UK MFTS on or off the rails?

[The B Word]

Considering the number of holding aircrew there appears to be around all 3 Services at the moment then I took a read of the National Audit Offices’ report on UK MFTS in 2015...shocking reading. However, I then found the following link to a televised grilling of MOD PS Jon Thompson, Head of Ascent and AM Sir Baz North by the Public Accounts Committee.

Some pretty explosive remarks contained within like “not value for money”, “its come off the rails”, “you could run the student phasing on a simple spreadsheet!” and “what the hell were you thinking?”; well worth the whole first 54 minutes if, like me, you have never seen it before:

Parliamentlive.tv - Public Accounts Committee (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/805c0f8e-c528-45ca-8c41-168735a1b10b)

Transcript here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/military-flying-training-inquiry-15-16/publications/

Don’t forget this is TWO YEARS old and that SDSR15 was about to be released with extra aircrew requirements. However, are we any further forward? I don’t believe we are...

Lots of holding students in the Services
Rumours of aircraft not fit for purpose
Rumours of further delays

Of the NAO, I am heartened to see at least one competent public sector department!! Here is their report:
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/military-flying-training/

The B Word

[sangiovese.]

Patently obvious to anyone who has been in the training world that it would be an utter waste of money....I went for an interview in 2011 for an aircraft that still isn't in service....and now they can't even fill the roles with the terms and conditions offered. Note their website for jobs that get advertised and readvertised and readvertised

[4mastacker]

I thought I was reading the script for the next episode of "Yes Minister".

[ahwalk01]

As someone who was due to teach at cranwell it is looking pretty interesting...

[roving]

Sir Baz North retired in May 2016

Jon Thompson moved to HMRC in April 2016

Lockheed Martin appointed Paul Livingston as its new Vice President for its Integrated Systems line of business in the UK in November 2016. His new responsibilities do not appear to include pilot training.

Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off.

[Evalu8ter]

"Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off."

....and, ta-da, one of the single biggest reasons for inefficiency in the whole acquisition system is neatly summed up. Add in the "revolving door" of gifted amateurs at Desk Officer level, chronic lack of ability to train and retain SQEP and pernicious in-year salami-slicing and the failure model is complete. Never mind, we can just "re-baseline" to expunge the sins of our predecessors (who, more often than not are now our superiors and writing our OJARs) and provided we all reach promotional MSD everyone wins. Well, apart from the poor souls trying to make it work on the shop floor.....

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Whilst I'm not going to step up to the plate and defend MFTS (some of the stated goals are ridiculous - no holds is an impossible thing to achieve unless your frontline requirement is static or your training pipeline is shorter than your recruiting timeline!) But also in my memory is the review of the carrier catapult by NAO and their total inability to understand that the reason the proposed carrier fit cost twice as much as the cost of an emals was that we were buying two of them per carrier. Came across like they were always on a witch hunt and a bit 'out for the glory of the kill, regardless of the facts'.

[iRaven]

Came across like they were always on a witch hunt and a bit 'out for the glory of the kill, regardless of the facts'.

It came accross to me as finally some public sector officials being vaguely held to account with their underperforming “whole force”partner. Yes, there is lots of waste in all Govt Depts but you have to start somewhere. The most entertaining bit was when Ascent announced that they had changed all of their leadership team and then for Jon Thomson to shuffle about uncomfortably mumbling that the civil servants were still in place and unlikely to be held to account. Even his “re-attack” minutes later was unconvincing. Finally, as Sir Baz was the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) how much real accountability is taken by the military? I know that he was just ‘on watch’ when the report came out, but there have been several AMPs during the contract period - 2 of which became 4-stars!

For me it made very sad and uncomfortable watching but thanks for sharing.

[DunWinching]

I thought I was reading the script for the next episode of "Yes Minister".

Actually it's a bit more W1A

[Timelord]

We (civilians) happened to be watching old re runs of "Yes Prime Minister" when a VVSO came into the crew room. "Is that what it's like operating at that level" someone asked. "No" he said, " It's like In the thick of it"

[[email protected]]

Actually it's a bit more W1A yes, the MOD working out what they do best and then doing less of it, better..........................wasting taxpayers money by the look of it.

[Maxibon]

A bit like when the SofS requested latest recruitment figures from me and the following week came to visit and told the HQ that things were improving; quite who he was trying to convince is beyond me.

[India Four Two]

Timelord,

Being in the colonies, I had never heard of "In the Thick of It".

Something to look forward to, once I've found it on the Internet.

Thanks!

[Timelord]

Timelord,

Being in the colonies, I had never heard of "In the Thick of It".

Something to look forward to, once I've found it on the Internet.

Thanks!

I hope you are not easily offended by bad language!
TL

[[email protected]]

Or be shocked the foulest-mouthed one on there became the new Dr Who......

[airpolice]

Well if you don't like it, you can just **** Off, and when you've finished ******* Off, **** Off some more!

As we enter the third week I find Mr. Tickell’s attention seeking tent based twattery even more annoying than weeks one and two

"Who was it that did your media training, Myra Hindley? It's terrible! All these hands all over the place. You were like a sweaty octopus trying to unhook a bra. It was like watching John Leslie at work."

"Terri, when I want your advice, I’ll give you the special signal. Which is me being sectioned under the Mental Health Act."

What the **** is this? Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, ****?

"The guy is an epic f*ck-up. He’s so dense that light bends around him."

"No, he's useless. He's absolutely useless. He's as useless as a marzipan dildo."

[unmanned_droid]

Great series - I regularly use ****ety-bye and **** you very much.

[NutLoose]

No, he's useless. He's absolutely useless. He's as useless as a marzipan dildo.


You tried one? ;)

[Wander00]

NL - that has still got me chuckling

[Melchett01]

Well if you don't like it, you can just **** Off, and when you've finished ******* Off, **** Off some more!

As we enter the third week I find Mr. Tickell’s attention seeking tent based twattery even more annoying than weeks one and two

"Who was it that did your media training, Myra Hindley? It's terrible! All these hands all over the place. You were like a sweaty octopus trying to unhook a bra. It was like watching John Leslie at work."

"Terri, when I want your advice, I’ll give you the special signal. Which is me being sectioned under the Mental Health Act."

What the **** is this? Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, ****?

"The guy is an epic f*ck-up. He’s so dense that light bends around him."

"No, he's useless. He's absolutely useless. He's as useless as a marzipan dildo."

Well if you think 'W1A' and 'The Thick Of It' are good, I heartily recommend watching 'Jonathon Pie' sketches on You Tube. A fictitious news reporter who in between takes to camera presents his own views on the politics and situations of the day.

He doesn't so much as address the elephant in the room, the elephant generally ends up shot, stuffed and mounted all in the space of 2-3 excoriating minutes. It's very cathartic!

[[email protected]]

And here he ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyVBIVCB1Cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz_SHidVfk he does give a no-holds barred view of the shoddy state of UK politics :ok:

[BEagle]

All very well, but what actually is the state of UK MFTS?

Do I hear that the King Air contract hasn't been renewed due to cost - and that until the Phenom arrives, ME pilots will have to be trained at Kidlington or similar? Assuming, of course, that they actually meet the input standard....

[pr00ne]

I thought that the Phenoms are arriving now and some have already arrived?

[BEagle]

Not sure, Comrade.

This from the snake oil people's website seems a bit odd:

The Embraer Phenom 100 is a business jet aircraft piloted by two flight crew in the cockpit, with space in the cabin for up to five passengers. For UK MFTS, this will be two student pilots, four student rear crew, and an instructor in the fifth rear seat.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Beagle,

You heard right (definitely a current plan for studes to Oxford).

[The B Word]

Not necessarily Oxford by the way. But defo some outsource even after MFTS starts. The issue is that MFTS was put on contract before we bought shiney new P8s and other shiney bits of kit in SDSR15. :ok:

PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?

[Melchett01]

Not necessarily Oxford by the way. But defo some outsource even after MFTS starts. The issue is that MFTS was put on contract before we bought shiney new P8s and other shiney bits of kit in SDSR15. :ok:

PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?

I'm sure the output standard will be fine, but presentationally not great with RAF 100 looming. How on earth you can claim to be a world leading Air Force when you can't even train your own pilots in house, I have no idea.

[The B Word]

When you only put on contract 23x light aircraft, 10x turbo-prop jet lead ins, 5x multi-engine trainers and 28x Hawks then what do you expect? They are wringing every last bit of capacity out of those poor frames and so if an SDSR delivers more shiney toys as planned then the only choice is to go to market or leave your students to wait even longer waiting for someone to build more aircraft. Nothing new really, we impressed aircraft and outsourced at the start of WW1 and WW2 to get our aircrew numbers up in quick order...I just hope we aren’t looking at the start of WW3!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/49427/201600201_UKMFTS_pilot_training_info_L.jpg

[The B Word]

Oh, and the rotary stream has a similarly low number of assets to deliver for all 3 Services!

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/image_data/file/52627/UK_Military_Flying_Training_System.png

[[email protected]]

Glad you mentioned the rotary side, that is looking more and more like a bag of sh*te every day.

[Melchett01]

Got to say that I am genuinely concerned by the levels of outsourcing and contractorisation right the way across the Forces. Whilst I guess there will always be niche areas, contractorisation should IMHO be left to those niche areas and not viewed as a silver bullet or doing routine business on the cheap. It's neither. And I suspect thoughts of copying the US miss the point that for all their own issues, the US retains a sizeable uniformed force.

Contract things out and we suddenly find don't own the assets or expertise (wasn't it the Jag that we owned outright and could do whatever we needed cheaply and in short order?), getting timely support in the middle of a conflict zone is difficult if not eye wateringly expensive and when you go so far as to contract core elements of routine business, guess what, people (especially those past pension points) will invariably be attracted by life out of uniform thus perpetuating the retention issues. Like outsourcing your thinking to management consultants, wholesale contractorisation is illusory and frankly requires contract monitors not senior leaders potentially putting the notion of command at risk.

[airpolice]

Melchett, you are of course, spot on.

However, your thinking seems based on the premise that the decision making is in the interests of the service, or indeed, of the defence of the realm.

Clearly, but not clear enough for some on here who used to bang on about how much we couldn't not have LRMPA, the driving force behind things nowadays is money. Not of course, the saving of it, but the spend in the right places. Buying capacity to do the job well is not as important as lining the pockets of the few, one way or another.

Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?

If the idea had been to provide excellent housing at affordable costs, then the MOD would have retained and improved the quarters, and had somewhere for the troops to live. But when the plan was to sell off the housing stock for next to nothing ,so that a mate could buy it up and make a killing, then obviously some work needs to be done before the sale.


Once you accept that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, you can see how it all makes perfect sense.

[Could be the last?]

Agree with Melchett01

The contractorsiation of people, process and capability has now reached such a scale that it is 'normal' to spend the majority of the daily interaction engaging with civilians doing, what were 5-10 years ago, military roles.

Example:

I arrive at the Stn and FP is provided by a 'rotund' contractor in a high-viz ill fitting jacket, who is stood with his hands in his pocket (next to a sign that says verbal will not be tolerated). I then speak with my 'HR department' not PSF!, and engage with a jobsworth D grade CS, who has her own interpretation of the JSP for claims. I then need to get my PME, so I wonder off to the Med Ctre and have a contracted Doc give me the once over (If only). It's now lunchtime and I fancy something to eat, the civilian on the Mess reception checks my i.d. and 'tells' me that lunch is a restricted menu due to staffing challenges. The hotplate is then filled with pretty average food, metered out by a less than interested individual. In the afternoon, I decide to visit stores to obtain some pre-det kit and exchange some other stuff - sucking of teeth not sure we can issue that says another 'rotund' contractor. And it goes on......

So when you analyse the functions that have been contractorised and, more importantly, the secondary and tertiary roles that these trades once provided in an operational environment - FOB FP/ HNS Engagement/ MERT/ Field Kitchen/ COLPRO etc etc it is a good job that we live in a stable and non-expeditionary world - or B.

