Why £4,000,000?

[ShotOne]

I'm intrigued by the current published figure of £4,000,000 to train an RAF pilot. While the impressive quality of the end result is not in debate, this contrasts greatly with the approximately £120,000 including VAT to train a commercial pilot to the level he can operate revenue flights on a 737 or A320. I accept these figures are not strictly comparable since airline line training continues on revenue flights but this still seems a gigantic discrepancy particularly since so much (most) of the current RAF inventory (tristar, VC10, herc, sentry, sentinel, A330, Puma, Chinook, Sea King, E3/RC135)are all widely used in commercial service by companies which dont have an entire training budget of £4million, never mind for one pilot.

One possible clue was an article on tristar in RAF yearbook which spoke of "the training ship". How many airlines could set aside an airframe just for training. How widely used are simulators? I'm aware some may try to turn this into a mil vs civvie thread which isn't the intention. Standing by for deportation to jet blast!

[Agaricus bisporus]

I imagine if you take the total cost of the the entire training organization including property and factoring in aircraft replacement costs etc by the number of pilots trained you'd get a figure something like that.

When I was training in the '80s they told us we owed the RN half a Million by the end of it.

Bear in mind that civvy training doesn't maintain multiple entire airfields plus gigantic offices in central London staffed by hundreds just to train a couple of dozen pilots per year...(OK - tongue in cheek figures, but you get the point)

[newt]

It always costs more in the public sector!

Mil pilots are taught by demonstration, feedback and practice!

Civi pilots are given the books, no demonstration and little practice!

Mil pilots take the aircraft to the limits both in training and during their operational work.

Civi pilots never expect to take the aircraft to the limits. Indeed they are taught to avoid the limits at all cost!

Therefore it costs more to train a mil pilot!:ok:

Now preparing for incomers!! Flack jacket and tin hat on!!

[Evalu8ter]

Shot,
I'll have a go, but be prepared for corrective fire!

1. The £4m is probably a blanket cost covering advertising, testing, recruitment and all elements of training. Not just for the individual concerned, but also for all those from the Recruiters, maintainers, ATC, Fire crews etc up to his/her instructor amortised over the number of students that are trained - ie, not a lot at the moment. Factor in the cost of keeping Cranwell, Linton, Shawbury and Valley open with a small throughput the costs can escalate quickly!

2. Does it include trg all the way to Combat Ready? To end of OCU? To Wings? Massive differences depending on what you're measuring to....

3. Sims are used widely in the training system - approx half the hours on my CH47 refresh were in the Sim. I believe F35 will be even more 'synthetic'.

4. Not sure what the 'training ship' is. There's no such thing in RW or FJ as far as I'm aware - cabs are shared with the FL.

5. Your £120k produces a very green co-pilot who might barely be trusted to handle the aircraft, possibly a 'third pilot' for the cruise in larger airlines. The product from a RAF RW/FJ OCU is a LCR captain, and can (should) be trusted to command the aircraft (under a suitable auth/supervisory chain) from day one. ME still have the knickers in a twist over this mind you :}

6. Your £120k produces a competent product for take off, landing, cruise and procedural IF. The RAF product needs to be able to do all that in formation, at low level and in a diverse threat environment. That costs big bucks. Someone once told me that flying was easy, operating is the hard bit....

Hope that helps a bit?

[ShotOne]

In terms of the cost of the airfield, landing fees, nav charges, regulatory fees, CAA licence issue fees, etc, plus VAT of course, every penny of that has to come out of the £120,000 I quoted. As for the "big office in London"....well!,

[Wrathmonk]

to train a commercial pilot to the level he can operate revenue flights on a 737 or A320

As a first officer I assume? What are the costs for him/her to be fully trained to be a captain? Although, to be honest, the person who is helping him hours build to become a captain is the self loading freight in the back! The company can't even claim to be paying his salary as that is all factored into the seat price.

You are trying to compare apples with oranges.

The £4M figure you quote is probably for a single seat fast jet pilot. The MOD also quote 300hrs to fully qualify as a fast jet pilot. That's about £13,000 per hour. Seems quite reasonable to me!

