of choice by many multiengine operators around the world," the spokesman said.

Cobham's team includes CAE of Canada and the Cassidian Division of EADS. A Cobham spokesman declined to comment on the details of its bid.

Elbit couldn't be contacted in time for this story.

Next week, potential rotary wing service providers will submit bids to replace the Squirrel and Griffon helicopters currently responsible for training. Thornton said some 10 companies had responded to the original prequalification questionnaire. He declined to name potential bidders ahead of the submission date. Companies such as AgustaWestland, Eurocopter and FBHeliservices are among those expected to play a part in the rotor-wing contest.

[just another jocky]

Thanks Orac.

I didn't think EFT (Tutor) flying was part of MFTS. :confused:

[Audax]

"MFTS remains on schedule", tongue firmly in cheek surely ORAC?

About 10/11 years ago, I attended a presentation by the then Air Comm i/c MFTS and the dates he talked about were roughly:-
2005, start of the implementation at Valley, complete by 2007 (this was predicated by the then projected fatigue life of the Hawk).
2008, implentation complete at Linton.
Dates were mentioned for other areas but as they were not in my world, I can't recall them.

It was quite openly admitted that whilst saving money in the short term, MFTS would be more expensive than in-house training throughout the life of the contract.

[patrickthepilot]

Is it just me??

The flow through the training pipeline is all but zero. Even RW (allegedly least affected by SDSR??) has ground to a halt. Maybe no surprise, as historically, the RAF planners have been completely unable to predict future training requirements with any semblance of accuracy. Whether you blame SDSR or PR11, or anything else, the bottom line is that future aircrew training numbers are likely to be only half of those predicted just a few months ago.

How then, can a 25-year MFTS contract be written so that MoD (and therefore the taxpayer) don't get ripped off with contract amendments every time the training numbers are altered??? Or equally as bad, the taxpayer isn't paying for MFTS aircraft (under PFI) that will be then immediately surplus to requirement and spend the rest of their lives being towed in an out of hangars to make the line look good every morning...

[Easy Street]

It won't be long before the RAF is of a size where abandoning in-house FJ training and committing totally to the NFTC or ENJJPT route becomes financially sensible. However, expect North Welsh political considerations to prevail once again, especially when combined with the insistence that CFS instruction is superior to anything offered overseas!

[patrickthepilot]

Easy Street, I think you've got it in one. It may not be financially viable for FJ training (or ME/RW) to continue in UK, but it probably will.

Rumours are that MFTS, as we know it, is dead in the water. However, the fleets of aircraft will still need replacing, presumably, so if not MFTS, then something else similar instead??

Oh yes, and only 2 bidders for RW doesn't look healthy either, particularly when one is on his own (not a consortium). Is that the first sign of the raspberries from industry? With SAR-H also on its knees, the PFI route doesn't look particularly rosy anymore.

[huntaluvva]

Hoping this doesn't bring a bucket of ordure down on my head..

But

Does the Tucano fleet really need replacing?

There are hangars full of them at Shawbury; given the reduced requirement
could they not be kept for a few more years yet by rotation of airframes?

HL

[chopper2004]

With the RW bid, what potential airframes are on offer, as the choices are limited with whats available right now from FBH including the AW139 albeit for foreign customer training not for the UK armed forces and the AW109E.

So potential airframes on offer could be EC120B, EC135, EC145, AW119?

One time I read in a publication that pre 96, the competitor bidder for DHFS offered Bell 206 and BK117.

[cazatou]

The RAF has been here before.

Following the 1975 Redundancy Scheme when a lot of experienced Multi Engined Pilots left to go into Civil Aviation they were replaced by people who had done 1 tour as a Co - Pilot and a Ground Tour. The ground jobs that these Pilots vacated were filled by QFI's such as myself who were surplus to requirements in the reduced Training World.