WRT MFTS, and having had a trg role in the 'old' system, all that was really needed (and I simplify) was a strategy that managed the trg ac fleets and bases appropriately - not a PFI that has systematically destroyed one of the world's finest aircrew trg systems. I also wonder, much like Brexit, if the decision to go with MFTS was reviewed, which way the vote would go? However, unlike Brexit, I think it is pretty certain that those individuals that made the original decision will not have to suffer the consequences.

Saturday morning rant complete - enjoy the weekend!

[[email protected]]

An excellent rant though cbtl - :ok:

[Onceapilot]

Guys, I think I can see a plan in this...:8 . Maybe the new training schemes are actually well designed to produce exactly what will be needed for the UK Armed Forces in 2020! :uhoh:

OAP

[pr00ne]

airpolice,

You say;

Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?


Er, seeing as our training aircraft are built in Germany, Brazil, France and the USA how on earth do you work that one out?

As to the rest of your post, now nice to see that you are a Socialist, congratulations!

[airpolice]

Pr00ne, I was referring to the purchases from Warton, where the big money is spent.

[Could be the last?]

For those that may have not watched the video link in the initial post - do!!

The male panel member is on the ball and does not give any qtr to the 3 'witnesses'. More importantly, the spin coming from Ascent's rep, and the selective use of data from both the NAO report and the company is incredible. Good job that individual has been promoted and moved on into the LM hierarchy.....

Also, an interesting quote whereby the rep identifies the 'great work that Ascent has undertaken to generate some 6000 course streams' (lessons in normal parlance), which is interesting when the large majority were in fact 'cut and pasted' from extant CFS approved courseware - certainly for rear-crew. He then goes on to discuss IPR, which in the context of the grilling he was under at the time was laughable. Has the RAF/AAC or Navy (correction) Fleet Air Arm been used as a guinea pig to sell the process elsewhere? The panel member asks? - What has just been demonstrated is, the Ascent contract, by taking ownership (oh the irony) of the courseware, now has the ability to sell 'their' product to a 3rd party. Outstanding commercial practice on their part!

Second rant for the day.... Yes, I need to get out more.

[pr00ne]

airpolice,

Ah, I see, sorry.

But to be fair there is no real alternative to Warton/Samlesbury is there?

[paul m]

The whole system is broken. How can it take "the service" to put a pilot in the RH seat of the Sentinel 6 years (who holds a frozen ATPL/IR) , in civil world it could be done in 14 months from scratch.
Its time we wake up and get a commercial head on......

[airpolice]

Let me just wonder out loud...

How many pilots per year is this new system producing?

How many aircraft do the RAF have / intend to have in five years?

Is everyone leaving after 6 years service?

I'm thinking it looks more like a state funded training school than a career.

[Ken Scott]

In my opinion outsourcing ME training to civil ATPL schools is the right way to go - no holding, good continuity for the studes & far cheaper for the RAF, plus they ought to be able to adjust numbers to meet demand. So a good outcome thanks to Ascent's inability to train the required numbers. Surely it's much more cost effective for the studes to learn basic asymmetric & NDB holding at a civvie school & leave 45 Sqn to do the formation, low level & other mil stuff?

The only snag I believe is that MOD is only paying for a 'lite' course so that the studes won't get a frozen ATPL out of it in the belief that this will be 'retention positive'. Far from it. Like pretty much all ME pilots they'll fork out for all the exams to complete their ATPLs after a couple of tours then think, 'now I've paid for it I'll jolly well use it' and leave at their earliest option point or PVR.

I've never understood how their Airships run so scared of giving people their licenses. The Germans, Belgians etc all get ATPLs during training & they have no retention problem, pilots stay to the end of their service & then leave to a guaranteed airline job, if they want it. The RAF builds as many obstacles as it can & the majority get out as early as they can. If the ATPL was held as a carrot at the end of your service most people would gladly go to the bar rather than studying for exams in their room, confident in the knowledge that they're sorted for the future.

Decades of 'stick' hasn't worked but they're still going to keep trying.

[[email protected]]

Ken - exactly the conversation I had with a current ME pilot today - too much stick and no carrot and their airships still can't understand why they have retention problems.

With the number of civilian aircraft we have on the books, is it so difficult to give them type ratings/IR/Licence in order to keep them until their 20-year point?

[airpolice]

Perhaps you are both missing the point.

It would be better for the old air force, but retention is not going to generate profits for Ascent, is it?

The money go round needs folk to keep on leaving, so that a small fortune needs to be paid to a civvy company to train the next generation.

[[email protected]]

No, allowing Ascent to control the syllabus and paying them on the number of pilots finishing the course will give them all they need to make that profit!

Mil stds will be put under pressure to put bums on seats and allow graduation of students that might otherwise have been chopped or assessed as training risks.

A perfect recipe to drive down standards AND make money:ugh:

[airpolice]

Let's look at the possibilities here.

Can it really be that people who have reach Air Officer rank, and Civil Servants who have got to the point where they can retire with a quarter of a million pounds as a gratuity and get an £85,000 a year pension are stupid? I don't see that as likely.

So, if they are not stupid, they must know exactly what they are doing, and therefore have a good reason for it.

On the other hand, they might well be stupid, but if they can reach their current rank despite that, what happened to you lot? If the opposition were dickheads, why are you sitting at a keyboard instead of living the good life?

The system needs us to believe that the very best of the RAF are promoted to the top. So either that's a lie (and you were brighter but didn't get promoted because ....?) or it's true and they are so smart, that they have manipulated the system to get us to where we are today.

Is the Taxi Driver taking you the long way round, stupid for not knowing, or clever because his meter is running?

[DunWinching]

I did once write to an Air Marshal pointing out he was factually incorrect in his contribution to a Government report mentioning my unit, and enquiring what he was planning to do to rectify the situation. He went bat**** crazy and ordered a Wg Cdr to bollock me senseless for my temerity. On arrival at said Wg Cdr's office he said "Consider yourself verbally flayed. However, as you were perfectly correct in your facts, may I buy you a pint?" Elevation to VSO is not a guarantee of sense or decency.

[1.3VStall]

Air police,

Of course they're not stupid - they are clever enough to play the system. That's how they end up with big gratuities and pensions!

They don't give a sh*t about anyone but themselves - and being in the public sector - whether armed forces, police, civil service, NHS, social services etc, etc no-one is ever accountable for the f*ck ups.

Plus ca change ........!

[Lima Juliet]

The forfeiture of pension is a bit of a myth really. I have taken some for Court Martial, who have been sent down for significant criminal offences, and they have still kept their pension. Pension that you have earned is protected by UK Law and it is very hard to take that away from anyone.

You need to commit treason and go down for 10+ years to even be considered...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/320807/20140614-afps2014-main-scheme-regs-clean.pdf

[[email protected]]

airpolice - some of those who get to the top are good guys (and girls) but many are career-focused, back stabbing climbers of the greasy pole.

The big problem is they spend so little time in each position of power and are moved onwards and upwards before their decisions impact the job they are leaving - a nasty game of pass the parcel where you don't want to be holding it when the music stops.

The MoD as a whole has always been under pressure to save money and, by moving items off the main balance sheet, they can be seen to do exactly that - witness the privatisation of SAR as a classic example.

Military flying training is just another victim of cost-cutting which doesn't really save money, reduces flexibility and drives down standards.

[Ken Scott]

Airpolice: there has also been some correlation between VSOs negotiating contracts then retiring & taking up a directorship in said companies. Not stupid but perhaps a whiff of corruption?

[[email protected]]

The famous revolving door used by many VSOs as part of Operation Feather Nest.

[BEagle]

Do I hear that Affinity's civil instructors don't hold Type Ratings for the Phenom 100 on which they're training the RAF's ME students....:\

If not, why not?

[BEagle]

Affinity...Ascent or whatever.

The Phenom 100 is not an Annex II aircraft, it is a complex SP-HPA type requiring specific OSD as part of the EMB-550 TR training. That's the requirement for any civil pilot flying the Phenom 100.

Why should the markings exempt the pilot from such a requirement? What legitimate excuse can there possibly be for a pilot licensed under Part-FCL to be exempt from holding a valid TR for the aircraft....or is it just to save money :hmm: ??

Art 145 of the ANO only applies to members of HM Forces:

145. A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majesty’s naval, military or air forces.

So unless these civilians are also Sponsored Reservists, that article of the ANO does not apply to them.

[Lima Juliet]

In my opinion outsourcing ME training to civil ATPL schools is the right way to go - no holding, good continuity for the studes & far cheaper for the RAF, plus they ought to be able to adjust numbers to meet demand. So a good outcome thanks to Ascent's inability to train the required numbers. Surely it's much more cost effective for the studes to learn basic asymmetric & NDB holding at a civvie school & leave 45 Sqn to do the formation, low level & other mil stuff?

The only snag I believe is that MOD is only paying for a 'lite' course so that the studes won't get a frozen ATPL out of it in the belief that this will be 'retention positive'. Far from it. Like pretty much all ME pilots they'll fork out for all the exams to complete their ATPLs after a couple of tours then think, 'now I've paid for it I'll jolly well use it' and leave at their earliest option point or PVR.

I've never understood how their Airships run so scared of giving people their licenses. The Germans, Belgians etc all get ATPLs during training & they have no retention problem, pilots stay to the end of their service & then leave to a guaranteed airline job, if they want it. The RAF builds as many obstacles as it can & the majority get out as early as they can. If the ATPL was held as a carrot at the end of your service most people would gladly go to the bar rather than studying for exams in their room, confident in the knowledge that they're sorted for the future.

Decades of 'stick' hasn't worked but they're still going to keep trying.

Ken

The average RAF students won’t have 150hrs TT to start the modular CPL/IR course, nor the EASA PPL(A), nor the EASA Theoretical Knowledge. They are not de facto Qualified Service Pilots to enjoy the exemption on the PPL to start CPL or ATPL groundschool. Having completed EFT and a multi engine lead in on the Tutor/Prefect they will be lucky if they have 60hrs and much of that will be dual not solo time.

So it really isn’t an option to give them CPLs in the time and money allowed.

I agree about the carrot and stick, but we would have to completely change the multi engine syllabus. I believe we are locked into the MFTS contract for 25 years and so we will all be very old when/if we changed it!

LJ

[BEagle]

Ascent will be operating the ac on the MAR under MAA regs and so will be governed in the same way as any other Defence organisation or contractor engaged on a Defence contract.

European Law lays down the requirements for civilians flying EASA aircraft; neither the CAA nor MAA have any overriding influence.

Equally, on that basis, why should wearing a uniform exempt an individual from gaining a type rating?

Historically, ANO Art.145 and its antecessor provided such alleviation. For example, for military TPs assessing a civil aeroplane. For a fully-licensed civil pilot, adding an HP-SPA TR to their licence is fairly simple - but who should pay? The employer or the pilot? Wasn't that made clear when employment was advertised?

Nowadays, the RAF is a very much a minority airspace user. Much that I hate that, it's the truth. So in the 21st century, why shouldn't the MFTS snake oil salesmen be required to licence their civil pilots in exactly the same way as any another ATO / TRTO?

LJ, these days EFT provides absolutely pitiful levels of PIC solo consolidation for prospective ME pilots. A recent case with which I dealt involved a QMP(H) whose FW experience was around 70 hrs, of which less than 5 was as PIC.... Now I hear that 'they' want to reduce that even further.

Whatever happened to the high standards once provided by proper RAF flying training?

[Lima Juliet]

Beags

I agree, CPL/ATPL FIs should have a type rating if flying the Phenom. It would be a huge oversight and a matter for the CAA Enforcement Team if they didn’t!

LJ

[Ken Scott]

LJ: why couldn't the ME students do the whole cse, including single engine stuff, & get the CPL along with the rest of their fellow (civil) students? It would cost relatively peanuts & they could be bonded for their ATPL, rather than give them a bespoke half course.