[OafOrfUxAche]

The RAF product needs to be able to do all that in formation, at low level and in a diverse threat environment


...and on NVD, in marginal weather and often without the benefit of automatics/FMS, while still sweating from RAFFT and the daily battle with the movers/ATC...

[lj101]

This may help;


Ministry of Defence: Training New Pilots | National Audit OfficeNational Audit Office (http://www.nao.org.uk/report/ministry-of-defence-training-new-pilots/)

the Department’s costing systems do not readily identify the costs of pilot training and the National Audit Office analysed the available data to show the indicative costs. They estimated the overall cost of initial pilot training in 1998-99 to be some £280 million, with operational training an additional cost. Fast jet training is the most expensive type of training. It costs some £3.8 million to train a fast jet pilot prior to operational training, with a further £1.9 million for the cost of an operational training course. The cost of training flying instructors was the largest single component making up 30 per cent of cost. Wastage among trainees, the need to fly more hours than planned, and delays in moving trainees through the system contributed 27 per cent of cost;

Etc etc, more info via the link.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The quality of the Instructors is a huge but necessary cost.
If you have 200 hrs and are learning for a CPL, you may well be taught by a guy with 300 hrs and an instructor licence who is hours building for an ATPL. Nothing wrong with that; but if you are a 200 hrs student in the RAF, you are doing low level bad weather formation and a 300 hr civvy instructor would just get you both killed.

[NutLoose]

One of the differences is in the civilian world the likes of a C152 PA-28 costs about £130 per hour, then as they progress to becoming instructors they are working for a living and building hours for free, they may then go onto a Twin with a company and again be paid a derisory sum as they continue building Multi hours and Multi Crew Experience.

This will all be funded by the Pilots, HIS PPL.. IR.. CPL... frozen ATPL etc
the majority of his hours he is in effect building for free as he is being paid a low wage whilst doing this, Schools etc, know they can pay lower as the people need the hours. It is only when they get on Airlines it is funded, though they are often tied in by contract to cover those costs, however some instructors tend to pay for the likes of a 737 rating as it increases their employement prospects.

Cessna 152 PA28 as said £130-150 ish
A twin such as a Seneca £370.00 ish

Hawk 2011

Hawk TI/TIA Estimated cost per hour (figures rounded) (£)
Hawk (RAF Training on 100 Squadron, 19 (Reserve) and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons) 10,000
Hawk (Royal Navy) 7,000
Hawk (Royal Air Force Aerobatics Team) 6,000
The operating cost for RAF Hawk training aircraft on 100, 19 (Reserve) and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons includes elements for simulators and other training infrastructure.

Parliamentary Answers - to 4th march 2011 | Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/03/parliamentary-answers-to-4th-march-2011/)

Big difference in costs, especially as the Students in the RAF are not self funding..

[ShotOne]

Some really helpful posts, thank you. Nutloose I agree the airline training system is to a large degree (unfairly IMHO) subsidised by trainee pilots. Id be interested to know how they come to £10,000/hr to operate a hawk, when this is considerably in excess of the cost of a B737 including handling, two pilots and cabin crew, fuel, nav charges and landing fees?

[fidae]

You'll need to add the capital depreciation, and other related financing costs, + the costs of all of the airline infrastructure including groundcrew, dispatchers, operations staff etc. The direct comparision should all airline operating expenses/total aircraft hours flown per annum. MOD publishes full and marginal costs per flying hour. The marginal cost are around 10% of full cost.

[Two's in]

As Evalu8ter says in point 2 above;

2. Does it include trg all the way to Combat Ready? To end of OCU? To Wings? Massive differences depending on what you're measuring to....

At the end of of CPL/ATPL training the candidate can fly the appropriate aircraft to the required standard and operate it safely in a commercial environment. That happens about 2/3rds of the way through military training. After that the candidate has to learn to fight the aircraft in its mission role - safe operation of the aircraft is the baseline assumption beyond this point, everything else is about delivering the mission.

Also note that not even the MoD has a requirement to make a profit on delivering death and destruction, so 4 million quid gets you the very best in training and equipment. If it was being done for a profit that number would fall, along with the quality of the training provided. PFI anybody?