Luckily I managed to escape the non job after 18 months or so and I attended the College of Air Training at Hamble for a Refresher Course. The only description I can come up with for that Course is "Shambolic" The sole reason the Instructors were doing that job was to gain hours to improve their chances of an Airline post.

[BEagle]

I'm not convinced that the 6FTS 'Multi Engine Refresher' course was much better. It was my one and only experience of that flying abortion, the Jetstream T1, and was probably the biggest waste of time I've ever experienced.

After my Gnat/Hunter training at Valley/Brawdy, followed by what turned out to be a pre-Vulcan Buccaneer 'lead-in course...:uhoh:', I'd flown 1000 hrs on the Vulcan without having had any Varsity or Jetstream flying. Then was binned from the F4 after 500 hours on that, to go to the VC10K. After 15 hours on the worthless Jetstream, I escaped from Finningley and held on 241 OCU until my course started. I learned infinitely more sitting and watching from a cushion on top of an Airlarda box behind various VC10 captains than I did from Learning Command's Let's Make Trucky-ing Look Difficult 'refresher' course.

I summed up one trip by saying "If it was really that hard to go from Finningley to East Midlands at 2.5 mile per minute, I'd go by train!".

[cazatou]

BEagle

Regrettably the dedicated "School of Refresher Flying" (utilising Jet Provosts, Varsities and Dominies) based at Manby and Strubby ceased to exist at the end of October 1973 and its pool of expertise was dispersed.

It is easy to disband a Unit like that - but it is extremely difficult to resurrect it again.

PS

I always understood that "Jetstream" stood for:-

Jet Environment Transport Student Turbomeca Random Engined Adrenalin Machine

[BEagle]

Indeed. SORF knew its business very well; the JP element went to Leeming, but what happened to the rest?

Wasn't Manby one of the last users of the Meteor F8 a few years earlier?

[cazatou]

BEagle

Yes some of the JP's went to Leeming and the Dominies to Finningley. Throughput of Pilots for Refresher Flying halved - though that might have been because of the PCL.

Instead of a dedicated Refresher Flying Unit for Fixed Wing aircraft the RAF ended up with a total hotchpotch of different "solutions" and a far lower standard of training.

PS The Unit did operate Meteors at one time but even I am not old enough to remember that.

PPS Just found a reference re the use of Armstrong Whitworth Meteor NF(T)14s for the Staff Navigation Courses.

[Diablo Rouge]

Ref: DHFS Type selection.

There was a fly off competition in 1996 with regard to both single and multi engined types for use by DHFS. Aircrew considerations were included which is a bit novel and QinetiQ & Boscombe kept out of it which is positively advantageous. The BK 117 and Bell Jetranger were both considered and flown at SHY in the competition tender. I believe the aircraft were supplied by the respective manafacturers such was the value of a prospective fleet purchase.

Elements that decided the eventual winners were no 'toy' undercarriage as students were likely to rip them off, and a cabin large enough to be able to cope with a rear crew student and instructor that had freedome of movement around the cabin without creating CofG issues and permitted winching and the lateral CofG loading that goes with having pilot / 'survivor +1' /winch operator +instructor all on the right hand side at the same time. Therefore skids were chosen for both types and the Griffin won over the BK117.

The DHFS Squirrel is I believe unique in its arrangement for both doors and transparencies (glass) to the point that attrition replacements have needed significant modification to get to standard DHFS appearance.
The aspiration to get a one-type-fits-all for DHFS will always be limited by the rearcrew requirements; therefore if I was a betting man, I would expect to see the squirrel around for some time whilst the Griffin could possibly be replaced with, or modified to a glass cockpit aircraft as that is the way front line helicopters either are already (Merlin) or will be shortly (Chinook).

Despite the ammount of UH1 that are decades old and still flying around the world, I am led to believe the Griffin life was only 15 years and then as they operate to FBH rather then Bell limitations to try and prolong their life. This may appear on face value a little draconian, so one must remember that the Bell 412 never was designed to be a trainer engaged in repetitive work cycles.