[Lima Juliet]

Ken

I agree but we are on contract for the provision of EFT, groundschool, multi engine lead in (MELIN) and multi engine pilot training. We also stream off of the back of the EFT performance and aptitude scores. So to do the full integrated frozen ATPL instead would mean writing that off completely by streaming early and skipping training that is paid for under contract. I agree it makes sense and then to top up the military flying bit before OCU, but we didn’t take that option 10 years or so ago when we opted for UK MFTS. If we offer it to the few extra expected to go to outsourced training then it would be unfair to those going the MFTS route. Also, if we give them EFT and MELIN first then with the fATPL integrated course then their training pipeline would be longer than MFTS - a luxury we cannot afford.

Don’t forget we are in this situation because of SDSR15 where we need to train many more aircrew than planned for in SDSR10 when the MFTS contract was let. If I was in charge at the time, which I obviously wasn’t, I would never have signed up to the inflexibility of a PFI flying training contract. But we are where we are (I hate that saying, even more so when it’s true!). All we can do is make the best out of decisions made many years ago - some shiny new aircraft are coming for training and the front line, so there is at least some good news!

LJ

[Ken Scott]

And we'll continue to haemorrhage trained people early who might otherwise have been retained. As you say, we are where we are!

[Lima Juliet]

Ken

I fully agree on the carrot and stick approach. I think what we need is an aircrew professional managed pathway - for all types of aircrew. The use of Enhanced Learning Credits, Standard Learning Credits, accredited learning, preferred suppliers with military discount, the use of Service flying clubs and the removal of the stigma of doing civilian licences will definately help. Also, growing some of our own rear-crew into pilots that will bring with them plenty of experience into the front seat. It won’t fix things over night, but the development of such a pathway will help people manage their own expectations, allow them to be up front with the Service about their aspirations, improve their professional knowledge for the efficiency of the Service and mean that they don’t feel the need to rush off as soon as the get a CPL/fATPL/ATPL.

By the way, for those dreaming of an easy life with the airlines then perhaps they should go with their eyes wide open? This is a good read from BALPA http://blog.balpa.org/Blog/October-2017/All-work-and-no-play-Work-life-balance-Pilot-A

LJ

[BEagle]

Those articles refer to the operation of military aircraft, not to the licensing of civil pilots.

Methinks thou doth protest too much....:hmm:

Can we now just let the guys and gals who have been left to make this work get on with their job with our support, it will be hard enough as it is and if it does fail the only real loser will be the RAF/AAC/FAA...

Nope, when the nonsense of MFTS fails, as ultimately it surely must, I suspect that there will be a strong sense of Schadenfreude amongst those to whom officialdom failed to listen all those years ago.

[Lima Juliet]

Banggearo

Have a look at RA2101 - Aircrew Qualifications https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492331/RA2101_Issue_3.pdf

It states in para 2 and 2d that a civilian pilot must hold an appropriate civil licence to fly a military registered aircraft. If it’s civil registered its the same. Surely an “appropriate civil licence” requires a suitable rating to fly the aircraft? If the aircraft had no civilian aircraft equivalence then a military CQT would be appropriate, but in the Phenom’s case this is not correct as it has a civil type rating.

I might be wrong, but I hope you are right with your viewpoint.

I do agree, making MFTS work is the only way ahead for us all. :ok:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Banggearo

I would suggest that it is not clear, is it not worth checking with the CAA to esnure that PART-FCL and the ANO is not going to be broken? Or has that already occurred? I would suggest that just denying it is not a defence because you thought it was alright!

Sorry to be a pain, but to me the ANO and the RA make your position unclear to me. A quick email or phone call to the SARG would clarify. As I say, I hope someone has already checked!

LJ

[BEagle]

Whether or not the nonsense of MFTS ultimately fails is one thing, expecting the snake oil companies' civil-licensed pilots to hold the requisite Part-FCL certificates and ratings for the aircraft they fly is quite another.

Banggearo, what legitimate excuse is there for a civil-licensed pilot flying the Phenom 100 not to hold a valid TR?

[[email protected]]

If the aircraft are military registered (or dual mil/civ) then this should applyUK Military Registered Aircraft. In order to fly, or operate, UK military
registered aircraft aircrew should be qualified iaw at least one of the following criteria:
a. He is in possession of, or has previously been awarded:
(1) The appropriate UK military flying badge/brevet; orif your civilian instructors are ex-military

[Ricorigs]

MFTS will start lumbering like a fat oaf until it gets underway and start to work.

I maintain serious misgivings about the level of prep for its delivery (rotary side) and I think with everything else going on around defence the goodwill of the experienced will be eroded. So they will start to leave if economic conditions allow.

[[email protected]]

I don't think it will be anywhere near PFA level - might be lucky to manage the Rockport walk or the grip test with assistance:E

Just give it a fabloned biff-chit now and get it over with:ok:

[DeaconBlue]

Sir Baz North retired in May 2016

Jon Thompson moved to HMRC in April 2016

Lockheed Martin appointed Paul Livingston as its new Vice President for its Integrated Systems line of business in the UK in November 2016. His new responsibilities do not appear to include pilot training.

Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off.

Paul Livingston moved onto and remains on the board of Ascent to ensure continuity of knowledge - try checking for your facts.

[BEagle]

Surely an “appropriate civil licence” requires a suitable rating to fly the aircraft?

One gathers that 'appropriate civil licence' will indeed now mean a Part-FCL professional licence, Class 1 medical certificate and Class / Type Rating for the aircraft in question. Hence an EMB-550 TR for the Phenom 100, for example.

Then there's the Ford Prefect. That will require civil pilots to hold an SET Class Rating, rather than the SEP Class Rating required to fly Das Teutor....

But I'm sure that the MFTS snake oil salesmen factored this into their business plan....

[S-Works]

If the aircraft are military registered (or dual mil/civ) then this should applyif your civilian instructors are ex-military

Only applies if they are still current or reserve and flying for the military not a civilian company as a civilian Instructor.

[ppljames]

Does anyone have any more information on where the multi engine outsourcing is likely to go? I’ve heard that there is likely to be a gap between the cease of king air flying and the beginning of Phenom student training?

[Wander00]

Read elsewhere the Phenoms are still civil registered because they have not yet had the MoD airworthiness/fit for purpose dhobi mark. And when is that likely. Does anyone else use the Phenom for training?

[Heathrow Harry]

I think Pakistan has some but for VIP transport not training

[heights good]

Apparently the new helicopters at Shawbury as so small that 90% of crewmen are unable to 'fit' into the cabin safely, which means airworthiness is a huge issue due to crash protection...

Perhaps I think in an unusual way, but surely someone asked a crewman at some point to have a look at the aircraft before they bought an entire fleet of them?!? :ugh:

[flighthappens]

Apparently the new helicopters at Shawbury as so small that 90% of crewmen are unable to 'fit' into the cabin safely, which means airworthiness is a huge issue due to crash protection...

Perhaps I think in an unusual way, but surely someone asked a crewman at some point to have a look at the aircraft before they bought an entire fleet of them?!? :ugh:

Or you specify something like “airframe provided must be suitable for 5-95 percentile male/female aircrew”, and “must provide crash worthy seating for all aircrew”...

[airpolice]

Bump:

Anything happening, or not happening?

[Thaihawk]

I think Pakistan has some but for VIP transport not training

The Pakistan Air Force operate 4 Phenoms for (VIP)? transport. They are not trainers. For the record they are serialled V-4101 to V-4104 and were delivered in 2009.

[Rigga]

FYI Airbus Helicopters only supplies crashworthy seating for all of its civil and mil versions..If the seats are removed preventing occupants from using them in flight....?

[[email protected]]

Many questions still to be answered about who will 'hold the risk' if the aircraft are used yet have been deemed to be unsuitable/unsafe for rearcrew operations.

There still isn't a syllabus for anyone to look at and very few instructors know if they will have a job yet post contract change.

The mil/civ balance has been been constantly assured yet the mil don't look like they have enough QHIs to fill their slots - and since so few are A2s anyway, all the experience will still be in the civ cohort.

The belief is that the contract was significantly underbid so what will be the plan B if it falls over commercially?????

Slow motion train-crash anyone?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

There still isn't a syllabus for anyone to look at and very few instructors know if they will have a job yet post contract change.

The mil/civ balance has been been constantly assured yet the mil don't look like they have enough QHIs to fill their slots - and since so few are A2s anyway, all the experience will still be in the civ cohort.

The belief is that the contract was significantly underbid so what will be the plan B if it falls over commercially?????

Slow motion train-crash anyone?

There is a syllabus to look at, but - shock horror - it hasn't been sent to everyone who is carping from (some distance beyond) the sidelines.

The relative paucity of mil A2s is nothing new - no reason to raise that as a big concern. The uncertainty for the civ aircrew (and engineers) is very unfortunate, but also inevitable as Ascent wait for HMG to change the goalposts yet again (or not - the Lady hasn't yet decided if she's for turning Pumas or Wildcats into razor blades).

Plan B - one trusts that Ascent's money men weren't borrowed from Soteria...no doubt they have got the financial side nicely sewn up...

[Rigga]

Shawbury was once a very nice place but, as a 135/145 engineer, I wouldn't touch their traditional pay scales til well beyond the upper edge...
So I assume they (MFTS) will generate their own home-grown maintenance and engineering staff and pay them some bonemeal and gruel.

[S-Works]

There is a syllabus to look at, but - shock horror - it hasn't been sent to everyone who is carping from (some distance beyond) the sidelines.

The relative paucity of mil A2s is nothing new - no reason to raise that as a big concern. The uncertainty for the civ aircrew (and engineers) is very unfortunate, but also inevitable as Ascent wait for HMG to change the goalposts yet again (or not - the Lady hasn't yet decided if she's for turning Pumas or Wildcats into razor blades).

Plan B - one trusts that Ascent's money men weren't borrowed from Soteria...no doubt they have got the financial side nicely sewn up...

I would love to see this course of which you speak for the Phenom.

[[email protected]]

There is a syllabus to look at, but - shock horror - it hasn't been sent to everyone who is carping from (some distance beyond) the sidelines. nor the instructors who will have to teach it nor CFS(H).........

The paucity of Mil A2s IS an issue - where are the experienced Flt Cdrs coming from, where are the supervisors and who will be on CFS(H)?

As for Ascent's money men - lets hope they weren't borrowed from Carillion.........

[BEagle]

bose-x, surely there will have been a TNA produced for RAF ME pilot training? In which there will have been a training gap analysis, training media assessment and a recommended course design?

Of course if the TNA was based on the training gap analysis for a given input standard, which was subsequently changed, then it will no longer be valid.

[minigundiplomat]

no doubt they have got the financial side nicely sewn up


I am sure they have; what they don't seem to have sewn up quite so well is:



The syllabi
Experienced flight commanders and supervisors
Licenced engineers (willing to top up with their pension, in a market they don't need to)
An airframe that is fit for purpose in regard to rearcrew training (50% of the throughput).
But ,yes, no doubt they have the financial side nicely sewn up.


Pedant note: Soteria wasn't a bidder on MFTS so I am not sure why you are using a slightly irrelevant comparison?

[S-Works]

bose-x, surely there will have been a TNA produced for RAF ME pilot training? In which there will have been a training gap analysis, training media assessment and a recommended course design?

Of course if the TNA was based on the training gap analysis for a given input standard, which was subsequently changed, then it will no longer be valid.

I would more wonder about people who have no qualification on type and are working out how to do things in the sim having never flown the type writing training materials would produce the correct output standard?

[airpolice]

Are the civvies, who run training at Valley, further down this road?

All this talk about rotary and multi engine stuff has avoided the IV Squadron QFI output, to train the trainers for 208 to train the new typhoon drivers.

Can we at least be cheered up that one part of the system is working as planned, and as required, and on target?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

nor the instructors who will have to teach it nor CFS(H).........

The paucity of Mil A2s IS an issue - where are the experienced Flt Cdrs coming from, where are the supervisors and who will be on CFS(H)?

The relevant syllabuses are available to those involved in delivering them.

Your comment about A2s shows how little you know about the way Shawbury runs - the Flt Cdrs have been typically fresh B1s who need something sexy on their OJAR. They usually hand over the Flt Cdr gig to allow them time to prepare for an A2...and those who achieve the upgrade either get promoted, get posted, or leave! Or, in a few cases, move to CFS(H). And being an A2 isn't needed to be a supervisor - there are some A2s who have made terrible bosses/supervisors, and plenty of B1s who have done very well.