[Scotch Bonnet]

Bus driver verses F1 driver, there is a cost difference, ah there's my taxi :)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

B737's don't pull 8'g'. Hawks aren't supposed to pull 8 'g' either, but that's student pilots for you!
Seriously, the RAF aircraft are being pushed to the limits most of the time, which means they need checking and fixing a lot more often, by more trades. I doubt you need armourers for a B737.
A good Air Force is, of course, still a very cheap opportunity cost. Saddam spent an awful lot on MiGs, Mirages and T-72s, but it did him f-all good. Not to mention the insurance of peace. Peacekeeping is expensive, but the cost of war is astronomical.

[gr4techie]

Bus driver verses F1 driver, there is a cost difference, ah there's my taxi

More like 2103 plate bus driver verses MG Maestro driver.

[Pontius Navigator]

The costs probably start from that Ad in the newspapers and finishes not necessarily at LCR but at 6-months post-OCU with possibly additional costs should LCR etc extend beyond 6 months.

Remember also that time holding is also part of the bill.

Furthermore the overhead costs per pilot will increase as the number of pilots passing through the system falls.

[Red Line Entry]

More like 2103 plate bus driver verses MG Maestro driver.

Hey! I had an MG Maestro! Most fun car I ever owned - and it didn't cost me £4M!

[smujsmith]

Don't forget chaps that whilst factoring in all the personnel, Admin, engineering etc etc, who support the training of these expensive pilots, we must include all pay and expenses from the PM down. After that quite simple. Add all together, devide by number of pilots trained and blame it all on the pilots. Sorry, I know it's banter, but :hmm:

Smudge

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

But,...

I was worth it !

[Tankertrashnav]

When I trained in 1969-70 the oft-quoted figure for training a nav or pilot was around £100k. Thats one fortieth of the current figure, but the house I bought in 1971 for £5k is probably worth around £200k now, so £4m is probably about right, allowing for inflation.

[ShotOne]

We're all worth it, Fox 3! I very much agree with your point about a good air force, although you picked a bad example to illustrate it since Saddam did spend a lot training, much of it in this country on very experienced ex RAF instructors. And no matter what he'd spent would it have affected the final issue?

The posts on 300 hr instructors are wide of the mark. If you book a trial flight or to lesser extent PPL this may be so but not on a commercial course.

I accept the point that some of these figures compare apples with pears. But that's sort of the point of the thread; allowing bean-counters to lump a load of other peoples costs onto your budget is a high risk strategy!

[The Old Fat One]

It's an interesting point you raise, but ultimately you can rarely compare public sector and private sector figures like these in any meaningful way.

Commercial companies can easily "box" any cost item straight from their management accounts (although, in this instance, the cost of flying training will usually be born externally anyway). Public companies have to extrapolate this figure from their high level budgets.

Back in the day the cost of train me (rear crew) was circa £120K. That's about half a mill in today's money, so four airline pilots then!! (again, I was worth it :E)

but look at just some of the components of that somewhat imaginary figure...

A complete RAF Station (RAF Finningley) pop circa 2000 servicemen/women and MOD
A complete flying school (6FTS) plus all the instructors
An aircraft fleet (Dominie) plus all the pilots and engineers

Need I go on...or is the point well made??

civvy pilot v military pilot cost wise is interesting because it dramatically highlights the benefits of outsourcing.

It is incredibly easy to outsource civvy flight training. Which is exactly what the industry has done.

It is incredibly hard to outsource military flight training (accept perhaps at the very basic level), so we are stuck with the huge cost.

Incidentally, I am way out of date on all of this but I thought a full ATPL required 1500 hours flight time ic 500 multi pilot yada yada yada. How the hell does one get this for £120K? Yeh, I did see your trick of the keyboard ...revenue earning flights but even on a flawed comparison at least keep it honest, what?

[Milo Minderbinder]

does the 4,000,000 include the capital cost of crashed aircraft?

[Whopity]

£4M probably reflects the total cost including paying and accommodating the candidate throughout the process. Training is to a standard using very expensive training aircraft. It is probably to operational level.

