UK MFTS on or off the rails?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

There will be plenty on here who remember the days when you could see a fully armed Bucc out on the flightline and a spotty Flying Officer wandering out to strap in. It'll get to the point where someone just gets frontline and is then short-toured due to promotion to Sqn Ldr and sent off to fly a desk for "career enhancement".

Don't forget we are talking about government administration that can employ a contractor to run a ferry service when the contractor has neither any experience of doing so, nor has any actual ferries.

[Chris Kebab]

Exactly, so it's not Ascent's fault. It's the government's fault for being idiots.
Their terrible policies are affecting my generation and it really isn't fair. I'm not whining, I am simply highlighting the fact that many of you reading this were Combat Ready on your first tour before you were 25, whereas in my generation, it's likely we'll be in to our thirties before actually being able to make a valuable contribution to the RAF, instead of being a senior officer's tea boy.
So, has it put you off joining?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

So, has it put you off joining?
CK - I don't know about BVRAAM but I do know quite a lot of the "joining generation" (especially the highly driven/motivated ones are being put off. Ironically the UAS system is exposing the generation about to join to exactly what the situation is, as their former colleagues languish in holding.

Rest assured, there will not be a shortage of recruits to fly a Typhoon/Lightning. But will the RAF have the pick of the bunch? I suspect not!

[[email protected]]

Exactly, so it's not Ascent's fault. But who offered the unrealistic, untried and underbid offer in the first place?

[Squat switch]

Crab,

Exactly, and who wrote the requirement document and who decided which bid fitted the requirements.
Ascent appear to have played a bit of a blinder in making a proposal that significantly undershot the requirements....and got away with it, so far! Although they are probably not wholly to blame.

Having listened to the file on 4 programme it appears that there are some senior people in MOD and the Military who may be described as 'taking money under false pretences'.
For those of us who have been involved in the training systems to be able to forecast several years ago that this was destined for trouble it gives less confidence in the abilities of those in charge. Our adversaries may have little to fear.

Bring back the skeeter!!!

[just another jocky]

Ascent appear to have played a bit of a blinder in making a proposal that significantly undershot the requirements....and got away with it, so far! Although they are probably not wholly to blame.


To be more precise they bid on the training requirement that resulted from SDSR10. Once that was all signed off and work started towards achieving it, SDSR15 occurred and upped the numbers considerably. That wasn't the contract they had signed.

I'm not absolving them of blame for the current situation, just providing some fact, which as usual, is somewhat lacking in a prune thread.

[VinRouge]

So why is the current IPS output not now at SDSR10 levels if that was the case?

[Easy Street]

‘Has it put you off joining?’ is the wrong question; the young and carefree will certainly stick at it in sufficient number to keep the system primed for no other reason than they want to fly. The real crisis is going to come when we have increasing numbers of aircrew reaching their early-mid 30s with only a single tour under their belts. That age is when people’s priorities start to change and mid-career decisions start to be made. With 2 or 3 tours to your name, you have an idea of where you stand in the organisation and whether staying in is the right long-term decision. With only a single tour and less idea where your career is heading, the temptation to leave for pastures new will be so much more attractive. Give it 10 years and see what happens!

[BVRAAM]

So, has it put you off joining?

At the moment, no, because I am single, don't have any children and therefore I have the luxury of being carefree.
I want to fly on operations so at the moment it's worth becoming an A1 certified tea maker. Life always does change though so ask me the same question when I am 2 years in to an indefinite holding period.

[just another jocky]

So why is the current IPS output not now at SDSR10 levels if that was the case?



"Innovative" measures.

[Stitchbitch]

What’s the low down on the T6 Texan II these days, are they ‘mission capable’ yet? Why T6 and not PC21? I ask as two places I’ve visited recently seem to have no problems getting swarms of the things airborne everyday (with the aircrew wearing U.K. AEA to!). Is it purely down to money or is something else happening?

[melmothtw]

I am single, don't have any children and therefore I have the luxury of being carefree.

You utter b@s###d!!

[BVRAAM]

What’s the low down on the T6 Texan II these days, are they ‘mission capable’ yet? Why T6 and not PC21? I ask as two places I’ve visited recently seem to have no problems getting swarms of the things airborne everyday (with the aircrew wearing U.K. AEA to!). Is it purely down to money or is something else happening?

They are flying now. It's a beautiful aeroplane IMO!

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

They are flying now. It's a beautiful aeroplane IMO!
Beautiful? It looks like a squidged Tucano, as seen in a Disney movie about aeroplanes. ;-)

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x422/texan_1ad51871aef7457e2b0621d40968f2dacfb6fa72.jpg

[VinRouge]

"Innovative" measures.


Its not very innovative to be unable to deliver on contract. Indeed, contracts involving MoD seem to have this unnerving quality on a recurrent basis. In my opinion due to a complete lack of accountability, and the nonsense that is 2 year command tours.

Programs like this this should be taken from cradle to delivery by a single responsible owner. If we used relevant experience, rather than throwing people on MSP/ six sigma courses and pretending the generalist development approach we seem to follow (despite being a technologically advanced organisation requiring depth of knowledge In programme management) works, guess this will happen time and time again. The prime contractor was warned , yet seemed to be happy cracking on.

[andrewn]

MFTS does seem to be degenerating doesnt it, both in terms of delivery shortcomings and the resulting commercial relationship - pretty much in the way that quite a few (old timers!) on here had been forecasting it would.

I do agree that simply throwing rocks at ASCENT is massively oversimplifying the issues at hand. The accountability (the buck) still stops with MoD (PE) or whatever they are called these days, regardless of the shortcomings of their chosen delivery partner.

Fundamentally the current situation has come about by a misguided attempt to simultaneously modernise and strip out cost of Flying Training. So whereas previously we had a flying training system that was (arguably) the envy of the world it did come at a cost and also was facing quite acute recapitalisation challenges. Further coupled with the ever changing face of modern warfare you can kind of see why some relatively clever, career minded professionals, decided that MFTS had legs.

All sounds good so far, however the next step is where I imagine it started to unravel. This is the bit where the "cost challenge" is laid down and instead of working to a, for arguments sake, 10% cut on the headline costs of the legacy system you are then told it has to be 40%. Cue a load of headscratching, from which said professionals declare that what is being asked for is impossible, i.e. no way it is possible to save 40%, recapatilise the fleet and modernise the syllabus all at the same time. Next they get told they have no choice they will "have to make it fit" so, and this is the clever bit, a set of assumptions are documented, e.g. assume that student pilot numbers will remain at 2010 levels for the next 25yrs, assume that International Training requirements will decline over next 25yrs, assume that availability rate of Texan II will be 99.999% for next 25yrs, assume that MPA capability will not be required for next 25yrs, assume that outflow rates will remain at Y% per annum for next 25yrs, etc, etc

If all of those assumptions (and many more) would have held true then maybe this MFTS malarkey would have stood a chance, but as soon as those assumptions started to change then an already marginal delivery plan suddenly becomes a worthless pile of garbage. Then you have to find somebody senior with an ounce of gumption to go and tell the DefSec that MFTS is dead on its feet, then he has to listen, then DefSec gets replaced, then the VSO moves on, etc, etc

Eventually you end up where we seem to be today where all the poorly chickens come home to roost....

The only thing likely to dramatically alter prospects in the long term is to throw more money at it

[cargosales]

Radio 4 File on Four .. On now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm

[McDuff]

Radio 4 File on Four .. On now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
It was a seriously depressing programme. I suspect that the MOD, like many Government departments with large projects, managed to screw it up, but that the contractor was not up to the job anyway. Talking of large projects for Government departments, how is Brexit going?

[Hueymeister]

The Air Ranking Officer didn't sound convincing...at.all…..

[SASless]

RAF copying the USN?




https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/719x396/image_183447a2f90bbb0521a142d1413ef64376985217.png

[McDuff]

The Air Ranking Officer didn't sound convincing...at.all…..

No. But I felt no sympathy: he has presumably subscribed to the whole RAF/MOD system out of which this fiasco has developed.

[Wander00]

How do you expect MFTS to work if they cannot even keep air cadet gliding on the go........just asking

[Bigpants]

According to the R4 interview a number of military pilots are now completing multi engine training at a civil provider down in Bournemouth? So these somewhat pissed off young people who have been kept waiting years for pilot training are now at a civil school where they can quietly pay to take their civil licences in parallel with the RAF course......

In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?

[Bigpants]

How do you expect MFTS to work if they cannot even keep air cadet gliding on the go........just asking

Oh that....hoped you had all forgotten about it?

[cargosales]

No. But I felt no sympathy: he has presumably subscribed to the whole RAF/MOD system out of which this fiasco has developed.



Agreed .. maybe. He sounded neither convincing nor convinced about the system.

[MrBernoulli]

He sounded neither convincing nor convinced about the system.He sounded precisely like the 'politician' that he is, avoiding answering the questions being asked. The business-speak drivel coming out of his mouth was embarrassing.

Furthermore, Ascent's own website (http://www.ascentflighttraining.net/) is replete with nonsense like "Delivering a world class Military Flying Training System" and "Delivering excellence." What tosh! MFTS is little more than the usual PFI-type stuff - an opportunity for some folks to put their hands in the taxpayers pocket and deliver not-a-lot. :rolleyes:

[jez d]

According to the R4 interview a number of military pilots are now completing multi engine training at a civil provider down in Bournemouth? So these somewhat pissed off young people who have been kept waiting years for pilot training are now at a civil school where they can quietly pay to take their civil licences in parallel with the RAF course......

In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?

Indeed. Congratulations to MFTS for single-handedly solving the current airline pilot 'shortage'.

[[email protected]]

As I understand it, the MoD have insisted that a crucial part of the training at Bournemouth isn't completed, such that it doesn't compromise what the RAF wants but does preclude the pilots from getting ATPL A at the end.

Such short-sighted petty-mindedness is why so many have left over the years - if they guaranteed ATPL A or H at the end of Service then far fewer would leave for fear of being left behind.

[SASless]

As usual, when it comes to aviation matters, we on the West Bank of the Salt Water Divide see things a bit differently.

One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.

But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.

Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.

Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73

[chopper2004]

As usual, when it comes to aviation matters, we on the West Bank of the Salt Water Divide see things a bit differently.

One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.

But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.

Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.

Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73

SAS

Not sure if you use social media, but on FB..there is the RTAG - Rotary To Airline Group , encouraging , assisting, running workshops, career fairs for military RW pilots across the USA into the commercial airline industry. Each week, one sees success stories of some former CWO or WO with picture of then in an AH-64/UH-60/CH-47 in flight suit to shirt and tie, epaulettes and standing /sitting beside/in a CRJ/ERJ etc.
Likes of AA, Alaska etc are offering training, bounty attractive resettlement packages etc all in the name addressing the airline pilot shortage. The RTAG roadshow goes along to the likes of Campbell AAF, Cairns AAF, etc

However on out side of the pond - the contracting out of M/E to Hurn....hmmm subtlely getting ones CPL then if the system passes them...still have several years of short service commission (12?) to pay back etc...lest forced PVR...

Cheers

[SASless]

Our military aviators are leaving to go to civilian flying jobs at an amazing rate.

I am a member of a couple of groups on Facebook that are focused upon that situation.

My main group is Army Warrant Officer oriented.....and the news seen there is not promising for the US Army.

Service in the US Military has imposed a real hardship on those who serve...multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, assignments to Korea, short deployments to other parts of the World, along with temporary deployments for training within the USA.

The pay and benefits in Commercial Aviation are exceeding that of the Military....and offer far more stability and fewer re-locations.