[Yellow Sun]

Instead of a dedicated Refresher Flying Unit for Fixed Wing aircraft the RAF ended up with a total hotchpotch of different "solutions" and a far lower standard of training.


The JPs eventually ended up at Church Fenton as Refresher Flying Squadron (RFS). When I came off a ground tour in the 80s I worked out that I met the criteria for refresher flying.

Phoned desk officer:
DO "But you are going back onto a type you've flown before"
Me "I qualify and I would like some refreshing"
DO "Alright, but you'll have to organise it yourself, do you have any mates who are running a UAS?"!!
Me "Fine"

Contacted Jetstream Sqn at FY:
Me "Can you fit me in for a ME refresher please?"
JS "As you haven't flown the Jetstream that will be 2 weeks groundschool, plus another week refresher groundschool and 4 weeks to do the flying"
ME "I want fly it, not build it and I have two weeks max available, thanks"

Contacted RFS at Church Fenton:
Me "Can you fit me in for some refreshing please? I only have two weeks available"
RFS: "Yes, when do you want come and what do you need to do?"

I then had two separate weeks at CF, a day of groundschool and a dinghy drill next morning followed by as much flying as I could manage. Excellent way to blow away the cobwebs after a ground tour.

YS

[BEagle]

SORF/RFS was excellent fun; I was lucky enough to have 3 sessions! One between Cranwell and my Gnat course, another after my abortive Buccaneer course and the last when going from the Vulcan to the F-4.

Not only was the flying superb, but so was the attitude and the crew room 'experience'. You'd often get Wing Commanders appearing from the bowels of the MoD-box to go back on flying acting like Flying Officers. During my second RFS session, an ATC chap told me in the bar that he'd watched 2 of the wicked old buggers indulging in a spot of Harry Doggers when they were supposed to be doing some night flying solo trip...

The added value from mingling with most senior officers in the crew room was superb. They had a wealth of war stories and were keen to share their experience with others.

One day I was talking to colleagues and mentioned that "There was a good article in one of the Flight Safety magazines about some clot who'd flown a Swift through some trees in Germany back in the 1950s due to press-on-itis"....

"Indeed", said the quiet voice of an Air Commodore, "That clot was me - but you're absolutely right". He then told us the story - fascinating!

But another was a miserable old sod. He came back off the first trip of the day one Monday and his QFI offered him a post-flight cup of tea - which he accepted. Poking about in the fridge, the QFI uttered an oath and said "There's no milk, would you like coffee mate?"

To which came the response, "Young man, there is a limit to informality!"

"Sorry, Sir", replied the QFI, "There's no milk, Sir - would you like Coffeemate in your tea, Sir?"

:\

[Cows getting bigger]

RFS Fenton in '86 was indeed a refreshing environment. Right until two chaps managed to ram each other tail chasing on a Friday afternoon. :eek:

No serious injuries etc but rather a large amount of egg on face as Linton had to provide crash guard. Most of Fenton had either disappeared for the weekend or was propping up the bar. :)

[High_Expect]

.................. And back in the room. Enjoy your little trip down memory lane? MFTS thread anyone? :E

[chopd95]

Beags, your tales of SORF struck a chord. Ex Towers on JP, holding at Gaydon, then to a splendid crewroom ambience at Manby. Standard b.....g for ex Towers types was dont call me "Sir" in the "I have control" patter?
Amazing array of all ranks who didnt stand on ceremoney with the Standard NATO, and the ever diminishing grey cells recall a member of the MACAWS who sported a rather fetching mohair sweater over his growbag. Where else would you be gifted a JP with the briefing "just go and throw it around - enjoy yourself"

[Diablo Rouge]

Where else would you be gifted a JP with the briefing "just go and throw it around - enjoy yourself"
If I may be so bold as to direct my learned friend in the direction of the Catterick Crash thread. Were they really "Good old days?".