MGD, the reference to Soteria was purely a nod to Crab's background, rather than any suggestion of a link between them and Ascent! And crewman training is only a small fraction of the RW task - this isn't to say that the rumours surrounding suitability of the Juno for crewman training, if true, aren't concerning and disappointing - but it is misleading to suggest that the new aircraft might be unsuited to 50% of Ascent's task.

[CAEBr]

Airpolice to train the trainers for 208 to train the new typhoon drivers.

Except its nearly 2 years since 208 disbanded.

[[email protected]]

Your comment about A2s shows how little you know about the way Shawbury runs - the Flt Cdrs have been typically fresh B1s who need something sexy on their OJAR. They usually hand over the Flt Cdr gig to allow them time to prepare for an A2.. your comment shows how little you know about how Shawbury is supposed to run, was run and should be run. All Flt Cdrs and Sqn Bosses used to have to be A2 but there aren't enough to go round so B1s are used instead. Having A2s in the important posts allows better supervision, standardisation, assessment and oversight, especially of struggling students. That goes hand in hand with mentoring B2s and progressing B1s to A2.

Exactly who has got the syllabi then? Since no-one isactually delivering the training I assume from your political answer, not very many and certainly not those capable of scrutinising it with a professional eye.

I don't know what you think I had to do with Soteria, you do know it was Bristow who got UKSAR??

[S-Works]

How about the authority pilots who have never flown the aircraft being asked to train the Ascent Instructors in order the Ascent Instructors can be made to write the training course? A second generation of pilots who have never flown the aircraft....... :p:p

[ethereal entity]

TorqueoftheDevil

Your facts are incorrect. Rearcrew training makes up in excess of 50% of the rotary training task under MFTS, and NOT a small fraction.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

your comment shows how little you know about how Shawbury is supposed to run, was run and should be run. All Flt Cdrs and Sqn Bosses used to have to be A2 but there aren't enough to go round so B1s are used instead. Having A2s in the important posts allows better supervision, standardisation, assessment and oversight, especially of struggling students. That goes hand in hand with mentoring B2s and progressing B1s to A2.

It's always such a privilege when the King of the World takes the time to tell us how we should be doing our jobs. I must confess, Your Majesty, that DHFS has been doing it wrong all these years. Thank Goodness we're starting with a clean sheet rather than clinging onto the old, substandard system. Those poor, poor students from the last 20 years...

Exactly who has got the syllabi then? Since no-one isactually delivering the training I assume from your political answer, not very many and certainly not those capable of scrutinising it with a professional eye.

I must be seeing things. Or maybe the Junos which appear to be busy on training sorties are simply floating around the skies aimlessly, terrorising the residents of Shropshire for no reason at all.

I don't know what you think I had to do with Soteria, you do know it was Bristow who got UKSAR??

Again, I consider myself both enlightened, and grateful for the enlightenment. But then it's hard to keep up to date with everything when I'm so busy delivering terrible flying training. One thing I seem to recall a while ago was your repeated forecasts of doom (suspended for a short period when Bristow were recruiting - obviously, it would be wrong for royalty to interfere during such a delicate process) about civvies taking over SAR - could you just confirm that Bristow SAR has been an unmitigated disaster?

[Thomas coupling]

Soteria was Thales who had nothing to do with MFTS.
MFTS(RW) must surely all be staffed now, bar the shouting. Come April - it's 'away the lads' - into the great unknown, training those 6 lads and lasses needed to staff the front line of our glorious 21st century fighting force.
In fact, surely Ascent must have a bigger complement than the RAF, no?

[[email protected]]

TOTD - perhaps you should ask around the grown-ups at Shawbury to find out that what I describe regarding A2s and superivison was exactly what happened at Shawbury under DHFS for many years - the gradual depletion of the number of A2s was not intentional but happened because fewer QHIs wanted the nause of doing the upgrade.

Are you seeing any students training on the Juno? Oh no, that will be the staff being converted onto type which will be a completely different syllabus from the main Shawbury course - that is what I mean about no syllabus, the one for the main course is AWOL.

You might be interested to know that Bristow are struggling financially and the UKSAR contract is the only thing keeping them profitable - despite this they are pushing hard to cut costs within SAR so it certainly isn't all sweetness and light there.

[S-Works]

In fact, surely Ascent must have a bigger complement than the RAF, no?

Ascent is the same people rebadged into civilian uniforms. I wonder where delivering civilian expertise actually came into the equation?

Perhaps the RAF should have been given the shiny new buildings and kit and been left to get on with it.........

[pr00ne]

Thomas coupling and bose-x

On rotary 59 out of 102 instructors are military, and on fixed wing 71 out of 133 are military.

Hardly as you portray eh?

[S-Works]

Thomas coupling and bose-x

On rotary 59 out of 102 instructors are military, and on fixed wing 71 out of 133 are military.

Hardly as you portray eh?

Actually I was referring to the company as a whole.

However on fixed wing Grob and Phenom out of the few civilian Instructors only a couple are not ex mil.

[just another jocky]

Wow, lots of opinions floating around here. I can see not many of them are informed.


Be advised, those of us actually doing the job don't really care about your uninformed opinions.


Do please carry on though, it provides moments of entertainment in days otherwise interrupted by....oh yes, flying. Students too!

[S-Works]

:pWow, lots of opinions floating around here. I can see not many of them are informed.


Be advised, those of us actually doing the job don't really care about your uninformed opinions.


Do please carry on though, it provides moments of entertainment in days otherwise interrupted by....oh yes, flying. Students too!

:p:p:p

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

TOTD - perhaps you should ask around the grown-ups at Shawbury to find out that what I describe regarding A2s and superivison was exactly what happened at Shawbury under DHFS for many years - the gradual depletion of the number of A2s was not intentional but happened because fewer QHIs wanted the nause of doing the upgrade.

Are you seeing any students training on the Juno? Oh no, that will be the staff being converted onto type which will be a completely different syllabus from the main Shawbury course - that is what I mean about no syllabus, the one for the main course is AWOL.

You might be interested to know that Bristow are struggling financially and the UKSAR contract is the only thing keeping them profitable - despite this they are pushing hard to cut costs within SAR so it certainly isn't all sweetness and light there.

Crap - it has just dawned on me that the place was doing fine until I arrived, and then the rot seems to have set in. Could you remind us, Your Maj, when you were last on the staff of DHFS, and how many of the DHFS flying units you have served on?

Of course there aren't any ab initio students flying Juno/Jupiter just yet - the contract to do that doesn't start until April. Until then, Ascent are perfectly entitled to be training staff and fettling what they do. Even in April, only one of their six squadrons will receive students. And why should they publish their syllabuses? Have the military ever done that? Have other commerical training ventures?

I'm not really that interested in Bristow's financial situation, as it wasn't the commercial aspects of their operation about which you were so derisory, was it?

[[email protected]]

Dear oh dear TOTD, your teddy must be tired of being thrown out of the cot - no, I haven't instructed at DHFS but I have instructed at Shawbury (2 Sqn and CFS(H)), Valley, Wattisham, Middle Wallop and Chivenor since 1989 and been an A2 since 1991 on several different types so I think I am entitled to an opinion about MFTS - just remind me where you have instructed and for how long and at what level before you start throwing insults around.

So I was correct, there isn't a syllabus yet for the Shawbury courses with only a month and a half to go............

As for Bristow - yes it was exactly the financial side I was concerned about because it drives everything else - for example the dilution of SAR experience when you have to absorb senior crews from the offshore side and the huge cost of training people on 139 and then re-training onto 189 (which still isn't complete btw).

[BruisedCrab]

Oh ffs get a room you two.

[[email protected]]

Oh good, the internet police have turned up..... :ugh:

[S-Works]

There is not a course for the Phenom. The instructors who have never flown the type are being made to write the course. Hardly conducive to flight safety.

As a result of this thread the COO sent out a letter threatening the staff to keep their mouths shut. The closing line suggesting the RAF police are going to investigate the RAF guys who may have contributed to the thread in some way. Evening Al!

I understand they even have instructors resigning now in frustrated by the cluster **** it’s becoming....

[minigundiplomat]

Not sure the RAF Plod work for Ascent, though if the COO is correct, I hope the MOD are rebilling him for their time.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Oh ffs get a room you two.

Fair point, guilty as charged. But we have to keep JAJ amused somehow! Please allow me three points to entice HRH to my lonely boudoir. Crab, like you, I am an A2 and have been on several types. I haven't been QHIing for nearly as long as you, but I do have fairly extensive experience of DHFS (initially as a student but more importantly, for the current topic, as staff). Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please accept that you have extremely limited factual knowledge of either the old or the new, and your chum at Shawbury (who also has little factual knowledge about the new era) may not be a reliable source.

there isn't a syllabus yet for the Shawbury courses with only a month and a half to go

Sorry - I genuinely don't see how you deduce this. And if the planned syllabuses are being tweaked as the start date approaches, why shouldn't they be? The 'old' DHFS syllabuses have been improved/changed/'streamlined' countless times.

yes it was exactly the financial side I was concerned about

Bullsh!t. Remember all that guff about 330-degree radars? Anyway, time to start my long-overdue search for the Prodigal Teddy.

[[email protected]]

So, my 3 points then:
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please accept that you have extremely limited factual knowledge of either the old or the new, and your chum at Shawbury (who also has little factual knowledge about the new era) may not be a reliable source.I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.

Sorry - I genuinely don't see how you deduce this. And if the planned syllabuses are being tweaked as the start date approaches, why shouldn't they be? The 'old' DHFS syllabuses have been improved/changed/'streamlined' countless times. there are a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?

Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?

I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........

Bullsh!t. Remember all that guff about 330-degree radars that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.

[Rigga]

I remember swapping helicopter types for one small, but significantly important, organisation.

The first thing we were told about our future operational needs was that we had to totally re-think them and re-design them to fit our perceived needs...and then look forward to adjusting them to fit our actual needs when we got the practice of using them.

It was like trying to compare a Leyland Truck to an MG Roadster. Their only similarity are wheels and tyres and even they are profoundly different in needs, form and function. The philosophy behind each design is differently interpreted by different people with different backgrounds for a different perception of a need.

I'll let you decide which vehicle is which for your conversations.

[just another jocky]

But we have to keep JAJ amused somehow!


You'll have to work a bit harder then....if it's not the bloody crosswind out of limits, it's the fire truck breaking down or an icy runway!


At least the propellers are remaining intact!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

So, my 3 points then:
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.

Considerably more than me then - must be my banter.

there are [sic] a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?

Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?

Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?

Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate.

I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........

Again, let's see how it turns out. If it's awful, I promise to hold my breath for a very long time, to avoid any more oxygen theft.

that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.

I do believe you - but are you saying that this issue (or anything else) has stopped Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?

[ethereal entity]

TOTD

To correct a few points if I may...

"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"

Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.

"Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate."

The Cobham Staff moving across to Ascent will make sure it works, simply because they know what it is supposed to look, feel, and smell like. They know what is required, Ascent are still learning. Nothing wrong in that of course, but it would have been a much more expedient process if they had hired the correct people in the first place...I shall leave that one there.

"I do believe you - but are you saying that this issue (or anything else) has stopped Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?[/QUOTE]"

Runaway success? Yes, I agree. Why? Because they hired military experts and LISTENED to them!

[[email protected]]

Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract? who will be TUPEd across to deliver that syllabus - your argument makes no sense.

Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate. happy to wait for that and, if it is good, I will say so - if it is not, will you?

[Al-bert]

Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?

Not quite what I hear from some experienced MRT and Lifeboat crew members, particularly wrt joint exercises, but that might be a case of opcon and budgetary constraints.

[[email protected]]

Yes, if you define runaway success as still not meeting the terms of the contract (the 139s have not been fully replaced by 189s yet).