Civil training is sold as a commodity, everyone, including the airlines want the lowest bottom line and will only include the marketable minimum cost. It takes no account of pay or accommodation or any of the other charges that the candidate becomes liable for. Normally it only covers costs to licence issue. Training uses cheap aircraft, low quality accommodation, poorly paid instructors where everything operates to the lowest common denominator, so the true cost is not reflected in the price.

[NutLoose]

You also have to cost in the likes of spares.
Parts for aircraft where the run is going to be in the hundreds as opposed to the likes of aircraft such as the 737 where it is in the thousands are always going to cost more when design, tooling, and materials are taken into account.
Henry Ford was correct when he mass produced and could hence bring down the price.

[ShotOne]

No you don't, the price has to include that. You can't just stck an extra few grand on someone's bill because you had to buy a new engine

[NutLoose]

You miss my point, part of the cost of the hourly rate for a Hawk, Typhoon whatever is because they are built in limited quantities and hence parts are more expensive, factor in an airframe life expectancy of say under 10,000 hrs as opposed to a 737 that has a life of 60,000 cycles and the cost again is higher. Engine reliability on a 737 will result in it's on wing time being measured in years, the Typhoon engines running closer to the limits will be considerably less..

All of these things contribute to the higher costs of training.

[ShotOne]

I do accept that,Nutloose but still find it hard to see how a single engined trainer whose ease of maintenance and simplicity has made it a big sales success costs more than a medium sized twin eng airliner including pilots and cabin crew, maintenance, fuel and insurance.

I've been criticised, fairly to a degree, for comparing apples with oranges. But my inial post was directed at non fast jet types, indeed I even took the trouble to list some types yet most of the responses related just to Typhoon and Tornado.

[NutLoose]

The thing with military training is I believe they do not differentiate, you get streamed off onto Helicopters or transports as you go along dependant on the pilots abilities, you couldn't start off training your pilots to be say Helicopter or Tanker crews as you would be losing those that would make the grade for fast jets.

In a Civi world, that's all there is, you would either train for a helicopter or airline licence, in the military I don't believe they are separate licences, you could end up on Helicopters and later be streamed onto fast jets, rare but it does happen.

[Evalu8ter]

'you could end up on Helicopters and later be streamed onto fast jets, rare but it does happen'

Hmm, as a CH47 captain in Bosnia in the early 00's I was the only crew member who got selected and trained as a pilot (single seat rec out of FJLIN but no slots/hold too long so off to RW...). Within 5 years both Sgt ALMs had commissioned, one to Pilot, one to Nav and were both on GR4s. My nav did a pilot x-over and also ended up on GR4s.....guess who stayed RW? Not an issue for me (though always fancied being a Tucano QPNI...:E).

My point is that ability is second to the needs of the service (within 18mths of me leaving Linton everyone was going to Valley again), but the £4m figure allows the military the flexibility to move people around as they need to. If only we could go back to streaming at the end of BFT again.

Given the rise of UAVs/RPAS (including specialist pilots) and the high synthetic training content proposed for F35, not to mention the incentive for MFTS to generate a profit, it will be interesting to see if this figure falls in the future.

[NutLoose]

I was of course referring back to my service period when it didn't happen much, the only one I can remember was PM, who went Tornado.

Says a lot about the manning levels these days i suppose.

[Roland Pulfrew]

And quite simply of course, £4M is for FJ pilot, not for ME or RW. Last figure I saw for them was about £1.2-1.3M. And that figure includes elements of all the infrastructure, the instructors, the aircraft which we own, elements of the dental and medical system which supports our aircrew. The adminers, the air tarffic controllers. etc, etc. All stuff that would not be factored in to the £120K quoted at the start of the topic; if you included all of that in the cost of training a civ pilot the costs would be nowhere near £120k! Apples and gorillas really.

[Easy Street]

A huge cost that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the cost of training those who get chopped. When figures like £4m per FJ pilot are quoted, they are "total cost of the training system" divided by "number of pilots graduated", so the stats inevitably include costs for chopped pilots. A lot of money if it happens towards the end of a FJ OCU!