[cazatou]

DR

As someone who spent 4 Years as a Refresher Instructor in the '70s I would categorically state that the comment you complain about is nothing more than overblown hyperbole. No such attitude would have been tolerated during the time I spent on that Unit.

[BEagle]

Caz, unfortunately there were certain cowboys at SORF in the PCL's time. Probably the only time I've ever felt scared in a JP was with one QFI, who decided to demonstrate 'operational' low flying to me one day in LFA17. Without warning, he suddenly rolled inverted and pulled over a ridge in LFA17, recovering at around 100ft; it scared the living cr*p out of me.... Another of his favourite tricks was unauthorised low level 'gear down barrel rolls'.

Sadly, only a few years later he had a fatal accident in a Jaguar. It had only been a matter of time.

:(

[DaveW]

There was a fly off competition in 1996 with regard to both single and multi engined types for use by DHFS. ...and QinetiQ & Boscombe kept out of it which is positively advantageous.

It was in 1994 (I think, but second thoughts suggest not - '96 might be more plausible. Records not available where I am), but that final assertion is definitely incorrect.

Boscombe involvment was sought by the Project Team for the fly-off, in conjunction with support from many other units, and a small team of 2 x test pilots and engineer flew all types over the 2-3 weeks of the fly-off. There was also additonal Boscombe Down support requested at other sites over the next few months as the down-selection took place, and when the Squirrel and Griffin had been selected Boscombe Down again provided support when the civilian flight manuals etc were incorporated into a Release to Service.

QinetiQ, of course, didn't exist until many years later - all Boscombe Personnel were at that time part of MOD.

[cazatou]

BEagle

Yes I remember IRH and he had more than one "Hats On" one sided interview with "Authority" (and several unofficial ones with his peers) with regard to his low flying. I left the Unit in Summer '75 and IRH went to Jaguars where he eventually "tent pegged" into a hillside in IMC .

[BEagle]

Caz, I didn't mean him - it was another QFI.

The Jaguar took its toll back then...:sad:

[cazatou]

Beags

PM a name

Caz

[LFFC]

So, to get back on topic, I wonder how Ascent will cope with the reduction in scale of military flying training?

I would imagine that, with the government's desire to cut back PFI projects (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8325993/Hit-squad-sent-in-to-cut-PFI-costs.html), and the cuts to pilot training (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476706), there will be some big savings to be made in the MFTS contract.

[Tallsar]

LFFC..Well of course there will be significant reductions in the scale of the MFTS system and its outputs...such are the results of the SDSR.

That said, unlike the FSTA or SAR-H PFIs for example, The MFTS PFI has some inherent felxibilities "built in" as part of its design concept. The former were all about a fixed scale of "service" over a long period...in FSTA's case 14 330s etc etc.

In the MFTS concept, ASCENT has a fixed contract for delivering a management service , one of the major aspects of which is contracting out the different training streams. In that aspect is the flexibility, and in bidding for the initial contract all bidders understood that the eventual value of the workstreams were dependent on a variety of factors, including the eventual and sometime variable IPS needs. Given that not all these major sub contracts are yet signed there is already scope to massage the outcomes to reflect SDSR IPS requirements. Others of course will require more "painful" realignment ..such as the AJT using the Hawk. No doubt the ME output will have to take a signficant hit too...but at the end of the day, if the flying isn't needed..commensurate reductions can prove suitably profitable.

Fortunately, the rotary contract and basic FT contracts have yet to resolved...so no doubt these will now be let to reflect the SDSR IPS needs.

While there is no doubt reduced value to ASCENT over the coming decades given all the reductions now falling out of the SDSR, it is an inherently flexible management concept that will allow much wriggle room to get things sorted.

[patrickthepilot]

Am I the only one to hear the rumour that all is not well within MFTS?

[minigundiplomat]

No, but then if you pay peanuts, you will attract monkeys.

[Really annoyed]

No, but

No but, yer but, if you pay carrots, you will get rabbits.