As EE said, they hired the right people, most of whom were experienced military SAR crews so the standard was always going to be high. However, the financial fragility of the mother company and the extra costs of training (139 to 189) within SAR do cause me to wonder at the plan B if a 'Carrillion-style' mismanagement to save money results in them struggling.

When they have been going 5 years with consistent training levels, then you can consider it a runaway success perhaps.

[chopper2004]

Just thought of something else, re the RW students and will they be conducting full touchdown autorotations in the Airbus H135 or will that be in the sim mainly with the odd practise in the airframe. I know that the H135 can have issues (not with the autos) but with airframe after a full touchdown.


I know their system is way different to ours but the Bundeswehr - HeeresfliegerInternationale Hubschrauber Ausbildiung Zentrum at Buckeberg has a contract with Motorflug. The company provides several Bell 206B based at Buckeberg .for the very purpose of autoration training and practise. This supplements their RW course on sims and H135.

At the same token, as of xmas ...the Bundeswehr is also outsourcing flying training to ADAC Luftfahrt Technik GmbH, the company will be providing 4 x H135.

Cheers

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

TOTD

To correct a few points if I may...

"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"

Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.

Fair point, I was in a hurry and I got the terminology wrong. But the main point stands ie there are plenty of massively experienced instructors already involved in RW MFTS, so there is no need to consult every individual. And anyway, the remaining Cobham staff are busy delivering the last of the old courses. And also...actually let's not go there.

The Cobham Staff moving across to Ascent will make sure it works, simply because they know what it is supposed to look, feel, and smell like. They know what is required, Ascent are still learning. Nothing wrong in that of course, but it would have been a much more expedient process if they had hired the correct people in the first place...I shall leave that one there.

As I'm sure you know, those involved in preparing for RW MFTS are all current serving military, very recently ex-military, or some of the best ex-Cobham aircrew. Yes, some of those who have been involved since the very early stages of RW MFTS hide their talents very well, but they appear to have been very rapidly allocated to roles which best suit their strengths. The only people who would decry the credentials or ability of the current Ascent team are presumably individuals who applied unsuccessfully for the same positions. This is not to say that everything is guaranteed to go smoothly on Day One, but there aren't many chinks in the armour of the team now trying to make it work.

Runaway success? Yes, I agree. Why? Because they hired military experts and LISTENED to them!

As I'm sure you also know, Bristow SAR isn't quite Mil SAR in red and white aircraft. Some of the military folk who tried to tell Bristow how to do it (or told them that they wouldn't be able to do it) found their services were inexplicably not needed. Others, who made their points in a more constructive way, have played a part in shaping what goes on, but you make it sound like Bristow had no idea how to set up or deliver SAR until the mil guys and girls joined and saved the day. This is rather misleading!

[[email protected]]

I hadn't realised how influential you were TOTD - you seem to know who from Cobham will be employed which is far more than they do as the Matrix selection process hasn't been completed yet.

No wonder you believe everything you are told about MFTS and its future.......

Have you any idea what a disaster the regular deployment to Middle Wallop for tac and NVG is going to be??????

As I'm sure you also know, Bristow SAR isn't quite Mil SAR in red and white aircraft. Some of the military folk who tried to tell Bristow how to do it (or told them that they wouldn't be able to do it) found their services were inexplicably not needed. nice little jibe TOTD, about what I have come to expect. I have said before that they did me a favour and I am certainly far better off professionally and personally than if I had sold my soul for a Scottish Island posting.

I got the impression that they were anti-RAF (probably my fault entirely) but strange that many of the trainers and influential players are ex-RAF now - cream will rise to the top;)

[FloaterNorthWest]

Touchdown autos in the H135 are prohibited for training.

[[email protected]]

I don't think MFTS RW students will ever see an EOL/touchdown auto except in the FTD - another erosion of a key helicopter skill.

[minigundiplomat]

When you say 'the best of Cobham' I hope it's true. There were some outstanding Cobham instructors during the old DHFS contract, but there was more than a sprinkling of idle belters churning out NI 1980's stuff regardless of what the syllabi called for, and generally waiting for Godot.


If you have managed to keep the wheat and jettison the chaff, I'd be marginally supportive (despite the wrong choice of aircraft for 50% of your throughput).


Hopefully the decision on the ex-Cobham guys wasn't made on how they looked on paper......


Cobham boss: Helicopter unit workers' fake degrees had no impact on safety | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/278926/cobham-responds-fake-degrees-claims)

[Lima Juliet]

MGD

There seem to be quite a few looking at either re-joining or FTRS contracts. So it might be ‘chaff from the wheat’ :ok:

LJ

[[email protected]]

That will be because the military is struggling to fill its agreed share of the QHIs for MFTS and will probably suffer contractual penalties if it doesn't.

The aspiration for a high percentage of mil instructors was a great idea but didn't match what is actually available.

[chopper2004]

When you say 'the best of Cobham' I hope it's true. There were some outstanding Cobham instructors during the old DHFS contract, but there was more than a sprinkling of idle belters churning out NI 1980's stuff regardless of what the syllabi called for, and generally waiting for Godot.


If you have managed to keep the wheat and jettison the chaff, I'd be marginally supportive (despite the wrong choice of aircraft for 50% of your throughput).


Hopefully the decision on the ex-Cobham guys wasn't made on how they looked on paper......


Cobham boss: Helicopter unit workers' fake degrees had no impact on safety | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/278926/cobham-responds-fake-degrees-claims)

Hmmm I do not understand the urgent need there to add three letters to one's title in a jiffy ? It is not like the US system where theres a prerequisite (apart from good stick and cyclic / hours in the air )to have Associate and Bachelors degree in tens of dozens of aerospace related degrees nowadays to get to the interview.

The article stated were the pilots were based in Curacao hence flying AW139 for the Coast Guard ; so figured they were informed their CVs pulled up (I had to do that for every employee as part of my internal audit in old helicopter company I worked for, i.a.w EASA changes) and they were non Brits / trained in USA etc etc which had to have a degree??

If for some reason management says "ok peeps, under x,y,z may need a degree, lests send you both or do a distance learning course with one of the many aviation colleges stateside and earm it within 5-6 years"

cheers

[iRaven]

Two video blogs from the ex Requirement Manager of UK MFTS on you tube puts some more pieces in the jigsaw:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xoy06b_o9Qg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=taLsCgT-2Yg

[Medevac999]

Hmmm I do not understand the urgent need there to add three letters to one's title in a jiffy ? It is not like the US system where theres a prerequisite (apart from good stick and cyclic / hours in the air )to have Associate and Bachelors degree in tens of dozens of aerospace related degrees nowadays to get to the interview.

The article stated where the pilots were based in Curacao hence flying AW139 for the Coast Guard ; so figured they were informed their CVs pulled up (I had to do that for every employee as part of my internal audit in old helicopter company I worked for, i.a.w EASA changes) and they were non Brits / trained in USA etc etc which had to have a degree??

If for some reason management says "ok peeps, under x,y,z may need a degree, lests send you both or do a distance learning course with one of the many aviation colleges stateside and earm it within 5-6 years"

cheers

They where Brits and they hold EASA licences. Pilots and engineers!

[just another jocky]

Two video blogs from the ex Requirement Manager of UK MFTS on you tube puts some more pieces in the jigsaw:


Really? Wonder why he's "ex"? :}

[H Peacock]

Wow, that T6 sure is ugly!

[Davef68]

Really? Wonder why he's "ex"? :}

He retired from flying. Was also the boss of 4 Sqn

http://www.fastjetperformance.com/podcasts/why-i-quit-the-greatest-job-in-the-world-the-curse-of-the-bovril-snail

[Davef68]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=taLsCgT-2Yg


Two interesting points (albeit two years old) - the need for more aircraft and (at 8.48) he says after 5 years the RAF owns the T6s, rather than Ascent/Affinity.

[just another jocky]

He retired from flying. Was also the boss of 4 Sqn

Why I Quit the Greatest Job in the World - The Curse of the Bovril Snail - Fast Jet Performance (http://www.fastjetperformance.com/podcasts/why-i-quit-the-greatest-job-in-the-world-the-curse-of-the-bovril-snail)

Not why he's an ex-flyer but why he's an ex-requirements manager.

[flighthappens]

Two interesting points (albeit two years old) - the need for more aircraft and (at 8.48) he says after 5 years the RAF owns the T6s, rather than Ascent/Affinity.

Not hard to work out - even with 8 FL sqns (5x Typhoon, 3x F35) you conservatively want to have 4 ab initio Guys hitting streets of the sqn each year. 32 Pilots x 100 hours = 3200 hours. Divide that through 10 airframes and the number of available flying days a year and you can see you start running into issues. This is before you have any wastage (scrubbed due weather, performance, U/S) or include any non student flying (flypast, display, Pax ride or staff training).

However now that Typhoon is moving to more squadrons, even with heavy utilisation of simulation I can see why there isn’t enough T-6.

[just another jocky]

Not hard to work out - even with 8 FL sqns (5x Typhoon, 3x F35) you conservatively want to have 4 ab initio Guys hitting streets of the sqn each year. 32 Pilots x 100 hours = 3200 hours. Divide that through 10 airframes and the number of available flying days a year and you can see you start running into issues. This is before you have any wastage (scrubbed due weather, performance, U/S) or include any non student flying (flypast, display, Pax ride or staff training).

However now that Typhoon is moving to more squadrons, even with heavy utilisation of simulation I can see why there isn’t enough T-6.

Don't forget international students ;)!

[Lionel Lion]

Strange how the website has the same vacancies over and over...no recruitment problems I'm sure

[Spot 4]

Strange how the website has the same vacancies over and over...no recruitment problems I'm sure

Pay peanuts := - Get chimps :rolleyes:

:E

[S-Works]

Strange how the website has the same vacancies over and over...no recruitment problems I'm sure

Its not just that they are short sighted on the recruitment process and how they treat the staff they recruit but a breathtaking lack of understanding of the civilian world and whats going on out there. There is no magic pot of qualified Instructors queuing up at work for Ascent because the people with those skills are already in high demand across the industry. Take multi engine IR Instructors, there is a Europe wide shortage of them. Every school I know is unable to recruit because the normal feed of suitably quailified guys is not happening as the airlines swallow them up. The pool of people they expected to recruit from out of the Airforce are not taking up the offers being made as the T&Cs suck and they have a lot to learn about looking after staff.

Instructors are simple folk, they expect to be trained where required for the job and do the job that was advertised not have a snippets of the contract thrown at them that says "and any other task the company may ask of you" or have deal with attempts to have the contracts amended post signing and many months into them in order to benefit the company.......... :sad:

They are going to struggle to fill the vacancies as the pool is small and incestuous and everybody talks...... :=

[ethereal entity]

Bose-x,

I agree with much of what you say, but I think the issue will not be recruitment, but rather retention. People need jobs to pay the Bills, and most will take what is on offer from Ascent as a quick and easy fix. However, it is clear from speaking to colleagues who already work for Ascent that their pay and t's and c's, leave policy etc are poor. Of course TUPE will protect the transferees, but given the planned syllabi, working hrs etc, people will quickly look elsewhere I suspect.

I have to wonder what will happen to those rearcrew protected by TUPE who find out they don't fit in the Juno?

If the mil hit their quota it might not matter too much, but the experience within DHFS is mostly civilian and these are the people that the system can least afford to lose (and Ascent are planning to make some of them redundant - but of course this reduces the wage bill .

[S-Works]

I agree on the retention. They are all ready losing people. But replacement I think is definitely going to be an issue for them, certainly on the ME training side as there is just not the supply of people out there. Its going to be interesting to see where the current outsource request is going to go. I am watching with interest the responses and questions being asked by potential ATO's.