Throw in the shortage of pilots at the Air Carriers.....no wonder we have good people leaving well short of military retirement to go fly for the airlines.

The point of my post was to point out how the FAA considers Military Aviation experience (training, check rides, flight hours, etc) as compared to what the British CAA does for the British Military Pilots.

The FAA is far more accommodating.....thus making the transition from being a Military Pilot to being a civilian licensed pilot much easier and far less time consuming and costly financially.

That facilitates our guys and girls leaving the military and going to the airlines.

The other point that needs considering is the fact it is the individual pilot who is able to take their military records to the FAA and be able to document the training and flight experience as the basis for the issuance of a civilian rating/license with no requirement to actually undergo FAA administered Flight Checks as the FAA honors the Military Check rides and Flight Training.

[[email protected]]

Sasless, it is only your last sentence which shows a difference between the two sides of the pond, there are already plenty of exemptions given to Brit-mil pilots towards the licences but you still have to do the ground exams and flight test.

[NorthernKestrel]

Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-military-flying-training-heading-for-the-cliff-edge/

[Bigpants]

Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-military-flying-training-heading-for-the-cliff-edge/

Thank you for posting, a worrying read.

[Just This Once...]

Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-military-flying-training-heading-for-the-cliff-edge/

Not an OC of any flying training unit or even aircrew. She did attempt pilot training and went on to attempt navigator training too, so she has experience as a student before becoming an ops officer.

[beardy]

She quite rightly highlights the problems of furnishing sufficient numbers of service QFIs. However, she misses out the parallel problem of promotable pilots. Late accumulation of experience will result in fewer relevant reports on which to base the decision to promote individuals, so there will either be a (7 1/2 year?) gap in the career progression structure of the RAF or there will be some speculative decisions and/or senior officers with limited front line experience. Or a dearth of aircrew senior officers.

[Treble one]

Is there now a case to treat our QFI's as a 'special case' and offer them a seperate career path/pay and loyalty inducements to retain them in the face of the civilian and other markets?

You are not going to unblock the pipeline without Instructors.

[Just This Once...]

The problem is not just with QFIs though. Delayed or protracted training plus a shortage of frontline hours makes it difficult to find the experienced (ideally) third-tourists to fill QWI, QTI, QFI, TP, promotion cadre, exchange slots, SQEP for specialist roles etc.

The issues are exacerbated by a reduced number being pulled through to initial pension point since it was moved further away from the previous 38/16 point. Imposing restrictive RoS measures also pushes many to the door earlier than planned.

The aircrew cadre has not had a viable structure since the early 90s. Only the repeated cuts and manpower reductions have enabled the structure to survive. There simply isn't a plan in place to support steady-state aircrew manning.

[[email protected]]

Not an OC of any flying training unit or even aircrew. She did attempt pilot training and went on to attempt navigator training too, so she has experience as a student before becoming an ops officer. so she has experience of the Fg TRg system from a 'customer' point of view and she was OC Ops at Valley during the time the MFTS ball started rolling - that makes her reasonably well qualified to comment I think. She was probably privy to far more 'managerial' discussions than any of the QFIs.

[HarryTims]

Please do not say 'customer'. She was a junior officer under training and failed an arduous course. OC Ops means managing a military airfield. Fuel provision, ATC, etc etc. A complex and demanding task as a manager but does not involve any involvement of the provision of flying training.

[BVRAAM]

I have a question.

How long does the MOD expect our fleet of 28 Hawk T.2's to last?
The Hawk T.1 has been in British military service for 43 years and she is still going, but, from what I can gather, she had a rather solid sustainment fleet from around 160(?) total airframes, which allowed each airframe to be maintained properly without causing a major disruption to the training system.
How will the RAF/RN make the T.2 last for even half that time when we don't even half 25% of the numbers of the original Hawk T.1 order to spread out the flying hours more evenly?

If memory serves, the "fly away" cost of a single Hawk Mk.128 is £28 million. It's possible that they will all be knackered in 15 years or less so that doesn't seem like value for money, from my subjective, fiscally conservative point of view.

[Double Hush]

Planned lifespan for the T2 = 25 years.

28 airframes x 10,000 fg hrs per airframe divided by 9,200 flying training hrs per year less an attrition rate of about 1 airframe every 3 years.

Those were the original assumptions. Things have changed somewhat over the past few years!

[chopper2004]

Also at Fairford last weekend, I did a stroll around the static. So it was nice to see again for another year running, Ascent line up lol (my photos below).

Cheers


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4415_2f16112bc4653574d2d00433973ec350f17861e8.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4408_1db7f9e910e8f870cc720d98a931c5b791f73af1.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4407_501e8ab71a080ae7079c7a13480b937bb9d6a5bf.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4418_7f5bb7b0314dcab23536dae73c84bfef480780a8.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_4423_a04633ed8bf0e8765e2ad96286714a1b06643075.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/img_4428_3b8bc0be1550f9112b0174bd1f3a85242420d7e2.jpeg

[BEagle]

Who were they trying to fool with that Phenom?

Did they manage to fly it there and back without hitting anything this time?

[Wander00]

Does that suggest a Phenomenally stupid decision.......hat, coat

[ANAPROP]

How do you demonstrate the full effects of asymmetric flight with the engines so close together? Cheat I guess...

[Dominator2]

Anaprop,

I think that it is possible to demonstrate the effects of asymmetric flight in an aircraft with the engines close together if the engines produce enough thrust. Even in the F4 Phantom (with engines embedded within the fuselage) if the pilot did not carry out the BOLDFACE to fly the aircraft the result was often disaster. Only due to having an ejection seat were more lives not lost.

The Phenom 100 is too under-powered for it's proposed use in the RAF for a number of reasons.

Once again the advice that was given by those aircrew at the "front line" was ignored by those at the top of Ascent and the Air Staff at HQ22 Gp.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Dominator2,

How right you are! Scimitar, Phantom and the Vulcan could all "bite" on one or two !!

Bill

[The B Word]

We might have bought 28x “Airframes” but we did buy less than that number in some rather essential bits of kit! :ugh:

[Hueymeister]

Did the bent one get fixed?

[Dominator2]

More important, how is the teaching of close formation coming along for Multi Eng students.

Has the Royal Air Force changed the syllabus to be inline with the Civvies and abandoned teaching any advanced military techniques? I hope not but the dulling down to the absolute basics seems to be prevalent.

[just another jocky]

More important, how is the teaching of close formation coming along for Multi Eng students.

Has the Royal Air Force changed the syllabus to be inline with the Civvies and abandoned teaching any advanced military techniques? I hope not but the dulling down to the absolute basics seems to be prevalent.

No.

FFS, you lot just don't trust anyone "in" these days do you. Such a shame you all buggered off and left us in such dire straits. Perhaps you could all come back and save us from ourselves.

[Lordflasheart]

....
Will the 100 or so RAF multi-engine student pilots who are currently doing their ME training on the DA42 get their formation training from their civvy instructors or sometime later, when back with the mob ?

LFH
.......

[Bob Viking]

You have basically stolen my post. I was going to say the same on this and another thread but I can economise now.

As much as we appreciate the experience of our forebears maybe they could trust us a little more.

I find it funny that it is perfectly acceptable for ex-serviceman to criticise the current generation with impunity but those currently serving should always ‘respect their elders’.

I am happy to keep my powder dry most of the time and I fully accept that there are many retired people on here that are very respectful but the rantings of the few do get a little tiresome.

I mean, let’s be honest, if the government didn’t have to pay the pensions of the baby boomers maybe there would be a little more spare cash to go around.

BV

🤭

[just another jocky]

....
Will the 100 or so RAF multi-engine student pilots who are currently doing their ME training on the DA42 get their formation training from their civvy instructors or sometime later, when back with the mob ?

LFH
.......

ME students are taught formation before they go to L3.

Anything else?

[Lordflasheart]

...
ME students are taught formation before they go to L3. Anything else?

Ahaa ! ... On their previous single engine type(s) ..... Vaire clevvaire :ok:

....

[Shackman]

Formation

LFH et al - hang about there! In the halcyon days of gold plated syllabi (before SAFT), lots of students (and FTS's), close formation was always taught on the JP ( the single engine option), but there was none at all on the Varsity Course (AFT) even tho' we had lots of dented Varsitys as well. There was none taught on the Shack OCU (MOTU) although I was shown it on a staff training sortie. The first formation handling sortie came on the Squadron as a co-pilot, and even some of the captains hadn't done any either.

So things haven't really changed that much regards formation

[Tay Cough]

How often would a typical ME pilot be required to fly close formation?

[Bob Viking]

I’m pretty sure they do multi ship close formation aerobatics on a daily basis. Or...

Yes I’m being facetious and no, I have no idea of the correct answer. I’m sure they used to do it regularly back in the good old days though. I look forward to the stories.

BV

[Stanley Eevil]

"How often would a typical ME pilot be required to fly close formation"?
AAR in the VC10 was a vital skill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ubag2Ztnk

[Dan Winterland]

AAR in the VC10 was a vital skill.

I was instructing on the Ten when we started to get the first pilots through the RAF training system who bypassed BFT and arrived at the OCU with just 3:45 formation time on the Firefly. It was a big shock and some needed extra hours learning a skill on an aircraft costing ten grand an hour to operate to save a couple of grand on the cheaper aircraft. Savings at the early stage lead to far greater expenditure down the line. It seems to me that MFTS with it's cut back syllabus to save cash is going to cost the customer in the long run.

My airline went down this line being an early adopter of MPL (Multi Pilot Licence) training where it was possible to have a pilot in an airliner with less than 100 hours in their logbook. It was intended these new cadets, having been heavily versed in the company mantra would able to operate to the new philosophy where SOPs could replace experience and airmanship. It turned out the base cost of MPL only offered a small saving on the cost of a CPL - but the accountants had done their job and MPL was in. However, the increased cost of extra training after failed checks and added engineering with the cost of hard landing inspections and aircraft down time meant that it was a false saving. Having been an early adopter of MPL, we are now an early rejecter of the system. All our cadets now go through the CPL system.
You Tube

[BEagle]

Hi Dan! Actually it was worse than that - you needed 2 x VC10 to teach formation! Each costing £10K per hour... The MELIN lemons were really short changed.

Teaching co-pilots who hadn't had the benefit of any jet formation time previously was something of a challenge - particularly at night!

BV will moan, but the old JP course (before all that Gp 1 Ph 1 drivel) turned out generic pilots with a full training background, who were then streamed FJ, ME or RW before AFTS. Even if they went to ME, that meant the training was in the long term memory, so if they went to a type which required formation flying as a normal way of life, it wasn't a huge shock to the system. It also meant that if they became BFTS or UAS QFIs at a later date, learning formation training was pretty straightforward.

[Yellow Sun]

How often would a typical ME pilot be required to fly close formation?


One Nimrod variant I used to fly indulged in close formation on a regular basis. However it was on an opportunity basis, we were always the leader and the other particpants usually bore Red Star markings.

Seriously though, you need to fly close formation should you be required to participate in AAR. In 1982 we had to very rapidly generate an AAR capable element of the Nimrod force. We were able to achieve this because all the pilots had a grounding in basic formation techniques. It may have been a long time ago they learned it, but if taught correctly it's a bit like riding a bike, you might be shaky at first but regain proficiency quite quickly. It also helped enormously that many of the OCU QFIs had taught formation at BFTS. Thus we were able to transfer their skills to the Nimrod. Add the AARIs from other places to the mix to develop the skills and teach the specific AAR elements and we achieved the goals in a remarkably short time.

Would the RAF ever be required to do something like that again though? Well you may wish to consider that we never envisaged having to do it the first time around!