[minigundiplomat]

RA's post instantly proving the case in point. He must be the CEO at Ascent.

[Really annoyed]

Oh dear. Now there is the bitter rant of a man who didn't get the rotary crewman job at ascent paying nearly 50k recently. I am sure something will turn up soon minidumb, you just need to keep stacking those shelves a little longer.:ok:

[xenolith]

Ascent should have a capital letter and you should have capital punishment.
Are you a spin doctor? I do believe that you are being a tad economical with the truth pal!
Isn't what you've said about MGD tantamount to revealing his or her identity? I believe that is against the rules, you nob.

[minigundiplomat]

Xenolith,

Too be fair, RA is just fishing for a bite. It's easier than getting involved in a debate that he doesn't really understand - but that's what bangs his drum.

You are right though, and getting back to the subject of MFTS, his use of the word 'nearly' is creative, and he is so far wide of the mark he could have added 100k after it and been 'nearly' as accurate. That's why when I stopped laughing, I 'nearly' applied.

They are relying heavily on people supplementing poor pay with their pensions, and so will attract either those with little motivation to knock out a good product, or those whom are a very long way from the front-line. I am therefore not completely overwhelmed with surprise that the whole MFTS, and rotary in particular is in danger of ending up a cake and @rse party.

I'm sure there will be a few good blokes, but the chances of them overcoming the inertia of a 'cheapest bid' project, where most of the funding ends up on the balance sheets of the larger corporate stakeholders, is fairly remote.

[BEagle]

They are relying heavily on people supplementing poor pay with their pensions, and so will attract either those with little motivation to knock out a good product, or those whom are a very long way from the front-line.
The sage advice has always been to give a very wide berth indeed to any company which attempts such a strategy! Their pay and T&S must be as least as good as on offer from any other organisation. If they think that 'topping up' a military pension with low pay is acceptable, then people need to disabuse them of that idea PDQ!

If it all turns to a complete cake and ar$e party, I will make an exception to my normal code and wallow in schadenfreude. MFTS really is a complete and utter load of bolleaux - as any experienced QFI could have told the MoD, had they asked....:mad:

[minigundiplomat]

Beagle,

Spot on, Chap.

[Melchett01]

The sage advice has always been to give a very wide berth indeed to any company which attempts such a strategy! Their pay and T&S must be as least as good as on offer from any other organisation. If they think that 'topping up' a military pension with low pay is acceptable, then people need to disabuse them of that idea PDQ!


Afraid it's not just Ascent - this is rife within MOD - especially in those organisations and agencies with fairly specialist roles which employ a mix of civil servants and military and rely in part on ex-mil personnel for their knowledge and operational experience. I know of one organisation who a few years back was trying to entice officers at their option point with a salary in the low-mid 20k on the basis that they had a pension to top up their salary. It wouldn't be so bad apart from 1. if it isn't illegal to base a salary on an individual's other income sources to save cash, it's immoral and 2. it does nothing to encourage those people that do join to put the effort in or go the extra mile when doing the exact same role as the mil guy sitting next to them for half the pay.

I'm with Beags and MGD on this one - any organsiation that has a personnel strategy based on those principles deserves to fail.

[diginagain]

I will make an exception to my normal code and wallow in schadenfreude.

Really?2345678

[Wander00]

Melchett et al - not uncommon in the civvie world - get someone retiring with a Service pension and pay them a lower than market rate salary - called "economics"

[minigundiplomat]

Melchett et al - not uncommon in the civvie world - get someone retiring with a Service pension and pay them a lower than market rate salary - called "economics"


A fair point, and I agree completely wrt to economic reality. However, if you are failing to attract the calibre of person you require, or those with the relevant qualifications or experience then the project is ultimately doomed to failure.

If you asked a builder to project manage the building of your house, how would you feel if he pocketed 50% and then said 'we can't actually get any tradesmen, but Ive got all the materials for you'? or 'A qualified electrician was too expensive, so I've employed the milkman to do the wiring and electrics?