[Lionel Lion]

The outsource request

Bought several Phenoms (oops completely wrong ac type, yes I have flown it)
Currently have a course/sim/King Airs (flown that too, perfect for students)
Awarded the contract 2010ish

Brewery closed as no-on could organise the P*ss up

:D

[S-Works]

I agree, the Phenom is the wrong aircraft for the job. What should have happened in my opinion is 45 should have been given the shiny new building and a new sim and the Kings Airs replaced with new ones. Ascent are trying to run a civilian company like an air force sqn without the ability to impose military discipline on the civilian workforce. But then I guess this is what happens when you put senior RAF officers with no commercial experience into commercial positions. They have no idea what to do with people when they "run out of rank"...... In the civilian world its called work place bullying...... ;)

[BEagle]

With only 5 x Phenom about which to worry, why on earth is this 'training organisation' now having to advertise for a Chief Pilot 'Responsible for the delivery of all flying aspects of ME Pilot training at RAF Cranwell', whose 'essential' experience must have been as an A2 QFI 'or civilian equivalent'. What, pray, is the civilian equivalent of an A2 QFI? I see that they're also having to advertise for ME instructors - isn't that rather too late at this stage?

Anyone with half a brain would have ensured that they had secured the relevant assets before exposing themselves to liabilities.

Are the Phenoms doing much flying yet? Or is that a silly question.

What an utter goat this is....:rolleyes:

[S-Works]

They are advertising for ME Instructors because they can’t keep the ones they have......

No the aircraft have not flown.

They have interviewed a lot of people for the chief pilot role including candidates with both Phenom experience and civil Senior ATO Training management experience. What they mean by civilian equivalent is an Air Force A2 Wing Commander that’s just leaving the Air Force and therefor a civilian.......

Although I understand that the preferred candidate has now very wisely withdrawn from the running. Not suggesting for a moment that they were just playing the HR process to demonstrate they were following governance for a moment......

I mean what Wing Commander would jump ship to run a team of 4 civvie Instructors?

The other thing they badly mismanaged for the civilian guys was expecting them to give up civilian qualifications that were hard won in order to operate under some sort of log book sign off and an assurance they were legal to fly........

[ethereal entity]

It does appear that Ascent seem to think it is a foregone conclusion that the current incumbents of the instructor positions are desperate to come across and grateful for whatever they get.

Most probably will go across, but only in the short term. Phenom, Airbus 135/145...goodness me, some lovely types to put on the old licence...and then get a far higher paying position in the real world, with much better T's and C's.

This could have been fantastic. Flying as a civilian but doing it to mil regs and limits sounds almost too good to be true! However, if you speak to current Cobham civvys working on the DHFS contract, they say that Cobham 'get it'. They pay the going rate. Ascent pay less. Cobham give a decent leave allowance. Ascent give less.

Wherever Ascent is concerned, 'Less' seems to be the answer.

That is why people will walk as soon as they can. That is, of course, if they actually fit in the aircraft and are offered a job in the first place😕

[S-Works]

To this day I am unsure if Ascents attitude is ignorance or arrogance.

They do not have a single person actually qualified to fly the Phenom. They have a few people who have done the CAE course in Dallas that never completed the whole course and don’t hold type ratings who to this day (apart from a couple of people who did some test flights at Embraer) have never flown the aircraft. These same people are being told to write the Training course because LM who are actually paid to produce the course have not done so. Those part trained people were asked to produce a second generation of pilots in order that Ascent could make the second generation write the manuals..... This resulted in at least one Instructor having the strength of their convictions and quitting.

Trying to change contracts of people AFTER they have done the training and bond them for a type Rating they don’t hold? Trying to change contracts from a 7:30-17:30 to 06:00-00:00 with no overtime payments or time off in lieu. Contracts that automatically elect people out of the working time directive (illegal).

I have said this before, expecting civilians to tow the line like military personal who have little choice is not the way to engender staff loyalty.

[just another jocky]

TBH, if you're not directly involved or a shareholder, I would leave it to those who are to try to sort it out rather than getting so het up with something you aren't involved with.


Just a thought.

[S-Works]

TBH, if you're not directly involved or a shareholder, I would leave it to those who are to try to sort it out rather than getting so het up with something you aren't involved with.


Just a thought.

It’s a discussion group and I suspect that a good many on this thread are or (now were) directly involved..... Just a thought.... ;)

[airpolice]

***************
Lionel Lion:

So you've bought an aircraft that no-one can fly and now sits in the hangar doing nothing whilst looking to outsource pilots for courses....wow

No wonder the military doesn't have any money...
***************


Meanwhile, on a tropical island just off the coast of Wales. All of the students were sent home on a six month gardening leave before Xmas, as there is nobody to teach them.

Then, only 3½ months later, they are told to come back. They will need to get back up to speed and try to start learning the aircraft again. In the next 12 to 14 months, all of the experienced QFIs at Valley will be gone, some from Valley and some from the RAF.

Can it really be true that the Ascent contract has no provision for QFI training, only Pilots? That would mean that it's not Ascent's fault that their are no QFIs to teach the students. Who wrote this contract? I wonder if it is the same people who signed up for aircraft carriers that cost the same to not build, as to actually have them?

With Ascent being paid to produce new pilots out of Valley, to go to the squadrons, they will be able to get their money. When the well runs dry they can say that it is not their fault, and no doubt there will be a penalty clause, as the school is all geared up for students but has no teachers.


Maybe at that point Babcock can come along and (at huge cost) save the day with a host of recently ex RAF QFIs with Hawk experience. Maybe not, if by then the guys have gone to the airlines or Tabuk, to be treated like grown ups.

[airpolice]

http://battle-updates.com/raf-valley-gears-up-for-expansion-by-howard-wheeldon-fraes-wheeldon-strategic-advisory-ltd/

Howard Wheeldon FRAeS wrote this after a visit to RAF Valley:





Initial teething problems included contractor issues, periods of low aircraft availability and, difficulties in retaining sufficient numbers of Qualified Flying Instructors (QFI’s). However, by 2014 the partnership between Ascent and 1V(R) Squadron was working very well and despite retention issues remaining, my recent visit confirmed that this first stage of the MFTS process is working very well. For that, 1V(R) Squadron and Ascent along with BAE Systems deserve significant praise.

The retention issue remains and with the need of a programme such as MFTS to maintain extremely high training standards, the exodus of highly-trained flying instructors to several Gulf States that have been better able to offer what are considered more attractive remuneration packages to Qualified Flying or Weapon instructors is a problem observed by many sections of the UK military.

Clearly, we need to get more trainees through the system and it may be that an additional Hawk TMk2 Squadron at Valley could be required to meet the need to increased fast jet pilot training ANF to fully embrace International Defence Training (IDT) requirements.

It is very necessary that we must accept that within the innovation and prosperity agenda more IDT will be required.

Finally, to repeat my greatest concern here, we need to do a lot more in respect of training trainers more quickly and importantly, putting more effort in to support them and retain them.


So, that was almost a year ago, and still nobody seems to have addressed the issue.

[[email protected]]

This all seems far too much like the KFC fiasco with DHL - 'of course we can deliver what you want at lower cost..........ooooops we appear not to have any chicken':ugh:

[airpolice]

Crab, I think it's more like.... We have some Turkey, but it's in the wrong warehouse / not ready / past its sell by date and basically not fit for purpose.

Just like the staff at DHL, the guys at the coal face in Anglesey, have been told to say and write nothing derogatory about this farce.

[[email protected]]

Well, only a month to go for the RW service to start at Shawbury and the same issues with courseware have been noted in the runup to that event,

[S-Works]

Crab, I think it's more like.... We have some Turkey, but it's in the wrong warehouse / not ready / past its sell by date and basically not fit for purpose.

Just like the staff at DHL, the guys at the coal face in Anglesey, have been told to say and write nothing derogatory about this farce.

The same message went to the staff on ME as well along with threats about posting on social media after realising that they could not identify culprits on a certain anonymous website even if they suspect they may know who they were....... :p:p

[airpolice]

So, unless it really is as bad as some privately say, why are the staff not allowed to talk about it?

Are they perhaps trying to hide an even bigger fur cup?

Maybe it would be easier to accept if this was the 1970s Soviet war machine, where nobody talked about anything. However, the MOD/ASCENT/various business partners keep telling us how well its going.

Why can't we hear it from the horse's mouth?

Is there to be no open and frank discussion on the topic?

No wonder they can't retain staff. I've recently been told that the return of service for the guys holding for a Valley course (with no start date in sight) will not begin counting down until they get to the front line. In practical terms, they have been taken hostage by the UK Armed Forces.

Maybe that's just one reason for the forces of darkness to make them afraid to use the very freedom of speech, that the RAF was formed to defend.

[ethereal entity]

And there is the conundrum.

In the last 18-24 months, Ascent have hired some seriously talented people. Ex CFI's, CFS personnel, Training Officers etc...basically the people you would hire if you owned the company - they are utterly superb.

Ascent hired them because they realized that their own staff were unable to do the job they were hired for.

Ascent had the chance to get all of the right people from day one...but they stayed true to form and hired the cheapest...it is all their HR 'experts😒' care about...HR lady who apparently knows far more about military flying training than anyone who actually does it)

They hired these experts (and they ARE experts - no tongue in cheek here) to 'test and adjust' the courseware to get it ready for Apr 18 (RW).

And here is the point...

These experts, hired FOR THEIR OPINION have been Officially told by Ascent to keep schtum and keep their mouths shut. Fact. This, in an organisation paid by the MOD???? It beggars belief!

I know many of these people. They say the aircraft are completely unfit for purpose. The courseware is written by morons. They say Ascent has no idea whatsoever about instructor training, or development, or a hundred other things that need to happen to make MFTS work.

Why did Ascent hire experts for their opinion and help, then tell them to shuttup?

Could it be that the answers are inconvenient?

[S-Works]

Could it be that the answers are inconvenient ?

Yep. They hired civilian experts who told them the same thing then effectively managed out more than one of them when they did not like the responses.

You have a bunch of ex senior officers with absolute zero commercial civilian experience thinking they can run a civilian contract as if it was an Air Force squadron. In the words of one of an ex group captain on the payroll “I realise I am Air Force institutionalised”.......

[Rigga]

I've seen quite a few of those "I'm a Sqn Ldr / Wg Cdr" types - very many didn't last long in commercial circles.

[DunWinching]

I have heard rumours (and this is a rumour site), that a lot of rearcrew cannot sit upright in their designated crash seat in a certain helicopter without their head hitting the cabin roof.
I have also heard it was suggested that they sit slightly slumped to alleviate the problem.....

Regrettably, this is the case.

[just another jocky]

It’s a discussion group and I suspect that a good many on this thread are or (now were) directly involved..... Just a thought.... ;)

I get what you are saying, even with the sarcasm, but the propensity for people who are not involved and cannot affect any outcomes to get involved in discussions they know nothing of never ceases to amaze me.


As you say, some are or were involved, but the vast majority aren't, so how are they supposed to tell the wheat from the chaff in these threads? I'm on the inside and I know there has been a lot of bolleaux typed on here, followed by incorrect supposition and ludicrous predictions of the end of the world (as we know it).

[Bob Viking]

I absolutely agree with you. I find it all a little unseemly when those not involved seem to rub their hands with glee at the thought of the system failing.

For those that are ex Military, it doesn’t make you look clever to constantly snipe from the sidelines.

Maybe just trust in those currently serving (and selected civilians) to continue to provide quality flying training.

I know that sounds a little optimistic and rose tinted but it doesn’t make anyone happier to hear constant whinging.

BV

[godsavethequeen]

Meanwhile, on a tropical island just off the coast of Wales. All of the students were sent home on a six month gardening leave before Xmas, as there is nobody to teach them.

Then, only 3½ months later, they are told to come back. They will need to get back up to speed and try to start learning the aircraft again. In the next 12 to 14 months, all of the experienced QFIs at Valley will be gone, some from Valley and some from the RAF.

Can it really be true that the Ascent contract has no provision for QFI training, only Pilots? That would mean that it's not Ascent's fault that their are no QFIs to teach the students. Who wrote this contract? I wonder if it is the same people who signed up for aircraft carriers that cost the same to not build, as to actually have them?

With Ascent being paid to produce new pilots out of Valley, to go to the squadrons, they will be able to get their money. When the well runs dry they can say that it is not their fault, and no doubt there will be a penalty clause, as the school is all geared up for students but has no teachers.