YS

[Dominator2]

BEagle, I totally agree with you. IMHO the RAF would be better equipped if all pilots were trained in all of the basics of military aviation such as formation and aerobatics. It is never known when those skills will be called upon even if initially assigned to a "large aircraft" or rotary.

BV, there are many retired aviators with a wealth of experience and every just now and then may be able to be helpful to solve today's problems. Sometimes the answer seems obvious when viewing from the outside. I do not believe that many post on this site maliciously. And yes you were being facetious.

[Bob Viking]

If you read my post properly you’d see that I pointed out that those currently serving do respect the opinions of their forebears.

What gets people backs up though is the notion that only the ‘old and bold’ can see the problems and that those of us left in are blind to the problems or solutions.

You kind of reinforced my point a little bit by immediately protesting.

Of course we could quite easily blame our forebears for handing us a sh1t sandwich couldn’t we? One that we’ve had to sort out without any help from the ‘experts’.

Before always talking down to us oiks maybe just put yourself in our shoes and think how it must feel to have to read endless posts from retired members telling us all what a crap job we are doing.

I am not saying you personally are guilty but only a blind man can’t see how several regular posters do exactly what I am suggesting.

BV

[Lordflasheart]

,,,,
Perhaps we will get an insight into the current thinking on the various aspects of formation flying, when the Phenom SI is published.

LFH
.........

[Dominator2]

BV,

I am reluctant to say it but you appear to have a chip on your shoulder.

When you say we could quite easily blame our forebears for handing us a sh1t sandwich couldn’t we? One that we’ve had to sort out without any help from the ‘experts’ please don't include the many of us close to the coal face who tried to stop the "sh1t sandwich" from happening.

Equally, there are many who genuinely would like to help. Believe or not but after 41 years fast jet/multi eng flying one becomes attached and maintains a strong interest. We are saddened that some Senior Officers sold their souls. Difficult to know how a few manage to sleep at night.

It is fully understood that many are working very hard to make it work, however, many things are flawed from the outset!

[Wander00]

The discussion of formation flying has dredged up a 50 odd year old memory. A year or so after 360 got the T 17 life started to get more interesting with increasingly challenging profiles, at least for this first tourist and by now the only fg off captain in Signals Command/90 Signals Group. One morning the programme detailed a 4 ship for some exercise. Boss briefed the sortie. "Any questions". "Yes, Sir" quoth I, I have never flown a Canberra in formation." "That's OK, its mainly a box 4, you go in the slot and follow me." I was doing quite well until he called the echelon for the run and break on return.

[Dominator2]

Wander00,

The question I would ask is, was you Boss wrong to assume that all of his CR pilots were trained in ALL of the basic facets of Military Aviation? I think not.

I to was caught out when leading a Night AAR Convex. I assumed that the 27 year old Graduate, Creamie with 1000 hrs was trained in basic night formation. It was only when we got behind the VC10 that it became evident that all was not well. After 30 minutes and never even getting to the waiting position we decided to RTB, much to the VC10 crews relief.
The debrief lasted quite a long time and we (the supervisors) were guilty in assuming that this pilot had received similar training to our selves (prior to mirror image).

By the time I was the age I had completed two Front Line tours and was an Instructor on an OCU!

The training system has been eroded over many years. Driven by financiers and not defended by Staff Officers looking after their own careers. When did the RAF last conduct a detailed assessment of the REAL capability expected of our Combat Ready pilots and then defined the best and correct (not financially driven) training required. Then the RAF would be able to define a true training requirement which could be conducted by itself, not outsourced to the lowest bidder. Countries such as Sweden have done this to good effect!

[Jumping_Jack]

I'm with you on this BV. Before always talking down to us oiks maybe just put yourself in our shoes and think how it must feel to have to read endless posts from retired members telling us all what a crap job we are doing.

So many of those offering advice left the service decades ago and haven't the faintest idea what being in the current RAF is all about.
J_J

[Timelord]

I hope that I have never suggested that those currently serving are doing “ a crap job” but they do seem to be served by a crap training system, slowly eroded as Dom suggests above. If someone currently in the know can reassure me as a taxpayer and NOK that the system is not FUBAR then I shall be delighted.

[ExAscoteer]

More important, how is the teaching of close formation coming along for Multi Eng students.

Formation was never taught at METS. I did formation at BFTS. The next time I did it was on my AAR course.

[downsizer]

the modern day RAF is in a better place than it was under the Cold War duffers who never saw any action anyway.

Fish much? :E

[Dominator2]

high spirits,

If that’s what you want to call a world class training system then you perhaps want to remove the rose tinted beer glasses for about 5 seconds. Today’s instructors are of far higher quality and the modern day RAF is in a better place than it was under the Cold War duffers who never saw any action anyway

No, I’m not after a bite. Some of the moronic and unfounded comments from ex RAF aircrew on this page just goad me to fight fire with fire.....

If that is the kind of infantile discussion in which you wish to part take, hard luck. You forget, or maybe never knew, that many of us who served for 40 years were both Cold War Warriors and saw quite a lot of action since then. Equally, many of us have a wealth of experience instructing in the myriad of systems that the RAF has introduced since the 70s. If you wish to have a mature discussion, I'm sure that some may wish to join you. No one has 100% ownership of being right all of the time.

[BEagle]

high spirits wrote: 2 x Phenom colliding is small beer, and yes I know how many we have.

It is quite impossible to have a serious debate with anyone who would make such a facile and frankly ridiculous statement.

[Harley Quinn]

I would argue that we are just as capable now with fewer hours to go round and that the quality of training is better. This isn’t due to more hours, but higher quality. There you go, discuss that.

In a nutshell, bollocks.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

If formation is such an issue, why are we not having more high profile incidents with it?
Because we'd need 2 serviceable aircraft to fly formation?

[deltahotel]

ExAscoteer

Just for accuracy, formation has been in the METS syllabus for many years. It wasn’t when I did the MEXO course in 1985, but very much so when I was a QFI 1997-2000.

[FixClrEnt]

I to was caught out when leading a Night AAR Convex. I assumed that the 27 year old Graduate, Creamie with 1000 hrs was trained in basic night formation

Now why on earth would you have assumed that?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I meant on the front line.
So did I, of course!

[ExAscoteer]

Just for accuracy, formation has been in the METS syllabus for many years. It wasn’t when I did the MEXO course in 1985, but very much so when I was a QFI 1997-2000.

I did METS in 1988 and it certainly wasn't taught then. I've checked my Logbook, my Formation training was on JP5A at Cranditz. My next exposure to Formation (on Nimrod) was my AAR course.

After that it was AAR on Albert.

Thence on the Domine

I was a QFI on the Jetstream post Domine and cannot recall teaching formation.

[deltahotel]

So I guess formation was introduced some time between 1988 and 1997!

[BEagle]

Go back to your cup of cocoa in the old folks home BEagle. What do you seriously bring to a debate on MFTS?

Rather than rise to the bait of an ad hominem attack such as this, I would merely state that only yesterday I was speaking with the CAA about possible ways of introducing better and more flexible accreditation for military pilots towards Part-FCL pilot licences, an issue which has been compounded both by the introduction of the Prefect and the significant lack of solo flight time in the current EFT syllabus.

[flyingkeyboard]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, is there much lateral recruitment taking place in the RAF pilot branch?

[beardy]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, is there much lateral recruitment taking place in the RAF pilot branch?
Lateral recruitment? With all that sideways movement they deserve to be called crabs.
​​

[LOMCEVAK]

We used to throw aircraft away with monotonous regularity in the 50s-80s. I would argue that we are just as capable now with fewer hours to go round and that the quality of training is better. This isn’t due to more hours, but higher quality. There you go, discuss that.


OK, I will discuss that. In the 50s-80s the aircraft types often had difficult flying qualities compared to modern platforms. The navigation and instrument systems were not as accurate and reliable as modern systems. There were no TAWS/GPWS systems or TCAS. The operating environment was often harsher with considerably more low level, multi-ship packages. There were no ADRs from which to identify lessons to improve safety. I consider that these factors had a far greater influence upon accident rates than pilot training.

I underwent RAF pilot training in the '70s and am still involved in post-graduate training of experienced military pilots as well as still flying UK MAA regulated fast jet aircraft. Therefore, I have seen the changes in the capabilities of RAF pilots and instructional standards over the years. Many of the changes are purely in line with changes in the aviation environment overall, in particular the skill sets that are required; they are different now to 20/30/40 years ago. Top level thoughts: the ability of today's pilots is the same as what it ever was but ability is the potential to learn and fewer skill sets are actually taught and learnt. Therefore, the capabilities of today's pilots is, in some areas, less than it used to be (eg. aerobatics). Today, there is far more emphasis on flying by regulation and by numbers and less on applying judgement, both making decisions and interpreting visual and acceleration cues in order to achieve the desired flightpath of the aircraft. The problem with judgement is that you can get it wrong. The problem with regulation is what happens when a novel situation occurs? A balance of the two is required, and this is where supervision comes in as it is required to achieve the correct balance.

With respect to formation flying, the motor skills of flying 'on the wing' are not actually very perishable. However, formation leading skills are very perishable. This is mitigated in part by good SOPs. Knowledge of and adherence to these SOPs requires careful preparation, adequate briefing and practise. To my mind this is, and always has been, the biggest risk in close formation flying.

Today's military aviation world is different to that of the past. I believe that the training of the time was appropriate over the 46 years of military aviation experience that I have. Which was more fun - let's save that for a bar somewhere! Which was 'best', that can never be a meaningful argument until the day that it is proven that apples and oranges are the same.

And yes, I have flown the Phenom in formation.

Rgds

L

[Dominator2]

LOMCEVAK,

A very measured reply from a very experienced and well respected aviator.

yes, I have flown the Phenom in formation.

AND?

[Timelord]

LOMCEVAK,

A lot has been said on these pages about the suitability of various aircraft being used under the MFTS contract. Did Boscombe Down pilots and rear crew have a say in the type selection, and who had the final say, RAF / Boscombe Down or Ascent?

Regards,
TL

[LOMCEVAK]

LOMCEVAK,

A lot has been said on these pages about the suitability of various aircraft being used under the MFTS contract. Did Boscombe Down pilots and rear crew have a say in the type selection, and who had the final say, RAF / Boscombe Down or Ascent?

Regards,
TL

To the best of my knowledge Boscombe Down had no input whatsoever to the choice of platforms for MFTS. I believe that the types were proposed by Affinity and then accepted by Ascent following the contract bid by Affinity. Elbit was one company that formed Affinity, and I believe that the choice of the Grob 120TP and T-6 was based on knowledge from another contract that they had that used those types. However, how I why they chose the Phenom I am not sure.

Rgds

L

[Lima Juliet]

Correct, BD had nothing to do with it.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Actually, I remember my first QFI back in the early 90s. Pretty poor quality low average delivery. A lot of ‘I can do it, why can’t you?’. His solution even involved the odd cuff round the head. Then again, he was a Victor Tanker co pilot, so not a lot upstairs.












Pretty crass, indeed offensive, statement!

I was once a Victor tanker co pilot, 52 years and 15,000 hours ago, ( and later a standards QFI) later an airline training captain, and found SOME of the former fast jet types b....y hard work to get up to scratch. Most were first class, but some were arrogant beyond belief, arrogance not matched by their rather meagre ability to be a member of an airliner crew.

Many of us started as V force copilots, and developed from there .

.......and how would YOU know, since you trained in the 90s, that todays QFIs are better than , say, those on my days of the 60s and 70s, As the standards QFI. I flew with quite a few, ALL knew their jobs well., certainly up to CFS standards, no cuffs around the ear involved.