I agree, anyone bidding on a project has to be competitive, but they also have to deliver.

[stickstirrer]

I was in the crewroom when the incident mentioned happened. It was a Group Captain and a very pleasant Flt Flt QFI, they had done the weather ship and the crewroom was full of instructors and students hanging on every word to know whether they would be flying...the absolute embarrassment of said GC when he realised his misunderstanding of the 'Coffee Mate? situation was almost as painful for us to watch as it was for him as the realisation dawned..Scampton, CFS crewroom 1986.....:O

[LFFC]

Am I the only one to hear the rumour that all is not well within MFTS?

Maybe the review of MFTS, announced in SDSR, is about to be published? I've heard rumours of large cuts in the number of FTRS instructors on UASs (single-service) to help fund MFTS training (tri-service), but one thing's for sure; all the numbers have changed so much in the last year that something radical's probably brewing.

[ORAC]

Elbit-KBR Team Tapped for UK Trainer Competition (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130918/DEFREG01/309180016/Elbit-KBR-Team-Tapped-UK-Trainer-Competition)

LONDON — Three fixed-wing aircraft types — including the Beechcraft T-6C — are set to train British military pilots following the selection of a team involving Elbit Systems and KBR to supply and support the platforms, according to executives familiar with the competition.

The executives said the team, known as Affinity, has emerged as the winning bidder and has been selected for further negotiations by Ascent, the Lockheed Martin-Babcock partnership running a 30-year deal with the British Defence Ministry, to manage pilot and crew training for the armed forces. Ascent referred questions to the MoD. Ministry officials were unable to respond at press time. The Affinity consortium members also declined to comment.

The Affinity bid included Beechcraft’s T-6C turboprop basic trainer, a modified Embraer Phenom 100 light business jet for multi-enginetraining and the Grob 120TP elementary trainer, executives said. Under the 15-year availability deal, Affinity will provide and support the fixed-wing flying training element of the UK Military Flying Training System (MFTS) program. The contract is expected to be worth more than £500 million (US $795 million) to Affinity. It is not clear whether the decision has to be ratified by the MoD and others in government.

Contract signature is scheduled to take place by 2015, assuming Affinity and Ascent successfully conclude negotiations. If Affinity sticks to the timescale laid out by Ascent, introduction of the new aircraft types could get underway in 2017 with the Grob 120TP, followed a year later by the Phenom 100 and then the T-6C.............

[Could be the last?]

I thought the entire Ascent programme for the provision of the MFTS was about to go down the pan? Hard to understand as the mil have provided/carred out most of the hard work in course construction, all they need to do is provide the jets.........:confused:

[Bob Viking]

It's a great rumour to start but based on your apparent understanding of the structure of the programme I'll take it with a pinch of salt!
BV;)

[Could be the last?]

So BV, what have they actually provided.......? My understanding is that we own the T2, the DHFS contract has been extended because it was TFD to sort out, and nearly 3 years after the Dominie's last flight the system is no closer to undertaking any of the initial rear crew trg.

Ultimately, without the mil effort to fill the knowledge gaps that Ascent have/had the whole programme would have ground to a halt years ago. You have to ask what company would let a contract then provide all the SMEs to do the work?

It would be interesting to read the NAO report on what vfm this whole debacle has provided the tax payer?

[Bob Viking]

I'm afraid I know too many of the people involved on both sides of the fence to discuss it on an open forum. They will recognise my pprune name as well. I value my future employment opportunities too much to fall into that trap!
I only have personal experience of the T2 portion so can't speak with auhtority on the programme as a whole.
I guess we should just wait and see what happens.
BV:uhoh:

[Roland Pulfrew]

introduction of the new aircraft types could get underway in 2017 with the Grob 120TP, followed a year later by the Phenom 100 and then the T-6C.............