Maybe at that point Babcock can come along and (at huge cost) save the day with a host of recently ex RAF QFIs with Hawk experience. Maybe not, if by then the guys have gone to the airlines or Tabuk, to be treated like grown ups.

AirPolice, where do you get your duff gen from? I’ve just checked my log book and found lots of student names in it over the past 12 months, continually flying them week on week. I don’t see a period of 3-6 months with no students.

As for all the experience leaving, again rubbish. Experience always leaves, this is called tour! At the end of your 3 years you move on like any other fast jet Sqn. At the same time the junior QFIs step up, prove themselves as A2s and are the new experienced guys. Ps there are also plenty of long term A2s who aren’t going anywhere for a long time!

[airpolice]

godsavethequeen, are you saying that you don't know abut the 6 month gardening leave for QFI students?

If it takes 2 years to become a Hawk T2 QFI, how long will they be productive for before their next tour begins?

[godsavethequeen]

This shows how little you know about what’s really going on and how much rumour mill has expanded.
Non of the SQFIs went/are on 6 months gardening leave.

Do you really think a tour starts at the beginning of the training? If you go to any FL jet your tour doesn’t start until you complete the OCU, same here.

And as for 2 years to complete, you definetly have no idea. Not saying it’s done as quickly as humanly possible, no where near 2 years though!

Guess you will have to find some other rubbish to spread. Not here to argue just making sure you have th correct facts

[airpolice]

Are you being ever so careful with your words?

Who did get sent home at the end of the year, and why?

Now that they are back, what are they doing, and how long were they away for?

When a freshly minted Pilot leaves Valley, to go to a Typhoon Squadron, what's the minimum total hours you would expect them to have, and over how many years would that have been accumulated?

[ethereal entity]

Bob Viking

I think you may have missed my point. The civvies and Mil I know are most definately not full of glee at the prospect of MFTS failing. They are desperately sad, as they feel passionately about delivering the highest quality of training. The students will be the ones who suffer, nobody else.

We really care, perhaps too much.

[Bob Viking]

My point wasn’t directed at you.

I’ve been in the same situation you describe a few years back and I’m happy to say it sorted itself over time.

My ire is directed at those that throw spears despite no direct involvement.

BV

[airpolice]

Bob, when the people involved have been muzzled, who is left to throw spears except those of us on the outside?

I'm only asking questions, as a taxpayer, who left Valley before the first Hawk arrived.

What is it, if not incompetence and greed, that Ascent have to hide?

So far I find only three people defending any part of the MFTS contracts, despite the large number of people in the know, and nobody from within has a bad word to post on here about it.

Why is the rumour mill going so hard? Why are people private messaging each other with tales of how bad it is, and reminders that they are not allowed to speak out?

Despite rules about keeping quiet, it seems that some of you are allowed to post, provided you toe the party line.

Is this dissent in the crewrooms all in my mind? Is it all great and on track? Are all of the people being trained all the time, or are they sitting around waiting for a slot to appear?

In short, could it be done better, and if so, why is it not?

[just another jocky]

Why is the rumour mill going so hard?
Because it's winter and folk are bored.

BV - :ok:

[[email protected]]

Because it's winter and folk are bored. perhaps bored with being drip-fed, positively spun information about just how well everything is going when, to the average person who is likely to deliver the new system, there is no actual evidence that it is all going to be OK.

Many ex-mil instructors are very aware that they cannot be as critical of their civilian masters as they could of their military ones - they want to keep their jobs so few will put their heads above the parapet and make public statements here or in the press.

As EE says, if everything is so rosy, why is there so much grumbling.

Without doubt much is due, on the RW side, to seeing a perfectly excellent system (DHFS) replaced for the sake of cost-saving with a new, unproven and very ambitious system that seems hell-bent on efficiency but with very little focus on the quality of the training that will be delivered.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

As EE says, if everything is so rosy, why is there so much grumbling. [sic]

Well, there are several feasible answers to this question.

Without doubt much is due, on the RW side, to seeing a perfectly excellent system (DHFS) replaced for the sake of cost-saving with a new, unproven and very ambitious system that seems hell-bent on efficiency but with very little focus on the quality of the training that will be delivered.

But the outgoing system isn't perfectly excellent, is it? You have yourself pointed out the terrible shortcomings in the qualifications and experience of many of those in supervisory positions. Far less significant than your entirely accurate and insightful concerns are the long-standing problems with both the main aircraft types: the Squirrel, while still a lovely aircraft to fly, is woefully unrepresentative of any military helicopter which the students will go on to fly, while the Griffin has for years been crippled by both performance and reliability issues. This is not to say that the new empire (which will still be called DHFS - but you obviously knew that already) is the only way to solve these issues, and there are many many good things about the old system. Please bear in mind though that rose-tinted glasses, while deeply fashionable, are not essential PPE for a trip on the outrage bus.

[[email protected]]

So in what way are the 135 and 145 representative of the front-line types?

They are shiny and new (unlike much of the front-line) and very representative of what a pilot might fly in commercial ops but military??

Lots of bells and whistles on the aircraft (which I'm led to believe the students won't actually get to use) and pretty powerful (again unlike much of front-line ops where performance is often an issue) so what are you actually teaching them.

As for the qualifications for supervisors - with mainly the same people being employed under the new system, how is that going to be better than the outgoing one?

[trim it out]

So in what way are the 135 and 145 representative of the front-line types?


Multi engine, glass cockpit.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Plenty of available power (well, for one of our front line types anyway!)

[Spot 4]

I trust that if the EC*** crewmen’s crash seat is unfit for purpose; or worse still hazardous to health, that the ASIMs process is in overdrive. You cannot and should not sweep flight safety under the carpet. The Duty Holder would be foolish to play statistic roulette with aircrew necks, for sooner or later somebody will get hurt.

[[email protected]]

Multi engine, glass cockpit skids, fenestron, tiny cabin, a winch you have to stand on the skid to operate.....other than the fact it is a helicopter it is not representative of front line - they would have been better off with the Guimbal Cabri G2 and been able to operate hundreds of them.

Some don't believe there are enough aircraft in the bid - working all your fleet hard will cause problems with servicing, especially when C checks come around.

Spot 4 - this late in the process, a senior officer will be made to carry the risk, even if it is the crews who will 'wear' that risk every day. The ASIMS and MAA is paper-safety.

[airpolice]

I trust that if the EC*** crewmen’s crash seat is unfit for purpose; or worse still hazardous to health, that the ASIMs process is in overdrive. You cannot and should not sweep flight safety under the carpet. The Duty Holder would be foolish to play statistic roulette with aircrew necks, for sooner or later somebody will get hurt.


But not the duty holder. That's whole point of the thread about the MoD avoiding the blame for Flt. Lt. Cunningham's death.

[S-Works]

I am not sure anybody is really stepping up into being responsible for flight safety. Take the Phenom, you have Instructors writing course materials who have never flown the aircraft.

An ongoing argument about what ratings are actually required for civilians to fly and teach on the aircraft.

A curriculum that will have students with around 80hrs total time as pilots being handed the keys to a biz jet and being told to go off an fly together. Instructors that will have virtually no time on type before being expected to take command and teach on type.

In the civil world this would have an ATO shut down for negligence and the Head of Training dealt with accordingly. There is no such position in Ascent, just a bunch of self professed ex RAF "experts" who don't know a thing about civil regulation attempting to bluster there way through.

What will be interesting to see is the first board of inquiry.........

[airpolice]

What will be interesting to see is the first board of inquiry.........

What will be inevitable to see is the first board of enquiry.

[S-Works]

What will be inevitable to see is the first board of enquiry.

Sadly, I have to agree.

[just another jocky]

bose-x - what exactly is your job please. I'm trying to decide if you actually know what you are nay-saying about or if you are have just relieved the driver on the prune outrage bus

[Bob Viking]

Once again we appear to be in violent agreement.

Does anyone really believe that any QFI worth his/her salt is going to send a student solo on type (and authorise the sortie) unless he/she is confident in their ability to conduct themselves safely?

I find myself repeating myself (you see what I did there?) when I say this but maybe trust that the guys and gals in the hot seats are going to get the job done.

If you’re not in a position to affect things then maybe just stop finding reasons to get annoyed about stuff that hasn’t happened yet and that, frankly, have nothing to do with you.

This whole predicting an accident thing is a little morbid IMHO.

Besides I was sent solo in a Jaguar with 2:50 on type. Hell, students are going solo on Typhoon on their first airborne sortie. I think a couple of students can probably crack a Phenom once they have been trained.

Remember I’m not a multis guy but I do trust that the people at Cranwell will make it all work safely. I’m not sure they need the approval of the assembled Pprune massive before they start though.

Of course, should I be proven wrong in the fullness of time you are more than welcome to come on here and ask me to eat my words. However, if you were to gloat it would say a lot more about you than me.

Trying to let his thread die, but I keep dragging myself back.

BV

[just another jocky]

Bob Viking - :ok:

[Spot 4]

Trying to let his thread die, but I keep dragging myself back.


Use any influence you have as a party advocate to get the Ascent contract cancelled outright as an intolerable mess, and leave DHFS & the Tucano fleet to plod on until a realistic business model can be introduced.

Rather than the ping pong messages we have on this thread in which some career protective folks are refusing to take their head out of the ground v those who are passionate about creating/maintaining an effective and realistic aircrew training pipeline, we need the MAA to man up and execute the positive Flight Safety mantra that they were established for. ALARP does not mean fingers crossed until I am posted. Anticipating an accident/incident may well be morbid, but I can recall times when aircraft fell out of the skies on an almost weekly basis, and nothing justifies the slightest threat of returning to the bad old days, especially not civilian shareholders dividends.
I am a big fan of "Any doubt = No doubt" and quite clearly all is not right on a multitude of levels.

Time for a letter to my MP & the Defence Minister I think.

[[email protected]]

Spot 4 :ok:

[S-Works]

bose-x - what exactly is your job please. I'm trying to decide if you actually know what you are nay-saying about or if you are have just relieved the driver on the prune outrage bus

Someone right on the coalface of the organisation and thus a recipient of the emails threatening staff with not posting anything on social media with dismissal. A direct witness to the stuff I have previously mentioned. Other posters on this thread will verify that if you really need it... So no I have not joined the outrage buss for a ride, I was already on it. ;)

It actually has the opportunity to be something amazing, but while they are cutting corners on essential stuff like proper staff training and experience building and having the wrong people develop training materials when Lockheed are being paid a fortune to do the job I will be a detractor. The attitude that people should just do it because its the RAF way does not wash in a civilian company where there is no liability cover. Promises that if it goes wrong the company will protect you are just bull****, we all know who will get thrown under the bus to protect the senior management.
:ok:

[just another jocky]

Someone right on the coalface of the organisation

So you work for Ascent or Affinity in MFTS?

[S-Works]

So you work for Ascent or Affinity in MFTS?

Who are you, Al Shinner? These are anonymous forums you know!!! ;)

[just another jocky]

Who are you, Al Shinner? These are anonymous forums you know!!! ;)

Just trying to tie you down as "right on the coalface" doesn't actually make it clear.

[S-Works]

Just trying to tie you down as "right on the coalface" doesn't actually make it clear.

I am sure you are. However respect my right to anonymity please.

[just another jocky]

I am sure you are. However respect my right to anonymity please.

Not trying to get you into trouble, just whether or not you talk from a knowledgeable position or not.

[jayteeto]

I think he makes it very clear above if he has had gagging emails.
I must say however, most civilian companies have social media gagging orders. Anything that can damage the company, true or not, usually is a sackable offence. I can understand that. The questions on what he does definitely look like a manager trying to “out” an employee 😎 even if that isn’t the reason for asking.

Don’t tell him Pike!

[just another jocky]

I think he makes it very clear above if he has had gagging emails.
I must say however, most civilian companies have social media gagging orders. Anything that can damage the company, true or not, usually is a sackable offence. I can understand that. The questions on what he does definitely look like a manager trying to “out” an employee 😎 even if that isn’t the reason for asking.

Don’t tell him Pike!