So, perhaps its unwise to generalise !

[Harley Quinn]

BA/BY
1. Did you ever make any disparaging comments either on paper, online or out loud about other fleets, pilots, aircrew, cabin crew, ATC, movers or others during your 52 years and 15000 hours? No? Hypocrite or liar? Or both?

2. I don’t give a toss what your CV reads. This thread is about MFTS. Not your ego. Get over yourself.

3. My comments are intended to provoke a reaction and they have, and I make no apologies. I happen to agree with some of what is written on here. What I can’t stand is ill judged, uninformed and crass comments about the state of the RAF and the training system from those who think that they know better but enjoy throwing rocks from a glass house. As LOM rightly pointed out. It’s just different. I’m glad I got a rise out of a few of you. Quite frankly you deserve it.

4. I would add one more thing to the mix. I said that the quality of training and instruction was better. The training has been enhanced significantly by synthetics. I believe that that goes for the quality of instruction too as they go hand in hand. That has led to standards being maintained within the fewer flying hours that have inevitably been forced on all of us. The task is also different so there is an apples/oranges issue which I accept is impossible to compare.

So you're still talking bollocks then, trying to 'get a rise'?

Pathetic.

[BEagle]

My comments are intended to provoke a reaction and they have, and I make no apologies

Hmmm...
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Seems to describe a certain poster fairly accurately?

[jayteeto]

I was an instructor in the 90s and I’ve returned for an FTRS post now. Things are different, not better or worse, just different. Firstly and most important, the students coming through now are the highest aptitude scorers, meaning input average standard is higher. We don’t concentrate so much on low level flying, massively reducing the risk. The aircraft are higher spec and more reliable. That increases required management skills but reduces the need for handling skills. We have reduced the drinking culture, that matters!
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare

[just another jocky]

I was an instructor in the 90s and I’ve returned for an FTRS post now. Things are different, not better or worse, just different. Firstly and most important, the students coming through now are the highest aptitude scorers, meaning input average standard is higher. We don’t concentrate so much on low level flying, massively reducing the risk. The aircraft are higher spec and more reliable. That increases required management skills but reduces the need for handling skills. We have reduced the drinking culture, that matters!
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare

Well said jayteeto, couldn't agree more.

The calibre of student pilots has never been so consistently high. Had the bar been set this high when I joined, I would never have made it and nor would the majority of my contemporaries. They are asked to do so much with so few hours yet the vast majority cope very well and move on to fly some of the most advanced and capable aircraft in the world. They still drink, but less regularly yet still seem to have a great time, they visit the gym more than the bar and have outside interests which we didn't seem to have back in the day. But most importantly, imo, they are taught from Day 1 that the RAF is now a place where we stick our hand up when we make a mistake so that others may learn, without fear of undue punishment. The unwritten culture when I was taught to fly was "do what you have to do, just don't get caught". I understand that tuc & Chug have major issues with the hierarchy, but down at the coal face, it is a much, much better place than it was from a safety perspective.

[Squat switch]

Progress and technological advances are well and good, but we must avoid the situation in the fixed wing world especially the civil side where pilots become mere systems managers.
The basic hands on skills remain the fall back safety net when the automated system falls over, or is poorly designed/integrated. To be able to fly the raw aircraft can prevent disaster. Several airline crashes were preventable, two most recently.
I learned to have a healthy suspicion of any computer assisted systems.

[Training Risky]

Without wanting to go off on a tangent, is there much lateral recruitment taking place in the RAF pilot branch?
Good question. Considering the RPAS operators are now in the RAF pilot branch, will they be offered FJ/RW/ME crossovers after doing 40-odd hours on the Tutor?

[jindabyne]

During my early time in the RAF, I had a healthy respect for earlier generation aircrew and the competence of their air force. I like to think that my own generation upheld that capability, albeit with different equipment and methodologies. Today, the equipment is way more sophisticated and capable, and I know that the aircrew (and groundcrew) of today, employing yet more different methodologies, are part of a highly effective air force - which is what it's all about. I admire and envy them, regardless of gender.

A heartfelt if boring post, prompted by some dismay over some of the foregoing debate. And well said Lom!

[AnglianAV8R]

Virtual reality pilot training program graduates latest class, including Brits
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/08/30/virtual-reality-pilot-training-program-graduates-latest-class-including-brits/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2009.03.19&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

[Easy Street]

Good question. Considering the RPAS operators are now in the RAF pilot branch, will they be offered FJ/RW/ME crossovers after doing 40-odd hours on the Tutor?

You've asked this before on another thread and I’ve made this point in response before. Here goes...

ME or RW pilots crossing to FJ have to do the full basic and advanced FJ courses. Of course, RPAS pilots would have to do the same. If the very slight reduction in the amount of elementary flying leads to any aircraft handling issues, it’ll be exposed in the basic course where it can be easily addressed.

FJ or ME pilots crossing to RW have to do the full basic and advanced RW courses....

You get the picture, I’m sure. We don’t send crossover pilots straight to OCUs, if that’s what you were wondering.

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/raf-missing-half-its-pilots-after-cancelled-training-cs2n3fwsm

RAF missing half its pilots after cancelled training

The Ministry of Defence (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/armed-forces) has failed to train 45 per cent of the pilots the RAF needs over the past six years, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has found.

Cancelled and delayed instruction means there is a shortfall of 125 aircrew a year. A senior MP last night poured scorn on the “saga”. The National Audit Office investigation, published today, found that the MoD was taking 7.1 years to train RAF fast-jet pilots — more than three years longer than the target of 3.9 years.

In May a freedom of information request by an RAF veteran revealed that 350 trainees, comprising 110 signed up to fly helicopters for the army and the Royal Navy plus 240 enlisted to fly fast jets for the RAF, had been grounded because of training delays. Critics warned that long passages of time between different phases of training could lead to skills fading.

The audit office said the government recognised the issues over the training bottleneck for pilots, which resulted largely from severe cuts to aircrew numbers in a 2010 defence review, many of which were reversed in 2015.

Although the government changed its mind about targets for pilot numbers, reversing the cuts to deliver the rise in numbers has proved difficult. Part of the training is designed and managed by Ascent, a venture between the defence contractors Lockheed Martin and Babcock, who signed a 25-year contract in 2008. It is thought it will take up to five years for the shortfall to be fixed.

The MoD is to enrol up to 100 students in a private flying school at a cost of £7.2 million over the next three years. Other British military pilots will be enrolled on Nato training programmes.

Meg Hillier, Labour chairwoman of the public accounts committee, said: “The military flying training saga continues with the MoD repeatedly failing to train the aircrew it needs . . . it is more critical than ever that the MoD’s much delayed new programme works.”

The MoD said: “The Military Flying Training System is the biggest transformation of UK military aircrew training in a generation and we welcome the audit office report on this programme. We acknowledge there have been some challenges, the transition to the new system is now well under way and a steady improvement in aircrew throughout is being seen in all areas.”

[Training Risky]

You've asked this before on another thread and I’ve made this point in response before. Here goes...

ME or RW pilots crossing to FJ have to do the full basic and advanced FJ courses. Of course, RPAS pilots would have to do the same. If the very slight reduction in the amount of elementary flying leads to any aircraft handling issues, it’ll be exposed in the basic course where it can be easily addressed.

FJ or ME pilots crossing to RW have to do the full basic and advanced RW courses....

You get the picture, I’m sure. We don’t send crossover pilots straight to OCUs, if that’s what you were wondering.

Thanks, I must have missed your reply on the RPAS thread. I was vaguely wondering if RPAS stream is now seen by some potential joiners as a back-door route to 'hands-on' flying, especially considering the news about the training bottleneck.

Yes got the picture - I do remember a few Tonka GR1 pilots at Shawbury who had to go through the whole Basic and Advanced course before ending up on the Chinook.

[flyingkeyboard]

I was thinking along the lines of civvie APTL holders joining and going straight onto the ME fleet, flying the benign routes to the USA, Falklands, etc. In fact, don’t we have elements of this already doing that with the Voyager?

[Mil-26Man]

RPAS aircrew

An oxymoron, surely.

[dook]

Did someone mention formation flying ?

Ordinary squadron pilots Friday afternoon jobber 1960s....


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/564x550/74_2c16dc1a2a451197baeacf3a70e63bdddbf17fcb.jpg

[jindabyne]

All nine would be needed to guarantee one kill:p

[just another jocky]

Just managed to get No. 9 aboard before the Lead Bingo'd. :}

[Asturias56]

All nine would be needed to guarantee one kill:p

These days the MoD couldn't afford the fuel bill.............................

[Dan Winterland]

The 4 Sep 19 NAO report.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Investigation-into-Military-flying-training.pdf

[Typhoondriver]

I have a question for those forum members with experience in the legal sector.

Is it possible that those young men and women who have been adversely affected by the unacceptable delays in their professional training, could raise a case against the MOD?

There's a generation of young pilots arriving on their Frontline types, in many cases in excess of 10 years since joining the Service. This represents an entire generation of pilots, who will be unable to have the career opportunities that they might reasonably have expected when entering into an employment contract with the RAF / MOD.

Pilots arriving on the FL after 10 years won't be completing their first tour until something approaching their 12/13th year of service. The current levels of competition on FJ promotion boards mean that even the most exceptional candidates won't be 'in the bracket' until completion of their 2nd tour (year 14/15). Even very high calibre individuals are likely to to require 3+ tours (year 16-18+) to be considered competitive for promotion within their respective cadre of peers.

If you were to trace through the likely career impact on young aviators directly caused by this MFTS 'debacle', and calculate the potential lost earnings caused by a failure to professionally train employees within a reasonable period of time, you could demonstrate loss of earnings through:- 1./ Lack of flying (sic retention) pay, 2./ Lack of promotion opportunity, 3./ Subsequent impact on lifetime pension earnings through point 2.

So could there be a case to answer? Could we potentially witness a future 'class action' against MOD?

[alfred_the_great]

I doubt it.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I doubt it.


What he said! You only have to look at the expected IPS numbers at 2005, SDSR 10 and the predicted one for 2020 for the MOD to have a (pretty legitimate) "wasn't out fault, blame the political system" get out of jail free card.

[teeteringhead]

And of course in impacts on future VSOs - should you care about them!

If you want your future CAS to be (probably) a 3* by the time he's about 50 (sorry! or she!), if you track back through the ranks, even with not much more than 3 years in each rank, you finish up with a sqn ldr in their (note gender neutral pronoun) early 30s - just about when these guys are currently getting to their first squadron.....

.........but that assumes a future CAS will be a pilot......... (dons flak jacket)

[NavyNav2]

I think one way to possibly address this would (in addition to fixing the training pipeline) be to introduce some form of a 'below the zone' promotion fix to remove the requirement of being 'above average' in the air prior to being considered by the board- maybe an acknowledgement that a junior 1st tourist pilot has the potential to become above average in the air?? However not sure this is a good idea as it makes the system even more subjective and I am pretty sure this may throw up other issues that could be open to challenge.

[Easy Street]

If you want your future CAS to be (probably) a 3* by the time he's about 50 (sorry! or she!)

That's a dated perspective on age vs rank. Service to 60 changed things immediately, most notably in the wg cdr / gp capt bracket where ambitious new promotees are told to expect 6-7 years in rank (there is a 4-year minimum seniority requirement and still the 'command and staff' hoops to jump through. The best will manage it in 5 years but that's still much slower than your example). Then 1* is no longer the holding rank that it was in the old days; there's now expectation of 3ish years as a Force Commander or ACOS in posts which have assumed more responsibility since the Levene reforms. It's only after that that things can really speed up. The new CAS was a 3* for less than a year...