Some will get re-streamed RW or ME, and become productive, I accept that - but they rack up at least double the training cost in doing so!

[lj101]

Some info here ref SAR training costs;

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/54373/response/133937/attach/html/3/20101216%20FOI%20154504%20Sykes%20Cost%20of%20training%20SAR %20pilots%20Final%20Issue%20U.pdf.html

[simmy]

It's over 50 years since I stood in the hangar on my "Wings" parade. (It was raining). The reviewing officer said that we had just cost the country 7 doctors or 15 schoolteachers! (Take your pick). I went on to fly the Vulcan and proceeded to cost the country their salaries every time I did an extra and unnecessary ILS to roll! (OK, touch and go).

[The Old Fat One]

I've been criticised, fairly to a degree, for comparing apples with oranges.

Not at all...your initial query has merely been answered, quite comprehensively in point of fact.

Continuing with the query is beginning to look just a tad obtuse...or perhaps a man with an agenda??

[ShotOne]

Has it? That depends on whether being told in lots of different ways that the figures arent comparable counts as a comprehensive answer. While I've enjoyed the banter the only thing I've learned is that the official figures roll in lots of unspecified but very substantial costs which aren't directly related to pilot training.

Agenda? Not in the way I think you're suggesting but RAF pilot training has slowed to a trickle, which concerns me. This is largely down to cost, or rather, perceived cost. Allowing others to dump other costs in your budget is termed in accountancy "being shafted" and will lead to the service losing future budgetary battles...and maybe real ones too!

[Easy Street]

The reason why pilot training slowed to a trickle was that the RAF finally grasped the nettle and stopped pumping pilots through a system designed for an air force twice its actual size. At times this excess capacity has been successfully sold off (to the Indians and Saudis, amongst others) but most of the time it has just been flooding the front line with newly-trained pilots and causing a problem with excessive dilution. The decision to pare things back is much overdue. The process of realigning the long-term costs with the newly-accepted reality is still underway.

The costs of running RAF Valley, RAF Linton-on-Ouse, RAF Shawbury, etc etc, are practically all attributable to pilot training. It would be disingenuous to pin the costs elsewhere and public sector transparency rules mean that the accounting devices open to multinationals are simply not available.

Having said all that, the marginal vs full cost of training a single FJ pilot will become an item of particular interest to the service chiefs when the F-35 pipeline opens. CAS will be very sensitive to any claims that RAF pilots are more expensive than any others when he (or at least, a contractor on his budget) is providing the majority of the training equipment and infrastructure, and will want to bill accordingly!

[Ken Scott]

When one considers the number of high profile cases recently in which ostensibly highly experienced civilian pilots have crashed due to a lack of basic piloting skills then perhaps the cost of military training doesn't seem quite so expensive?

[Lightning Mate]

1. Follow the magenta line well clear of the ground.

2. Follow the weapon aiming symbology close to the ground.

Costs of training?

[ShotOne]

Your post about crashes, Ken Scott, is IMHO off thread and, for a professional pilots forum, cheap and nasty to boot. Aside from that if you take the trouble to examine accident statistics for civil types in military service away from conflict zones you'll find they are significantly higher.

[Fareastdriver]

I don't know how much it was to train pilots when I started. "If in Doubt Bang Out" was the banner on Flight Safety posters; so aircraft were cheaper.
The other way around for navigators and rear crew. It was rumoured that one of the reasons why they did not develop ejector seats for the Navigators and AEOs in the V Force was that it was cheaper to train replacements.

[Ken Scott]

ShotOne - I disagree. This thread is about justifying the high cost of miltary pilot training against the significantly lower cost of civil - note I don't say equivalent training as the two are most certainly not equivalent. Whilst it has been many years since the military trained for excellence the syllabus still goes considerably beyond that required to obtain a civil licence.

Military training creates pilots who can handle an aircraft across a broad spectrum of tasks including operational theatres. Civil creates an operator at the least possible price who can occupy the RHS of an airliner who can operate from A to B with extensive ground support. There have been a number of high profile accidents that have indicated that those pilots lack basic awareness of how their aircraft function particularly given the extensive levels of automation that they have become used to.