Well if they have chosen the 120 TP for EFT that is definitely a positive step forward. Not so sure about the choice of Phenom 100 for MEPT - can't see that handling too well in the low level environment. T-6C is probably the aircraft we should have been operating all along (in its PC-9 form) but would be interested to know how T-6C compares to the PC-21.

If we do get all of these I have only one major hope - that they will all be on the military register from the start and that we don't recreate the fiasco of the G115s and King Airs by having them on the civil register.

[Marly Lite]

Not convinced about platforms.

Grob120 too much like a basic AC rather than an elementary one. Not relevent to the majority user. Pointless waste of money.

Not a ME dude but phenom too like a biz jet and not a trainer. Asymmetric training??

This is what happens when you let a bunch of business men with no military flying experience use their vast experience to design you a trg system.

Total hoop in my opinion.

[greenedgejet]

:uhoh:

Who owns the airframes? Mil or contractor?

Why buy from 3 different manufacturers?

Why not go T6 and B200 King Air for better value or Super Tuc and Phenom?

120TP - is basically a PPL cruiser with a turboprop, aero strakes allover it and winglets. Still has poor Grob Tutor like design issues like very wide canopy arches, only available in hard to see white scheme and given large wingspan will be bumpy at low level. Martin baker at Farnborough 2012 said it could not be flown with 2 up and fuel.

SF260 TP same engine more useable!

Indian AF prefered the PC7 for similar money to 120TP

[pma 32dd]

Phenom compared to a B200GT hahahaha who the hell decided that!

(and yes I've flown both and ex CFS)

[angelorange]

Just delivered and re-assembled locally:

Cost around 20 million Euros for 10 basic 120TPs (no EJ seats or glass cockpits):

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/998898_634252746594655_952098999_n.jpg

Note older G120 canopies with obscured rear view and large canopy frames - even more than G115e:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=506249122794564&set=a.475858109166999.1073741833.107719535980860&type=3&theater

Gear up ldg:
http://aeropuertocordoba. blog spot .com.ar/2013/09/incidente-de-grob-120tp-en-cordoba.html

[High_Expect]

Roland,

You can't compare the T6C with the PC21. It's like comparing a Hawk T1 with a T2. They are for all intents and purposes a different generation of AC.

They've made a calculated decision that the capabilities (and price) of the PC21 aren't required when we have the Hawk T2. There is an argument that the PC21 is so advanced that you can go straight onto an OCU after flying it. Which would rather render the whole of the Valley setup useless. There is a middle eastern airforce that is actually trying this route.

Personally I think the T6C fits nicely in the stream considering the end post is set so firmly in concrete (T2).

I don't know a lot about the 120 (I'll do some googling) but if the screenshots posted above are correct I think it's a half-arsed effort at a glass cockpit. Is it really retractable and a turboprop??? For an EFT AC.... are you serious? WTF. You don't need performance at EFT. This will just lead to us crashing a fair few.

Ps. Beagle your comment above couldn't be more spot on. But why break a habit of a lifetime and actually ask those in the know at the coal face.

[Roland Pulfrew]

HE

I seem to remember reading an air test report in Flight on the G120 which seemed pretty positive. Then again, as someone mentioned to me recently, "if it looks right, it will fly right" - there is something awkward looking with all those extra bits around the tail. Only time will tell.

As for:

For an EFT AC.... are you serious? WTF. You don't need performance at EFT. This will just lead to us crashing a fair few.

A few years ago I did EFT on the JP3 - seemed to work pretty well back then and I don't remember there being that many crashes.

[high spirits]

Anybody have any news on replacement for squirrel and griffin at DHFS? It's getting a bit adjacent to the end of the present contract. Or is DHFS continuing with what it has?

[Davef68]

Are there any issues with a prospective Hercules or Atlas jockey not handling a prop type between elementary training and OCU? (Not being a pilot myself)

[SVK]

Df68,

Look at it another way; most ME ac don't need to bother with Low Level or Stores dropping. Why not have an ME trainer that can teach jet, glass cockpit handling and leave all that pesky LL/Para/Tier3+ trg to the prop boys on the frontline?