My sense is that 1* by 47-48ish is today's marker of potential. You're still right that the current crop of junior officers are going to struggle :-(

[PPRuNeUser0211]

And of course in impacts on future VSOs - should you care about them!
.........but that assumes a future CAS will be a pilot......... (dons flak jacket)
I'd wager we'll manage a CAS with 1000hrs TT in the not to distant future at this rate, for sure.

[H Peacock]

I think one way to possibly address this would (in addition to fixing the training pipeline) be to introduce some form of a 'below the zone' promotion fix to remove the requirement of being 'above average' in the air prior to being considered by the board-

Hmmm! I've no doubt in latter years the need to be 'above-average' for promotion was being awarded regardless of actual ability. I flew with plenty of newly promoted Sqn Ldrs that were competent but most certainly not 'above-average' !

[alfred_the_great]

My sense is that 1* by 47-48ish is today's marker of potential. You're still right that the current crop of junior officers are going to struggle :-(

I wonder how they’ll retain people given the thrashings that OF5 and 6 seem to earn...

[PlasticCabDriver]

Hmmm! I've no doubt in latter years the need to be 'above-average' for promotion was being awarded regardless of actual ability. I flew with plenty of newly promoted Sqn Ldrs that were competent but most certainly not 'above-average' !

No need to actually be Above Average, just written up as Above Average. Big difference.

[chopper2004]

https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-shawbury/news/another-jupiter-helicopter-will-soon-be-airborne-in-the-shropshire-skies/


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1350x1800/63b944f4_3db4_43ec_9471_7a253b775d6e_699d5965935def87ebe8262 3206924495d708660.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x750/30cba204_6c81_46f7_88f5_14763ecf30d5_0be528c01515dd781957fa2 01bf2f289f581fc52.jpeg

[Sky Sports]

Last September we learnt, in the National Audit Office report, that there were 224 students on hold, waiting for a course.
Does anyone have any info on how this figure looks now, given that IOT was paused for several months and that pilot OASC boards stopped in March and won't resume until the new year.
Will this clear the backlog of 124 waiting for EFT?

[Big Pistons Forever]

That's a dated perspective on age vs rank. Service to 60 changed things immediately, most notably in the wg cdr / gp capt bracket where ambitious new promotees are told to expect 6-7 years in rank (there is a 4-year minimum seniority requirement and still the 'command and staff' hoops to jump through. The best will manage it in 5 years but that's still much slower than your example). Then 1* is no longer the holding rank that it was in the old days; there's now expectation of 3ish years as a Force Commander or ACOS in posts which have assumed more responsibility since the Levene reforms. It's only after that that things can really speed up. The new CAS was a 3* for less than a year...

My sense is that 1* by 47-48ish is today's marker of potential. You're still right that the current crop of junior officers are going to struggle :-(

Don’t forget you have to allow for time to recover from the operations

On promotion to Wing Cdr: Removal of heart
On promotion to Group Capt: Removal of spine
on promotion to 1 *: Removal of brain

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-shawbury/news/another-jupiter-helicopter-will-soon-be-airborne-in-the-shropshire-skies/


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1350x1800/63b944f4_3db4_43ec_9471_7a253b775d6e_699d5965935def87ebe8262 3206924495d708660.jpeg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x750/30cba204_6c81_46f7_88f5_14763ecf30d5_0be528c01515dd781957fa2 01bf2f289f581fc52.jpeg

Why does it have flot gear?

[Sky Sports]

202 Sqn - MARITIME and mountain training

[Training Risky]

Why does it have flot gear?
Pictured at Shawshank, but bound for SARTU (in old money) at Vallcatraz.

Both places marginally better than Cranditz! ;)

[Training Risky]

Don’t forget you have to allow for time to recover from the operations

On promotion to Wing Cdr: Removal of heart
On promotion to Group Capt: Removal of spine
on promotion to 1 *: Removal of brain
...And on removal of brain they get their mouth back! :)

[[email protected]]

202 Sqn - MARITIME and mountain training But not any winching which is what 202 was supposed to be about. They might be doing some mountain flying but the system is still broken.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

202 Sqn - MARITIME and mountain training

Actually, just maritime under Ascent's plans. But as we approach the two and a half year point, how many students have been trained in maritime skills?

[Baldeep Inminj]

Actually, just maritime under Ascent's plans. But as we approach the two and a half year point, how many students have been trained in maritime skills?

The answer is a nice round number! 0

What is often forgotten is the crucial CRM and captaincy taught during the 202 phase. SARTU was placed before TACEX under the old system because the skills and experience learned were vital. The failure of the system (it is not all Ascent’s fault) to provide winching training is a disgrace.

It is common knowledge amongst MFTS staff that Ascent refused to listen to people who knew what the solution to rotary training should be. They thought they knew better than people who had been delivering the training for years. They had A Cat DHFS instructors literally screaming at them, telling them their solution would not work, and explaining precisely why. They unfortunately did not listen.
It would be very difficult to overstate the Culpability the Ascent Rotary management team have in creating this regrettable situation.
However...
The MOD have not helped. In fact they have served only to add to the fundamental flaws in Ascents plan by adding layer upon layer of ridiculous requirements that have never been needed before. The risk-averse attitude of the MOD and the DDH - far beyond anything seen under DHFS - have ensured that this crucial training has not happened

I believe should be a public enquiry into this disaster of a project. Ascent management and MOD both need to be held fully accountable for this needless waste of hundreds of millions of Pounds of taxpayers money.

[LOONRAT]

Don’t forget you have to allow for time to recover from the operations

On promotion to Wing Cdr: Removal of heart
On promotion to Group Capt: Removal of spine
on promotion to 1 *: Removal of brain

Brain lobotomy looks very effective !!! see here if you are not squeamish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjPwETslJyc&has_verified=1

[Doctor Cruces]

The answer is a nice round number! 0

What is often forgotten is the crucial CRM and captaincy taught during the 202 phase. SARTU was placed before TACEX under the old system because the skills and experience learned were vital. The failure of the system (it is not all Ascent’s fault) to provide winching training is a disgrace.

It is common knowledge amongst MFTS staff that Ascent refused to listen to people who knew what the solution to rotary training should be. They thought they knew better than people who had been delivering the training for years. They had A Cat DHFS instructors literally screaming at them, telling them their solution would not work, and explaining precisely why. They unfortunately did not listen.
It would be very difficult to overstate the Culpability the Ascent Rotary management team have in creating this regrettable situation.
However...
The MOD have not helped. In fact they have served only to add to the fundamental flaws in Ascents plan by adding layer upon layer of ridiculous requirements that have never been needed before. The risk-averse attitude of the MOD and the DDH - far beyond anything seen under DHFS - have ensured that this crucial training has not happened

I believe should be a public enquiry into this disaster of a project. Ascent management and MOD both need to be held fully accountable for this needless waste of hundreds of millions of Pounds of taxpayers money.
Totally understandable if one remembers that the first priority of the company is to make money and second priority to deliver a barely acceptable product at the end.

[Countdown begins]

The one thing that everyone here seems to miss is that the Infra for Ascent is outstanding.
Perhaps at the expense of the Unit they are based, but everything works. What’s not to like?

[Sky Sports]

Does anybody know what, if any, impact Covid has had on the MFTS courses? Are they all now running with 100% loading, or is it at reduced capacity? Has the backlog of students on hold waiting for courses got worse, or, has the suspension of RAF pilot selection since March helped to clear the backlog?

[NIREP reader]

Middle Wallop grading has just finished recently and I have 2 colleagues in the Rotary phase. One has been put on hold since July and is anticipating to start at Shawbury early in 21. The other was down in Jan/Feb at the final phase at Shawbury and said it’s not been a smooth course with various issues, but he didn’t get time to say what. Rotary courses are booked to come to MW in 21 with the Juno for their tactical phase.

[[email protected]]

I believe there are differences between what the military instructors and the Ascent ones are allowed to do re Covid.

One RAF/MOD/MAA element of the 202 cockup in the insistence on changing the cabin seats in the 145. The cabin and seating in a standard 145 allow winching without problems, you just don't get ridiculous Mil Spec 'crashworthy' seats and then have to limit the size of your rearcrew to gnomes!

[Easy Street]

One RAF/MOD/MAA element of the 202 cockup in the insistence on changing the cabin seats in the 145. The cabin and seating in a standard 145 allow winching without problems, you just don't get ridiculous Mil Spec 'crashworthy' seats and then have to limit the size of your rearcrew to gnomes!

From what you've written there it seems to be not so much the 'insistence on changing the seats' at fault so much as either a) the Mil Spec being overly 'safe' or b) the selected aircraft being too small. If a safety-related Mil Spec exists then it is obviously going to be a very high priority for implementation in the contemporary climate.

a) you could fairly lay at the MOD's door, not so much the RAF's; b) is on the contractor.

[[email protected]]

It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?

[Easy Street]

It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?

Well, I thought I was fairly clear on that. If you think the Mil Spec is wrong then it's the MOD's fault. If you think the aircraft should have been chosen with the Mil Spec in mind then it's the contractor's. I took it from your post that you think the Mil Spec is wrong and you blame the MOD. I took issue with you lumping in the RAF to those responsible; the RAF has no more influence over Mil Specs than the RN or Army.

If no-one is calling for the Mil Spec to be changed (does the wider RW community think it's rubbish?) then all anyone in the RAF could have done is waived a requirement for the contractor to implement a published safety standard. Why should any accountable individual take that risk simply to accommodate the aircraft selected by a contractor which would have been fully aware of the requirement and the specification? And, would another MFTS bidder have had grounds for legal review if a requirement of the bid had been waived after selection of the winner? (Almost certainly yes if they'd proposed a larger, more expensive aircraft with Mil Spec compliance in mind).

[[email protected]]

How many senior RAF officers had a hand in selecting the winners of the MFTS contract or offering advice to influence the selection? - the RAF can't wash it's hands of the mess that RW MFTS has turned into.

Yes, you can point the finger at the contractor as well, their whole plan was a pipe-dream in terms on numbers of aircraft, planning and utilisation of same and the ability to cliff-edge the transition from one contractor to another.

Trying to just rest the blame on a Mil-Spec is avoiding the ocean-going disaster caused by ambitious contractors and senior officers plus the Treasury pushing for the cheapest solution.

[Countdown begins]

The stupidity is that should you have a significant world event, large or small, it is likely to be over before those in training are going to be any use. Bodies or airframes cannot be mass produced like WW2, so the plan doesn’t work, unless it’s 2040. All the gaps you see now will remain gaps and those that signed the deal will be retired or unaccountable.
I would be surprised if there’s a significant proportion of you left that believe the utter tosh that spews about the success.

[Hot 'n' High]

........ If no-one is calling for the Mil Spec to be changed (does the wider RW community think it's rubbish?) then all anyone in the RAF could have done is waived a requirement for the contractor to implement a published safety standard. Why should any accountable individual take that risk simply to accommodate the aircraft selected by a contractor which would have been fully aware of the requirement and the specification? .....

What would be interesting to see is exactly what the initial Requirement placed on Industry by the MoD (as a whole including the "end Customers" - the Services) looked like. The nature of contracting out work like this is that one of the savings is through the use of COTS-based equipment and thereby accepting some deviation from Mil Specs in the process (for example, are all the avionics up to Mil Spec?) unless otherwise specified in the Requirements.

Maybe this is more of a case of 2nd thoughts by the MoD regarding this part of the Requirement. If it was a late change to the Requirement to include Mil Spec seating then hard to blame the Contractor. Even if it had been in the initial Requirement, was the Contractor provided with a waiver relating to the seats which has subsequently been withdrawn? Don't know - just sayin'!