Although it might be a little inappropriate to pass judgement on an accident before the inquiry has produced its findings the recent crash in San Francisco would seem to show that a high hours 777 captain was unable to monitor an experienced first officer converting to the ac on a visual approach in good weather without the assistance of the ILS or PAPIs/ VASIs. The inquiry may exonerate them & I await its findings with interest but a seemingly serviceable ac was flown into the undershoot with fatal results so it doesn't look good.

Military training is far from perfect and has been cut & salaami sliced for many years but its output was aptitude selected from a large number of volunteers and still produces good pilots. Hours flown may be significantly lower than civil counterparts but they incorporate a great deal more manual handling of the aircraft & much less monitoring of the autopilot in the cruise. We are not immune to accidents but then we are operating our aircraft across a much broader range of the performance envelope in austere & often hostile conditions. On my fleet we have lost more ac in recent years to enemy action than we have to human factors (aircrew) or any other cause.

I'm not sure which accident statistics for civil types in military service away from conflict zones to which you refer? In general air forces operate older ac due to budget constraints, often procuring them after they've finished their airline life, which might be a factor. I certainly can't think of any in the RAF, not since the Tristar 'autoland' accident in the early 80s.

There are plenty of excellent civil pilots trained both in the military and civil flying systems and operating to a high standard in a range of aviation jobs not just the volume airline world. But the output of the flying schools which is broadly aptitude selected on the basis of wealth or the ability to borrow the funding to acquire a CPL/ frozen ATPL does seem to be largely system operating oriented. At least they may not come out that way but after line training and a few years of operating under the rigorous gaze of the airline chief accountant who doesn't like pilots doing it themselves when the autopilot can do it at lower fuel burn soon makes them that way.

This may be 18 months old but is quite interesting:

Pilot Ennui - AVweb Insider Article (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_PilotsNotInterested_205957-1.html)

This is a training organization in the USA offering training do to civil pilots. It's all stuff that mil pilots do as part of their flying training:

Advanced Pilot Training| LOC-I | Situational Awareness (http://www.nastarcenter.com/aerospace-training/training-for-civil-aviation-pilots)

Back to the original thread topic - why is military training so much more expensive than civil? Much of it has already been covered, the cost includes a portion of the running of the whole organization supporting that training but above all we use more expensive ac & cover training syllabi that are more expansive than civil training.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Take the total annual cost of running 22 Gp and divide by the IPS...if anything, £4M sounds a bit light given the low IPS recently.

Then add on OCU costs which will vary hugely - some Sqns are purely for training, some have OCFs and some even do all training on live tasks so the conversion costs will be quite low...

[SOSL]

I retired from the RAF 9 years ago and became a devout civilian, so some of my references are likely to be out of date, but the fundamentals probably still hold true.

At the risk of repeating previous posts; the cost of providing aircrew to the operational RAF squadrons used to (and probably still does) consist of:

Recruiting (which attracts applicants)

Full costs of the Inspectorate of Recruiting including: pay, support and training of all staff (which in turn has its own overhead cost), provision of infrastructure - buildings,equipment, IT, communications, and also CIO offices all over the country etc etc.

Selection(which weeds out the applicants who probably won't make it)

Full costs of the OASC (or whatever it's called now) with same sort of overheads.

Recruit training (for those who are likely to go into aircrew training)

For officers or NCA full costs of the stations where they receive their "Boot Camp" treatment and all the training materials, infrastructure and instructors.

Flying training (for those who made it through the previous 3 phases)

For pilots it used to be:Elementary Flying Training School (FTS), Basic FTS, Advanced FTS, Tactical Weapons Conversion Unit and finally Operational Conversion Unit. For navigators (as they were) it was pretty much the same route. I'm less informed about the NCA route. The cost of the necessary airfields, aircraft, infrastructure and training and support personnel for all that is quite a lot.