Cynically I would suggest that it just forces the frontline types to take on more of a trg burden whilst the MFTS contract provides the barest of essentials.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Dave,

Did I miss something; don't prospective Atlas/Hercules pilots go from the prop Grob to the King Air before OCU?

[Roland Pulfrew]

5F6B

They do at present, but not under the MFTS proposal where they are apparently proposing to use a small business jet. I'm beginning to wonder if the MFTS team actually have any ME pilots on their team!!

SVK

Given the size of our future ME aircraft fleets, one could say that the majority of ME pilots through training will need to be able to do low level. C130, and A400 will be the largest two ME fleets. And doing low level in the Phenom is going to be..... interesting!

[SwitchMonkey]

Genuine question, I have no experience of the Phenom, why would LL be more "interesting" than in a King Air.

[teeteringhead]

Anybody have any news on replacement for squirrel and griffin at DHFS? It's getting a bit adjacent to the end of the present contract. Or is DHFS continuing with what it has? Think you'll find the contract has been extended on account of the rotary bit of MFTS not being up to speed.....:D

[Support Monkey]

Heard that the PQQ's are in but no idea who is bidding, yet..........

SM

[Morf]

I've been told that Director of Flying Training, plus the head of Ascent and a civil servant associated with MFTS are visiting 4 Sqn to to explain UKMFTS and the role of 4 Sqn within the construct post the Sqn instructor reset period.

Makes me wish I was still at Valley

[Could be the last?]

Morph,

Sorry can you just expand on what the 'Instructor Reset Period' is...........? I thought 4 Sqn has been up and running for some time with the new ac.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I understood (3rd hand, admittedly; been a while since I was at Valley) that they called a halt to student flying in order to qualify and requalify all their instructors, so that they actually had enough ACLs/bounces/IREs/etc to handle what they required.

[NutLoose]

Surprised at the Phenom, we have a couple based here and they are tiny inside and do not exactly have a feeling of solidity about them.

Considering they have operated the 125 sucessfully before you would have thought new build or secondhand late models such as the 800 would be better. Built like brick sh*thouse and last.

Still think for single seat small aerobatic trainer with piston turboprop choice and retracts it has to be the SF260.

[wannabeTyphoon]

5 forward 6 back is absolutely correct. Student flying was stopped (on paper) to allow the staff to be trained. Morale amongst mates training on the sqn has been hit hard.

[sangiovese.]

One has to wonder if anyone who's taught ME trg has actually flown a Phenom....

[chopper2004]

Wonder if they will continue with the King Air after the Rear Crew contract runs out in mid 2016?

Rear Crew Stage 1 | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/news/article/rear_crew_stage_1)

W.R.T the multi-engine phase utilizing the Phenom 100, (I've sat in and played with its bigger brother cockpit the 300 at BGAD 2014 my pic below )

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_6019_zps53079c95.jpg

Though there is no HUD built into the architecture but if a customer so desires it, a HUD can be installed. The company test pilot told me that due to the layout of the instruments near at eye level, there is no point really for a HUD.

Though how over the decades before the introduction of the T-1A, did the graduates of Sheppard and then Williams who passed out then streamed to MAC/AMC to fly the C-130/C-141/C-5/C-17/C-135 variants without the use of a multi-engine trainer whilst only flying T-37 and T-38?

Cheers

[Davef68]

Did they not do some time on the T-39?

[chopper2004]

Cheers Dave, interesting ......

Anyhow the RW selection is getting a tad closer

Rotary Wing | Ascent Flight Training (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/index.php/news/article/rotary_wing1)

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-defence-helicopter-training-bid-detail-emerges-406497/

EC135/EC145, AW109 Trekker, Bell 407 all in the mix lol
Cheers