Clearly a ball has been dropped - but by whom? Wouldn't be the first time the MoD changes requirements late in the day - but, currently, I don't think it's clear what happened. Maybe someone can enlighten us. Cheers, H 'n' H

[Sky Sports]

Covid Impact on MFTS
Does anybody know what, if any, impact Covid has had on the MFTS courses? Are they all now running with 100% loading, or is it at reduced capacity? Has the backlog of students on hold waiting for courses got worse, or, has the suspension of RAF pilot selection since March helped to clear the backlog?

Anybody know?

[Easy Street]

Anybody know?

Got a deadline to meet? ;)

[downsizer]

Got a deadline to meet? ;)

Or he should just apply and see if he's good enough?

[Sky Sports]

Its a genuine question for somebody who is about to join the pipeline. We were just curious how long his training might take compared to the lengths quoted in recent FOI's, BBC reports and NAO reports.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?

...but not winching training. And therein lies a large part of the problem.

[[email protected]]

Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.

Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.

If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.

Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it
.

H145’s coming to Cornwall?

[212man]

Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.

Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.

If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.
Leonardo or Airbus?

[[email protected]]

Quite right 212man -Airbus TP for the 145 - our CP also flew the 169 with Leonardo....doh!

Baldeep - don't care what we get as long as it is new and shiny:)

[Sky Sports]

Interesting to note that the Royal Navy website states, (correctly) that they are currently NOT recruiting pilots.
On the other hand, the RAF website states that they are recruiting pilots. This despite it 'not being a priority branch' and them not offering OASC boards to pilot candidates!

[Lima Juliet]

Interesting to note that the Royal Navy website states, (correctly) that they are currently NOT recruiting pilots.
On the other hand, the RAF website states that they are recruiting pilots. This despite it 'not being a priority branch' and them not offering OASC boards to pilot candidates!

If those trained pilots are under 26, can pass the CBAT, interviews, medicals and leadership tests then I’m sure the RAF would be delighted to offer them a job. :hmm:

[Baldeep Inminj]

Quite right 212man -Airbus TP for the 145 - our CP also flew the 169 with Leonardo....doh!

Baldeep - don't care what we get as long as it is new and shiny:)

I hear you crab! Piece of advice given the role you do - be sure to look VERY carefully at the C of G for the H145 in a typical rearcrew training configuration. Put a Pilot in the RHS, 2 rearcrew in the rhs door (winch-op qhci and student) and 2 rearcrew on the winch (qhci plus student). MFTS found it puts the aircraft miles outside the CofG envelope - a huge part of the reason for the abysmal delay in winching training (which is still not happening!)

A lot of H145’s have the winch on the left for a reason.

That said, it is a lovely aircraft to fly.

[[email protected]]

Thanks Baldeep - I'm pretty sure our CP looked carefully at the C of G issue knowing that's about how we would load it for training and the TP showed him it was OK but I'll ask him anyway.

Presumably it was a lateral C of G issue not fore and aft.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Yes, lateral CofG, further exacerbated by the need to stand on the skid. The CofG was not just outside the envelope, it was across the room, through the door and down the hall. The OEM said that as long as the aircraft was in CofG prior to winching, then going outside whilst winching was ok...however...
There was a belief from some in the process that an allowance could be made for winching because they thought we flew for 20 mins to get to a casualty, winched out/in, then flew to a hospital ie. like an Alpine SAR unit. I was at a mtg when it was explained that a 1hr rearcrew sortie could easily involve 40 minutes of winching...cue a stunned silence followed by a lot of quiet.

[[email protected]]

Don't you just love it when important decisions are made by people without any detailed knowledge of the actual task?:ugh:

[212man]

Don't you just love it when important decisions are made by people without any detailed knowledge of the actual task?:ugh:
Reminds me of the early S92 days. Two large fuel tanks in the side sponsons each with a gravity fuel cap and a pressure refueling connection on the left sponson, with a cross connection, but no electric pumps - all pressure head. If using pressure refueling a large imbalance (hundreds of pounds) developed which had to be corrected by gravity fueling the right tank to balance it out. We asked to Sikorsky to fit a panel in the cockpit to allow us to activate the high level cut off switches in the left tank, so that the right tank would then continue filling and a balanced total achieved. The conversations went along the lines of:

"Why is the imbalance a problem - you will never go outside the lateral CoG?" - we explained the concept of fuel planning and landing close to reserves/MLA
"Why is topping up the right tank an issue?" - we explained gravity fueling not always available and operationally inefficient

They proposed the switches are to be placed above RHS on his overhead panel....

"Why is that a problem?" - they thought all refueling is done 'cold' and a technician would be operating the switches. When explained that we did 'hot' refuels...
"So, why is it a problem for the RHS to operate the switches?" - we explained that maybe the RHS would be outside the aircraft and the LHS pilot could not reach the switches
"But why would the RHS pilot be outside the aircraft when it's running?"

We got the panel installed in the middle of the centre console...……

Plenty of similar examples on other types.

[Baldeep Inminj]

212man - the situation you describe is destined to be repeated ad-infinitum.

The reason, in my view, is this...

Aircrew and Instructors know what we need. We understand training and operational requirements. Over the years, we have managed to get our fleets (I am talking from military-only experience) modded, and procedures developed, to achieve the task in the best way available within the current resources.
Now, along comes the accountant (the NAO in the case of MFTS) and he says ‘your training costs too much- we will go to industry for a cheaper solution’.
The vultures...sorry ‘contractors’ circle. They have one goal - win the contract. The reason the military are outsourcing is cost, nothing else. The contractors understand this. Their bids will be evaluated with a HUGE weighting on cost.
They know what they have to promise. They understand what they need to say their solution can do.
But above all they have only one goal- win the contract.
This is why Ascent ignored so much advice - it was an inconvenient truth. They must have known their proposal was smoke and mirrors, but they did not care -they had to win the bid.

And once they did, it’s job done.

Multi Pilots being trained at Bournmouth. Texan just started training years late. Hawks with no engines. Maritime and winching training still not being provided. Prefects grounded, Phenoms completely unsuitable for the task...but they don’t care. They have the contract.

The MOD has sadly sold its soul, and arguably the best flying training system in the world, to save money.

And here’s the kicker...MFTS, having destroyed any semblance of excellence in training, is more expensive than the system it replaced.

The old system was run to a standard, MFTS is run for a profit, and my goodness it shows.

[[email protected]]

It is a bloody sorry state of affairs Baldeep, but I don't suppose any of that has been acknowledged by either the contractors or the RAF/MoD - too many promotions/bonuses at stake in the upper levels to admit such an ocean-going cock-up.

[teeteringhead]

More people should think more often about C of G other than fore-and-aft. The importance of lateral is well described above, but we should not forget vertical C of G. ISTR one of the contributing factors on the SK that fell over at St Mawgan about (?) 20 years ago was an unusually high vertical C of G - empty cabin, low fuel, two small-ish pilots.......

[[email protected]]

Teetering head - the vertical C of G of the Sea King was a contributory factor only in as much as it reduced the margin of safety for dynamic rollover.

Once the modelling was done it was belatedly understood that many 'wobbly' take offs in the Sea King over many years had been very close to rollover.

Other aggravating factors are crosswind, sloping ground (either nose down or lateral) and not having the AP engaged

[jayteeto]

Just be aware, the RAF have not stopped pilot recruitment, although it may be targeted groups

[[email protected]]

Jayteeto - correct, my son has an application in at the moment - it's just progressing very slowly.

[Squat switch]

Crab.
Sometimes you just have to let them find out by making the mistakes for themselves, I take it you have offered your advice?
Mind you with the current debacle we will have moved on to a total fleet of UAVs and the most difficult emergency will be cleaning the keyboard after spilling his coffee!

[Rigga]

Y... they thought we flew for 20 mins to get to a casualty, winched out/in, then flew to a hospital ie. like an Alpine SAR unit. I was at a mtg when it was explained that a 1hr rearcrew sortie could easily involve 40 minutes of winching...cue a stunned silence followed by a lot of quiet.

Isn't that a classic case of trying to do what you did with a completely different aircraft without any respect to the aircraft you now have? I dont see any stories of Herc crews trying to do Beverly Ops. Typically, other 117 operators changed their training/operating routines and schedules to match the new aircraft's envelope - and not try to break the aircraft into a new operating envelope...surely that's asking for trouble? - and in a training role?

I'm not actually sure if the Winch is cleared to operate for that amount of time...

[[email protected]]

Crab.
Sometimes you just have to let them find out by making the mistakes for themselves, I take it you have offered your advice? trouble is they have been making mistakes like this for years but get promoted out of the way to let a new guy make the same old mistakes.

Plenty of people far cleverer than me advised against the Ascent plan but nobody listened to them and here we are.

[LincsFM]

Seems Ascent's boss at Cranwell has them on track :ugh:

It is with great pleasure that we congratulate Darren Arch, the newly appointed General Manager at RAFC Cranwell, on the award of his Commendation in the 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. This was achieved for his performance in his previously challenging and high profile role as Senior Training Manager responsible for all aspects of Elementary Flying Training (EFT), Multi-Engine Pilot Training (MEPT) and Fixed Wing Rear Crew (RC) Training within UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) which has been truly outstanding.

Embracing the Whole Force ethos and recognising the high demands placed on UKMFTS, he readily sacrificed significant personal time to support the needs of Ascent and 3FTS, and is thoroughly deserving of his AOC 22 Gp’s Commendation.

[Squat switch]

Seems Ascent's boss at Cranwell has them on track :ugh:

It is with great pleasure that we congratulate Darren Arch, the newly appointed General Manager at RAFC Cranwell, on the award of his Commendation in the 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. This was achieved for his performance in his previously challenging and high profile role as Senior Training Manager responsible for all aspects of Elementary Flying Training (EFT), Multi-Engine Pilot Training (MEPT) and Fixed Wing Rear Crew (RC) Training within UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) which has been truly outstanding.

Embracing the Whole Force ethos and recognising the high demands placed on UKMFTS, he readily sacrificed significant personal time to support the needs of Ascent and 3FTS, and is thoroughly deserving of his AOC 22 Gp’s Commendation.

AOC 22 isn't what I would call the brightest bulb on the tree.

Good reads; Losing Small Wars, and Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs. Both cover many of the issues we had to work with throughout our time in the services compensating for poor equipment and leadership.
Enjoy - if you haven't already.

[Ali Qadoo]

AOC 22 isn't what I would call the brightest bulb on the tree.

Good reads; Losing Small Wars, and Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs. Both cover many of the issues we had to work with throughout our time in the services compensating for poor equipment and leadership.
Enjoy - if you haven't already.

Thanks for the steer re Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - an excellent read.

[Sky Sports]

Just be aware, the RAF have not stopped pilot recruitment

They officially stopped accepting new applications on Monday.

Only option for wannabe military flyers is now the Army!

[jayteeto]

Sky Sports, your statement is not 100% true. It’s not my place to comment yet, but if you are a budding RAF pilot, do not stop trying because Pprune says so. If you are at University or are deferred going next year, join a UAS right now!! Don’t give up on the dream

[BVRAAM]

They officially stopped accepting new applications on Monday.

Only option for wannabe military flyers is now the Army!

I had a conversation last week with a Flying Branch & Trade Advisor (SO1) and he told me that the RAF have certainly reduced the number of Pilot applicants that they're taking on, because the lockdown created quite a large backlog of applicants in the system and they need to get through them all, but, to my knowledge, they haven't stopped completely.