Relative success rate (those who made it all the way through)

Not everyone made it and for those who dropped out along the way, even up to the final hurdle at OCU, the costs of the whole training machine then accrued to those who did make it. Given the number of aircrew the RAF now needs and actually produces, it's not surprising that they are costing a lot of money per capita.

If I've forgotten anything I'm sure you'll let me know!

They're still the best aircrew in the world and I know because, for instance:

Many years ago a pilot from LXX saved my life (and all of us onboard)

and over the years I took down so many useful debriefs that I began to think the aircrew knew almost as much about the aircraft as I did.

As for the comparison with Civvy aircrew training, the only civvy pilot I knew through his training was an ex-RAF engineer who spent his entire terminal grant and commuted pension to pay for his CPL and ATPL, languished on the edge of food poverty for a while but finally made it as a commercial pilot and is now very successful (I believe). His training cost the airline 3/4 of Sweet FA.

P.S. he's probably done some type conversion since joining the airline which will have cost them.

Rgds SOS

[ShotOne]

I'm not clear why Ken Scott has chosen to roll in the safety issue as the thread was winding down, or indeed at all. He pointed out, for some reason, that one aircraft from a fleet of nine was effectively rendered a hull loss due to mishandling which hardly proves his case; on the contrary, extrapolated to a medium size airline this alone would place it firmly in the bottom quarter of safety figures. Perhaps statistics arent his thing! And why choose to highlight an (extensively discussed) accident of a Korean airliner to "prove" his argument? So if someone bothers to reel off a list of foreign military air crashes (of which there are lots)does that "prove" military training a waste of money??

[vascodegama]

ShotOne

Which hull loss are you talking about? The Tri* involved in the auto land is still flying now. The only one lost was 949 after the glass cockpit fiasco.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Uncle G

Take the total annual cost of running 22 Gp and divide by the IPS...if anything, £4M sounds a bit light given the low IPS recently.

Which would of course be an erroneous calculation as 22 (Trg) Gp do more than just train aircrew. You might argue that a lot of that training is purely there to support future aircrew, ie air traffic control training that will provide ATCers to support all flying training but then that would further undermine ShotOne's case as he cannot include the costs of training civil controllers into the costs of producing an ATPL qualified pilot.

[ShotOne]

I said "effective" hull loss in that the repair cost including a respar was more than the value of the airframe. Why? That probably deserves a thread of its own.
n.b. I've no intention to "dis" their record over the years, merely to rebut Mr Scott's unsavoury line of attack.

Roland, the ATC issue doesn't support or undermine either side of this debate since the student pilot has to pay for the full cost of ATC of which an element is for training costs.

[Roland Pulfrew]

the ATC issue doesn't support or undermine either side of this debate since the student pilot has to pay for the full cost of ATC of which an element is for training costs.

Except of course for the economies of scale; a civil airfield with a flying school flying will also be open to commercial movements; a military airfield will (in the main) not be. And of course many civil airfields where your self improver will start his hours building has little or no ATC; all military airfields undertaking flying training (even on a UAS) will have dedicated controllers.

[OafOrfUxAche]

Continuing with the query is beginning to look just a tad obtuse...or perhaps a man with an agenda??


And the only man who reacted vehemently to Ken Scott's point was...the OP:D

Rumbled!;)

[Ken Scott]

I'm not clear why Ken Scott has chosen to roll in the safety issue

I merely mentioned it as a possible rationale behind the cost of training military pilots, which was your original query was it not?

A more extensive training programme would be more expensive than one of lesser breadth. Sorry if I hit something of a nerve....

[Marly Lite]

I'm with Ken. Air France off Brazil. Wouldn't happen to a military aviator. They have a thorough grounding in power v attitude, stall, stall buffet, incipient spin/ departure in manoeuvre. This is drummed in from day one and repeated repeated repeated, over the progression in training. Something that has Been eroded from civil training. It scares me to think that many civil pilots have probably not been upside down. Something a military aviator is utterly at home with. Water off a ducks back.

The military DOES have a much higher accident rate but this is little to do with training/handling skills. It is to do with perceived, and real operational pressure and external factors and being at the cutting edge of what is possible in aviation. And kit that is not up to speed despite pushing what is possible.