I personally contacted the Royal Navy and they have stopped accepting Pilot applicants for 6 months, initially (informed on 30th September 2020), again, due to a rather large backlog of candidates as a result of the lockdown. They will open this back up again soon, just keep checking.

What I will say, is that the RN have reduced their age limit requirements back to 26 for 12 months, so if you're older than 26, you need to wait until next summer, realistically, before you can apply to become a Fleet Air Arm pilot.

As for the Army, I genuinely don't know but I imagine the situation will be pretty similar, probably doubly so considering that they recruit NCOs as pilots from within the Service, as well as DE commissioned aircrew. Worth asking.

[Sky Sports]

From a post on Reddit:

Hi

The role was closed for new applications earlier this week, so yes, there won't be any new applications accepted until it re-opens. We only have a certain number of slots each role every year, once they're filled then we close it. You can still register for it via the role page on the RAF Recruitment website.

If you already have an application in the system it will be processed once we can get to it. It's taking longer than normal due to the covid 19 impact on the entire process etc.

Kind regards
Adam
RAF Recruitment

[jayteeto]

Read my post again.

[olster]

Has the RAF cancelled the L3 contract? That is what I heard.

[Lordflasheart]

...
Has the RAF cancelled the L3 contract ?

Could well be - 'L3 contract about to be completed as planned - job done.'

LFH
...

[Ken Scott]

L3 was only ever intended to be a stopgap until MFTS could handle the throughput. Now that has been reduced to a manageable trickle by COVID there’s no need for it I would suggest.

[Sky Sports]

Do the guys from a UAS have to do the full EFT, as per someone straight off the street, or do some of their UAS flying hours count as a 'credit' towards EFT and therefore reduce the course length?

[muppetofthenorth]

Do the guys from a UAS have to do the full EFT, as per someone straight off the street, or do some of their UAS flying hours count as a 'credit' towards EFT and therefore reduce the course length?
Unless it's changed in the last few years, UAS flying does not count towards EFT.

It used to, but then it was stopped (around 15ish years ago, iirc).

[just another jocky]

Unless it's changed in the last few years, UAS flying does not count towards EFT.

It used to, but then it was stopped (around 15ish years ago, iirc).
05/06, iirc. Up to then, EFT was taught on the UAS. Then dedicated EFT sqns were set up which continues to this day (16 Sqn Tutors & 57 Sqn Prefects for the RAF).

Flying for university students is the same package but if you decide to join the RAF as a pilot after completing your degree, then you have to fly EFT again. The better students will miss a few trips because they already meet the standard for that teaching aim.

[jayteeto]

The UAS to RAF system is changing right now. It’s not any secret, in fact it’s something we should be advertising. The plan is in place to cover the first term of IOT during your UAS time, meaning shorter training times. I repeat my last posts, if you want to be ANY branch in the RAF and you have the opportunity, join a UAS right NOW. Especially if you want to be aircrew. You will not regret the decision.
To the question of whether your flying bypasses EFT? No. But when you do get to EFT, it’s going to help get you through....... There’s a lot to learn in a very short time.
Sky Sports, is your lad, or relative at university?

[BEagle]

The plan is in place to cover the first term of IOT during your UAS time, meaning shorter training times.

Really? Who is supposed to deliver that? Do the numpties who dream up ever more inventive ways of ruining UASs realise that students are actually supposed to be studying for degrees during UAS time?

[jayteeto]

A lot of stuff is already done at UAS. Believe me when I say, degree comes first and achieving that “tick” is optional. Beagle, I’m an old man now, cynical too, but with a bit of work from us, I think this is a good idea that will enhance the UAS experience. The flying clubs have gone, many students do their 3 years and have zero interest in getting airborne. They’re great kids with a great future in the RAF, but they don’t think like we did at that age.

[BEagle]

[..]many students do their 3 years and have zero interest in getting airborne[...]

Good grief!

[muppetofthenorth]

Really? Who is supposed to deliver that? Do the numpties who dream up ever more inventive ways of ruining UASs realise that students are actually supposed to be studying for degrees during UAS time?
First term of MIOT is all the basic 'warry' stuff. Uniforms, drill, weapons, first aid... All things they'll already have done. Using 2 or 3 years to deliver 6 weeks' worth of training isn't arduous or overly time consuming.

[jayteeto]

Good Grief indeed!
Not everyone wants to be Top Gun anymore.
Please take on board....... Most of these kids are brilliant. They have great attitudes and love the fun and opportunity a military career STILL offers. I would pretty much accept any one of ours into a front line squadron crewroom. We go out of our way to help them be successful at OASC.
The most popular branch by far amongst our students at the minute is................. RPAS

[chopper2004]

Good Grief indeed!
Not everyone wants to be Top Gun anymore.
Please take on board....... Most of these kids are brilliant. They have great attitudes and love the fun and opportunity a military career STILL offers. I would pretty much accept any one of ours into a front line squadron crewroom. We go out of our way to help them be successful at OASC.
The most popular branch by far amongst our students at the minute is................. RPAS

Of we could go the way of the USA ROTC system with signing the dotted line, awarded bursary after attending OAsSc attend drill nights and weekends without fail extend summer camps to be month experiencing different life on a station, Not fail any part of 3 year activities especially Leadership. Then st end of awarded degree and passing everything Tr GRP throws in then 3 week intense (similar to the old TA TCb commissioning course) voila.


Btw do those budding F-35 pilots have to fly couple of hours in say Juno to learn VTOL handling like the old,days of the Harrier course when studes picked for that flew 5 hours at Shawbury on the Gazelle.

cheers

[Trumpet trousers]

Of we could go the way of the USA ROTC system with signing the dotted line, awarded bursary after attending OAsSc attend drill nights and weekends without fail extend summer camps to be month experiencing different life on a station, Not fail any part of 3 year activities especially Leadership. Then st end of awarded degree and passing everything Tr GRP throws in then 3 week intense (similar to the old TA TCb commissioning course) voila.


Btw do those budding F-35 pilots have to fly couple of hours in say Juno to learn VTOL handling like the old,days of the Harrier course when studes picked for that flew 5 hours at Shawbury on the Gazelle.

Whatever happens, let's hope it includes lessons on punctuation, spelling and grammar..

[Easy Street]

Btw do those budding F-35 pilots have to fly couple of hours in say Juno to learn VTOL handling like the old,days of the Harrier course when studes picked for that flew 5 hours at Shawbury on the Gazelle.

No rotary flying needed because of all the exceptional work which went into developing the STOVL control system for the F-35B. It was all done in the UK on the VAAC Harrier and was one of the UK's entry tickets to Tier 1 partner status in the JSF programme. The aircraft retains conventional stick-and-throttle control (stick = up/down/left/right, throttle = fore/aft) at all stages of flight, unlike the Harrier which switched from conventional controls to helicopter-like (stick = cyclic, throttle = collective) during transition to the hover.

[BEagle]

Re. the VAAC Harrier development work for the F-35B, try to get hold of the February 2020 edition of Aeroplane which has an excellent 6-page article about the project.

[Hueymeister]

Slight thread drift...any release of a report on the Phenoms holding hands back in 2018?

[Sky Sports]

The RAF facebook page has just posted a very well produced video, featuring the first 2 Qatari pilots to complete the full UK flying training programme. Apparantly they graduated last week. I bet it's not taken them 7 years from start to finish.

At a time when we still have a big shortfall of UK military pilots and huge delays in the training system, the obvious question is why?

[Ken Scott]

At a time when we still have a big shortfall of UK military pilots and huge delays in the training system, the obvious question is why?

Presumably because Qatar pays well for the privilege?

[muppetofthenorth]

The RAF facebook page has just posted a very well produced video, featuring the first 2 Qatari pilots to complete the full UK flying training programme. Apparantly they graduated last week. I bet it's not taken them 7 years from start to finish.

At a time when we still have a big shortfall of UK military pilots and huge delays in the training system, the obvious question is why?
£££s


(And extra characters)

[Patrob1237]

Really? Who is supposed to deliver that? Do the numpties who dream up ever more inventive ways of ruining UASs realise that students are actually supposed to be studying for degrees during UAS time?

Beagle, didn't it take you 4 years to complete your degree?

[BEagle]

Yes, Patrob1237, due to a serious family illness most of my second year was a write-off. But with the support of my UAS boss, I was allowed to repeat that year. I received that news only a month after the family member, my mother, passed away.

Perhaps in future, before you make such comments, you might like to consider your questions with more thought?

[Asturias56]

Patrob seems not to understand the PPrune convention of playing the ball not the man..........

[Haraka]

Beags
By accident I thought that the situation we found ourselves in could actually have been the basis of a good scheme, if thoughtfully implemented..
Succesful candidates through OASC go to Cranwell post "A" levels for a year's Initial Officer Training before commissioning and with a little bit of elementary specialisation ( e,g, some EFT as appropriate)
This would wash out some candidates before University cost to the Service, as well as deterring some who basically were looking for a well funded degree,,
On return from University, specialisation training could begin almost immediately, without having to then incur the basic IOT time, costs and losses of those who had already been paid well to study and then (sometimes intentionally) failed..
We , of course, went through IOT twice as a consequence of bridging schemes.
. " Put it down to experience!" as we were told..
Yeah,sure.,

[Patrob1237]

On 18 Aug 09 Beagle posted: "I was fortunate enough to have 4 super years in ULAS flying the Chippie at the beginning of the 1970s!

It should have been only 3, but the lure of flying was so strong that I had to repeat my 2nd year at QMC!"

No mention of a serious family illness, hence my post.

[BEagle]

Patrob1237 , interesting that you've been trolling me for over 11 years.....

Flying was the only respite from the problems I suffered at the time.

Might I suggest that you cease and desist from such unsavoury posts.

[Bob Viking]

BEagle I know you are more than capable of fighting your own battles but I have to jump in.

Patrob you are going to a hell of a lot of effort to piss off someone you probably don’t even know. That says an awful lot about the kind of person you are.

Maybe take a moment and think about whether you need to continue with your current line of posting.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Internet!

BV

[BEagle]

Thanks, BV!

Haraka - the only problem with the '99 pre-university' scheme you and I went through was that it needed all those excellent education officers at Whittle and Trenchard to support the academics. The Junior Entry year was indeed demanding and we lost a few (one chap didn't even stay for the first night) along the way who couldn't hack a whole year of that Flt Cdt training. But at least we had a real band to accompany Johnny G's drill instructions and the sight and sound of all those Jet Provosts to keep us motivated. Would today's snowflakes tolerate 'minor, majors, 'strikers'' etc.? Knocker and Ferris weren't holidays and King Rock most certainly wasn't! As for flying, I sandbagged a couple of hours in a Chipmunk, but did some Sunday gliding and that was it. At the end of the year we were all very fit and disciplined - it used to amuse the ULAS QFIs to see the ex-Flt Cdts marching in step over to morning briefing from the accommodation block opposite at White Waltham when we made it to University!

Personally I thought that our Flt and Sqn Cdrs in Flt Cdt days were of much higher quality than some of the people we had in GE days - but then the Senior Entry probably did much of the Flt Cdt Cdrs work for them, I suppose.

However, I agree that the Junior Entry year at the age of 17 -18 was a darn good intro!

[The...Bird]

Thanks, BV!

Haraka - the only problem with the '99 pre-university' scheme you and I went through was that it needed all those excellent education officers at Whittle and Trenchard to support the academics. The Junior Entry year was indeed demanding and we lost a few (one chap didn't even stay for the first night) along the way who couldn't hack a whole year of that Flt Cdt training. But at least we had a real band to accompany Johnny G's drill instructions and the sight and sound of all those Jet Provosts to keep us motivated. Would today's snowflakes tolerate 'minor, majors, 'strikers'' etc.? Knocker and Ferris weren't holidays and King Rock most certainly wasn't! As for flying, I sandbagged a couple of hours in a Chipmunk, but did some Sunday gliding and that was it. At the end of the year we were all very fit and disciplined - it used to amuse the ULAS QFIs to see the ex-Flt Cdts marching in step over to morning briefing from the accommodation block opposite at White Waltham when we made it to University!

Personally I thought that our Flt and Sqn Cdrs in Flt Cdt days were of much higher quality than some of the people we had in GE days - but then the Senior Entry probably did much of the Flt Cdt Cdrs work for them, I suppose.

However, I agree that the Junior Entry year at the age of 17 -18 was a darn good intro!

"Would today's snowflakes tolerate 'minor, majors, 'strikers'' etc.?" - Not a chance.

[Bob Viking]

"Would today's snowflakes tolerate 'minor, majors, 'strikers'' etc.?" - Not a chance.

Would yesterday’s dinosaurs cope with today’s modern technology? Not a chance.

Don’t you just love unsubstantiated and, frankly, prejudicial statements?!

BV

[tucumseh]

Would yesterday’s dinosaurs cope with today’s modern technology? Not a chance.

Don’t you just love unsubstantiated and, frankly, prejudicial statements?!

BV

In 1996 I attended a refresher course at Portsmouth Uni. 24 of us, Service and civilian. The head tutor invited everyone to offer one example of how MoD could be improved.

A naval architect: ‘Anyone who is not current in their chosen specialism should be sacked’.

A cracker, and the tutor went round everyone. An RN Commander whom I knew of old said ‘I’m a Sea King pilot, but I no longer fly. That doesn’t make me useless to the Merlin project team’. And so on.

Last up, a Brigadier, Director of Special Projects (and far more impressively, a former CO of the Black Watch RHR). ‘I’m just a grunt infantryman, trained to kill. And I’m current’.

Brilliant.

[Countdown begins]

Patrob1237 , interesting that you've been trolling me for over 11 years.....

Flying was the only respite from the problems I suffered at the time.

Might I suggest that you cease and desist from such unsavoury posts.

Beags, I want nothing to do with this but he only joined the prune in 2018.
Are you sure you’ve got the right guy?
Like I say, nothing to do with me, but it cannot be him/ her/ £&@&?? that’s trolling you.

[Bill Macgillivray]

Surely we must all accept that times have changed, both in the Royal Air Force and outside! Possibly this is because there has been a major change in the way that life is now lived and the way that things are viewed overall ! I would have no wish to rejoin an Air Force that still insisted on blanket bed-packs every morning (for instance!), however, I would still love to rejoin an Air Force that has the capabilities of our current one and (personally) would not really miss the "bull-s--t" that we had some 60 years ago ( and more recently!).

Most of us on this forum were, or are, in what I feel is still the greatest Air Force going and one which I, rightly or wrongly, feel is being demeaned by petty disagreements or politics. It is still the Royal Air Force, and we should be proud to serve, or have served in it !

Per Ardua Ad Astra

Bill

[Lordflasheart]

...
... he only joined the prune in 2018.

Wouldn't be the first time someone's had more than one handle ........
...

[Non Linear Gear]

A lot of stuff is already done at UAS. Believe me when I say, degree comes first and achieving that “tick” is optional. Beagle, I’m an old man now, cynical too, but with a bit of work from us, I think this is a good idea that will enhance the UAS experience. The flying clubs have gone, many students do their 3 years and have zero interest in getting airborne. They’re great kids with a great future in the RAF, but they don’t think like we did at that age.

If they are air cadets they do. They think exactly the same as we did as kids. True the ATC in my day was male dominated and the violence to match, but they still want to fly jets as a lot of cadet I see want t etc? Too right they do. they just don't get the chance due to the bean counters. As for MFTS, mates I know have the same opinion that the bull doesn't hide the massive shortcomings of the huge gaps in continious training. Currency to progress is everything. Same in my civvy job.

[BEagle]

Would yesterday’s dinosaurs cope with today’s modern technology? Not a chance.

Don’t you just love unsubstantiated and, frankly, prejudicial statements?!

As much as such insulting arrogance? Take 2 days Majors!!

Having spent some time on developing what was once known as HMI for a current military system, I know that 'modern technology' needs to be intuitive but not all-dominating. Whether 'dinosaurs' can cope really depends upon whether they can be bothered to learn - a Victor-era boss with whom I once flew couldn't even manage the standard TACAN-based SID after a go-around without the navigator talking him through it!

[Bill Macgillivray]

Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!

[BEagle]

Quite so, Bill!

[brakedwell]

Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!

The FMS in the Argosy was much better the the Civil FMS in the Britannia!

[Sky Sports]

So, anyway, to steer this back in the right direction, does anyone know what the backlog of pilots waiting for courses is like? I have heard that the number on hold has fallen quite a bit, but there is still a way to go.

[H Peacock]

Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!

Come on, get wth it gents! I'd over 7000hrs before I got my hands on one - but its most certainly an FMS (i.e., a Flight Management System). :)

[chopper2004]

Well the Bundeswehr are sending their RW students over to the rolling hills of Shropshire, so we must be doing something right...lest its overflow from Buckeburg or fort Rucker

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/buckeburg_studentin_shawbury_9dd70ffb8b3eb31101622f6169bed84 c49d46c04.jpg

cheers

[teeonefixer]

This is the first time I have seen figures quoted for the shortfall in capability:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lockheed-details-low-hawk-t2-availability-rates-that-will-push-uk-training-overseas/151649.article

[Double Hush]

Wow!

"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."

Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?

[rattman]

Wow!

"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."

Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?


Haven't heard of any issues with the RAAF hawks.

[teeonefixer]

The Qatari Hawks are so much newer so hopefully a fix will be applied in good time. Do they have RAF trainees on them anyhow?

The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.

Was the 9500 fhrs was an aspirational figure - but I may be wrong?

[CAEBr]

The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.

Currently, although after a series of 871 issues which have affected users such as the RAAF and the USN (T45), the RAAF have contracted to refit the Mk127 fleet with the 951 engine. Fingers crossed that the current issue is sorted before the RAAF engines reach that point.

[Timelord]

I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.

[tucumseh]

I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.

I think I might be repeating myself from when was mentioned before, so apologies in advance.

All provisioning is based on the maintenance and fit policies, aircraft numbers, flying rate, disposition, minimum recovery rates and predicted reliability. (MTBR, not MTBF). This is a Service HQ function, carried out by (unsurprisingly) the Provisioning Authority and dictated to procurers in the 'Shopping List', along with funding.

For example, a 'for but not with' fit policy will reduce the numbers. Such policies are common, but would seldom if ever result in a lower buy than a/c numbers. Especially on something like an ECU, which is not allowed to fail before servicing (unlike most avionics).

But my assumption is based on the requirement that the repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet. If someone agreed in advance that, say, 40% of aircraft would not be immediately available, then yes, it's possible this slipped through. It is more likely to be a conscious Service policy to make the requirement look affordable, if only because the lower-than-aircraft-number would be a huge red flag, and automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)

A procurer may, belatedly, spot the madness, but can seldom do anything about it. And he/she would need a certain background, know what questions to ask, and be able to construct a counter-argument. Less and less likely because this is a job you did before being promoted to the MoD(PE)/DPA/DE&S grade minima. Today, there is no such recruitment ground, and direct entrants don't serve at this or the 4 grades below. They never earn what is NOT being done.

To work out what actually happened, you simply pull the HQ file with the provisioning parameters for the year the requirement was approved. Hark...I hear the rush to burn it.

[dervish]

tuc

Could you clarify 2 points?


"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."

Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!


"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"

Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?

Ta.

[tucumseh]

tuc

Could you clarify 2 points?


"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."

Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!


"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"

Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?

Ta.



Dervish

1. 13% is the actual figure laid down, and related to Availability, Reliability and Maintainability, and ultimately what the Services are required to be able to do, and with what. Terms have changed, but I know this figure didn’t, at least until I retired. Low? Challenging, but I know what you mean. You didn’t always achieve 13%, but at least you had an identifiable individual who knew the solution, and answerable directly to a 2 Star who would then prioritise. I see mention nowadays of >50% aircraft unavailable.

All support funding and manning was based on this vicious circle and related assumptions, so you can see the link to….

2. The software is loosely related as some of the same data would be used in the manning equivalent. But no, not the same programme. The main difference is that the aircraft/equipment one had infinitely more variables and constantly changing parameters. It was more useful in briefings, to present trends and where the Assumptions were not being met. The final output to Resources & Programmes in MB was not allowed to be that spewed out by the computer. Those who managed this were, uniquely, permitted to override LTC Instructions using ‘engineering judgment’. In my opinion, the programme was developed (in house) because it could be, not because it added any value - the work still had to be done by hand, and you needed trained engineers to assess it, not data input operators.

Lacking this, funding WILL be horribly wrong, and seldom too high. OR/DEC can never get their quantitative requirement and hence costings right. It follows the procurers will be short of funding and/or unwittingly contract the wrong thing. (BOWMAN anyone?)

Hope that helps. Trying to condense the 30-odd pages of the Instructions.

[dervish]

Thanks tuc. Explains quite a lot!

[iRaven]

Timelord - idiocy, yes, but actually now that buying fewer engines than airframes has actually paid dividends. It means that there are a pair of engines that are so new that the problem hasn’t manifested itself and probably won’t until well after the other engines are fixed. Obviously, that was more by luck than design!

My understanding of this module 1 problem is that it affects the majority of modern Hawks. However, it’s an hours based problem and so only the older higher used jets are affected right now. I understand that it is linked to poor quality titanium bought from our old friends the Russkis that sits at the end of the problem (that’s the rumour I heard anyway).

[RAFEngO74to09]

Royal Air Force grounds its entire fleet of fast jet training aircraft due to engine problem | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-grounds-its-entire-fleet-of-fast-jet-training-aircraft-due-to-engine-problem-12795301)

[KrisKringle]

From Key.aero 2 February 2023

RAF students join QEAF trainingQuote
Adding RAF students to the QEAF contract was seen by some as an indication that all was not right within the Ascent MFTS flying training programme at RAF Valley (for more, see UK news pages). The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston was keen to correct this misapprehension, and told AirForces Monthly that “after past, well documented, problems at RAF Valley” he was now “completely satisfied with the RAF Valley performance”. He added that training potential RAF fast jet pilots at RAF Leeming would give him “another option”.
Unquote


Not sure if we can have faith in his confidence after his pathetic dithering performance in parliament last week.

I'm interested to know:

Are RAF student pilots still being trained on 11 QEAF Squadron? Is this actually an option for CAS?

Does the QEAF share the same confidence that CAS has with their student pilots being trained at the Hawk T2 MFTS at RAF Valley?

[typerated]

Seems to me both sides use disinformation:

"Saturday Flying

As we have done in the past RAF Valley will soon be conducting some limited flying training on occasional Saturdays. This decision has not been taken lightly, however, with the backdrop of events playing out in Eastern Europe, it has seldom been more important for us to ensure we train sufficient pilots to ensure front-line needs are met. Only Hawk aircraft will be operating with the first flights on 11 March. The RAF would like to apologise for any inconvenience and thank our neighbours and the public for their support and understanding. Prior notice of Saturday flying will be publicised on our social media channels and in the local press."

Or is it just comedy?

[Davef68]

Sounds like catch-up

[trim it out]

I guess the days are gone where going to a training unit was seen as a "break" from getting thrashed on the line.