I'm a Regular QFI, not trying to "out" anyone. :p

[[email protected]]

I'm a Regular QFI, not trying to "out" anyone. well in that case you could just use the pm method instead of trying to get him to tell you publicly where he works.

[FixClrEnt]

The Phenom T1 may well be a biz-jet, but it's about as simple to operate as any twin engine aircraft. Fuel, Hyd, elect and pressurisation systems that look after themselves. Straightforward autopilot and flight displays. Engines operated via just a thrust lever. No mixture, prop, condition, feather bits to worry about!

I'd much rather send a pair of studes up on a mutual solo in a Phenom than a King Air or a Jetstream or a Varsity!

[airpolice]

I'm a Regular QFI, not trying to "out" anyone. :p

So.... we should all accept that you are a QFI because you say so, but everyone else needs to show their papers?

[BruisedCrab]

Who are you, Al Shinner? These are anonymous forums you know!!! ;)
The irony of demanding anonymity whilst naming an individual.

Buffoon.

[S-Works]

The irony of demanding anonymity whilst naming an individual.

Buffoon.

Erm, he is the COO of Ascent, not exactly a secret identity....... Now if he he posting here under an anonymous identity and I knew that I would not try to out him as he is entitled to the same right. But otherwise I don’t see your problem?

The Queen is Elizabeth........

[BruisedCrab]

Erm, he is the COO of Ascent, not exactly a secret identity....... Now if he he posting here under an anonymous identity and I knew that I would not try to out him as he is entitled to the same right. But otherwise I don’t see your problem?

The Queen is Elizabeth........

I know who he is and obviously that information is publicly available.

My issue is your demand for anonymity whilst unnecessarily naming an individual on a public forum.

[S-Works]

I named a public individual, I did not out him...... ;)

[BruisedCrab]

I named a public individual, I did not out him...... ;)

What you are achieving is to ‘out yourself’ as someone who applies different standards to themselves than others.

Nice

[S-Works]

What you are achieving is to ‘out yourself’ as someone who applies different standards to themselves than others.

Nice

Whatever......:rolleyes:

[just another jocky]

well in that case you could just use the pm method instead of trying to get him to tell you publicly where he works.

Bloody good point, well presented! :ok: <doh.gif>

[Professor Plum]

Bose-x,

I take it you’ve handed your notice in then if it’s that bad?!

[Timelord]

And what is the story on the height limit in the Prefect? I saw one picture which looked most uncomfortable for the pilot, although I suppose he could have been 8 feet tall.

[[email protected]]

What you are achieving is to ‘out yourself’ as someone who applies different standards to themselves than others.

Nice and what you are achieving with 14 posts since 2013 is to show a secondary pprune account brought into play to attack a poster your primary account has already lost the argument to.

[BruisedCrab]

and what you are achieving with 14 posts since 2013 is to show a secondary pprune account brought into play to attack a poster your primary account has already lost the argument to.

Nope, wrong. This is my one and only account and I have been registered under successive accounts since 1999. (First one was Reluctant Staff Officer, ah those were the days.)

My only usual contribution to PPRuNe is to read and think, not write. I wrote on this one to call out bose-x for naming an individual.

I have zero knowledge of the new training system. I left over a decade ago and had no part in training even when I was in. Sorry to disappoint your conspiracy theory but at least it confirms your character type for us all.

[BEagle]

I note that the Phenom now has its Certificate of Release and will be transferred to the military register.

Presumably RAF pilots will then teach themselves to fly it.....:\

[S-Works]

I note that the Phenom now has its Certificate of Release and will be transferred to the military register.

Presumably RAF pilots will then teach themselves to fly it.....:\

It’s what they are doing now in the sim. What should have happened is the civilian pilots should have done the full the type ratings at CAE, done the 6 take off and landings and got the rating on the their licences. They should then have done hours building on type to be competent to teach. Once cleared to teach in accordance with their licence requirements run the first course for the military that the military have paid for and thus qualified the military pilots.

What you have instead is a bunch of unqualified guys sat in an office in Cranwell teaching themselves to fly the aircraft while writing the course materials and playing in the sim for two slots a day “testing” it out. Anyone see a problem with that concept......... And they wonder why people are playing their faces and even resigning.....

[[email protected]]

Bruised Crab - methinks the lady doth protest too much.............

[BruisedCrab]

Bruised Crab - methinks the lady doth protest too much.............

Think what you like, it’s the internet. I won’t bother posting my thoughts on you.

[BEagle]

bose-x, whether civilian or military, surely someone should have completed the normal TR course?

Now that the aircraft is on the military register, it shouldn't take too long for RAF QFIs to work-up on the aircraft?

No matter what the registration of the aircraft, I still consider that a civilian pilot providing instruction on Type should hold a valid professional licence, including a TR, IR and FI/TRI certificate for the Type.

[S-Works]

bose-x, whether civilian or military, surely someone should have completed the normal TR course?

Now that the aircraft is on the military register, it shouldn't take too long for RAF QFIs to work-up on the aircraft?

No matter what the registration of the aircraft, I still consider that a civilian pilot providing instruction on Type should hold a valid professional licence, including a TR, IR and FI/TRI certificate for the Type.

As do I......

[airpolice]

I think there are cross purposes in this thread. I think it sounds like there is a big difference between Valley Hawks and the rest, ie BFJT, Shawbs and Cranwell.
The problems at Valley seem to be keeping QFIs, the probs at the other bases seem to be aircraft, safety and syllabus related.


That might well be ONE of the problems at Valley.

[[email protected]]

I won’t bother posting my thoughts on you oh, you have thoughts on me....how sweet:)

[airpolice]

I'm sure that if the head of training at Ascent wanted his views known, he could come on here and share them.

Perhaps a frank and open discussion might be the way to allay the fears of the tax paying public on this matter.

I'm confident that a public post on here from a SQEP in Ascent would be better for the company than the continuing allegations of the troops having been gagged. Maybe a company spokesperson might either deny such a gagging order was given, or justify it.

I fully accept that they might not have much time for this, after all they do seem to be busy trying to start running training command (as was) but "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and all that.

When the contractors refuse to engage with the paying customer, then the customer might need to ask their elected representatives to ask some pointed questions.

To use a QFI expression, a little correction early, is better than needing a big change later on.

[Rigga]

AP,
The problem with your remarks is that a few old geezers on Pprune, speculating about any company's future methods of achievement, does not amount to 'the tax paying public' and would not, in my view, warrant their attention at all, let alone any senior management engagement.
To get their attention, some more formal complaint has to be raised...and all that is here is speculation.

[airpolice]

Ah well, that's the thing.

If a few old has beens and wannabees, discussing this on 'tinterweb is not important, why would the company prohibit the troops from engaging?

Why the threat of dismissal for engaging?

Perhaps we need to wait for someone at the coalface to get fired / win the lottery / develop a conscience, and spill the beans.

[S-Works]

I think I already did.

[Rigga]

Briefing employees about commercial security within an organisation, and not to broadcast any unauthorised news about that organisation in an uncontrolled manner, including the threat of punitive actions and dismissal, is a normal commercial practice.

It is sometimes emphasised to employees if there are obvious public events or occasions where the company wants to control press reporting about contentious subjects or new developments happening - where contentious can mean redundancy talks, etc. as well as discussing company/trade secrets or processes outside the premises. So 'gagging' instructions are not abnormal and are most often commercially driven.

This is why you only read of ex-employees (from waitresses to Chiefs of Staff) mouthing off about how their old company was really rubbish (and often just after getting their 'K')

[ethereal entity]

Briefing employees about commercial security within an organisation, and not to broadcast any unauthorised news about that organisation in an uncontrolled manner, including the threat of punitive actions and dismissal, is a normal commercial practice.

It is sometimes emphasised to employees if there are obvious public events or occasions where the company wants to control press reporting about contentious subjects or new developments happening - where contentious can mean redundancy talks, etc. as well as discussing company/trade secrets or processes outside the premises. So 'gagging' instructions are not abnormal and are most often commercially driven.

This is why you only read of ex-employees (from waitresses to Chiefs of Staff) mouthing off about how their old company was really rubbish (and often just after getting their 'K')

Spot on. However, do you think it is a different case here because, firstly, it is public money involved, NOT Ascents, and secondly, the Mil are working hand in glove with Ascent and they are not bound by anything Ascent say.

Also, all of us Ascent people, mil people, or those working for other contractors are mates. We're (almost) all ex-forces, and we have known each other for years. It is ridiculous to think people won't talk. This is exacerbated by the fact that we are all very knowledgeable and know when something is wrong and won't sit back and let it happen.

There is a saying that 'all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'. Now, before I get lambasted, I am not calling Ascent evil!, but the sentiment is true though. Most of Ascents plans are good. Infra is coming along. Courseware is a work in progress but will get there.

Some of their plans, though, are ridiculous, doomed to failure, and the students will be the ones who suffer.

We will talk, because people won't listen.

[airpolice]

Also, all of us Ascent people, mil people, or those working for other contractors are mates. We're (almost) all ex-forces, and we have known each other for years. It is ridiculous to think people won't talk.

Of course we all talk to each other. The company use the "old boys network" to recruit and vet staff, but then think it can be suspended in order to cover up the cracks.... mental!

Is there nobody at the top in Ascent who might ask why the guys at the coalface feel obliged to talk to outsiders about the problems?

What kind of company is it that thinks the best way to address safety fears, is to stop people talking about what scares them?

I'm not on about differences in opinion on how to run the business, I would dismiss the views of a 40 year old man, with only 22 years military service, when he tells me how to run a business at a profit. Business is business and should be left to business people to sort. Not to be tugged in every direction possible by Politicians and Fighter Pilots.

But somewhere in there, between going for the lowest bidder and pricing the work correctly at the start, you need to hear the knocking noise from the engine room. Full speed ahead can only continue while the engine is going well.

QFIs need to teach the students to fly, and Business Relationship Managers need to manage the relationships. The client has agreed to outsource the choosing of aircraft, so Ascent has chosen. The QFIs need to do what they get the big bucks for, which is to teach people to fly that aircraft.

Somebody needs to have an ear to ground though, there must be an open door for people to vice their fears. Nobody expects senior managers to give as hit about the opinions on business matters of the troops, but safety issues, well that stuff should never ever be swept under the carpet.

[Rigga]

I have been in your situation(s) and of course you talk to each other. But your situation isn't new and unheard of. Many larger companies suffer this mumbling syndrome, whether civil or civil/mil mixed.

Everyone has an opinion and, many times, those opinions don't matter to the management. Look at the British armed forces in general, let alone this small part which is the Ascent training system.

Gagging orders don't stop talking, but they generally stop blabbing to the press. Whoever is at the top, be they Military or civil, doesn't want this story going to the press in a non-spindoctored, uncontrolled fashion.

Again. Wittering on here won't get it changed. A more formal route is needed. Such as an FOI request...

[father_teds_father]

Going back to the original title of this thread... how is it now all going? I ask as an interested party due to be on a course at Shawbury at some stage in the future... rumours are that it is more off the rails than on?

[Lima Juliet]

“Teething Problems”...:rolleyes:

The problem is that they are all “teething” at the same time!!!

[Parson]

Beeb reporting a lot of pilots holding.

On the plus side, I see they are running some Phantom courses so not all bad news then......

[Chris Kebab]

Link is worth posting - an interesting read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47420698

[Parson]

Thanks Chris K - I tried but my 'cut & paste' button doesn't seem to be working this morning.

[Treble one]

Beeb reporting a lot of pilots holding.

On the plus side, I see they are running some Phantom courses so not all bad news then......

And Lightning ones too, no doubt....you would hope.

[Parson]

Treble One - well if based at Valley they would easily have enough endurance to man the Anglesey QRA.

[BTC8183]

Reading the link in Chris Kebabs post, the unnamed source made the strange claim that the newly supplied US built trainers ( T-6 Texan?) are unable to fly over water. Ignoring the fact they were ferried across the Atlantic, does a plausible explanation exist for this claim?

[yaffle]

Reading the link in Chris Kebabs post, the unnamed source made the strange claim that the newly supplied US built trainers ( T-6 Texan?) are unable to fly over water. Ignoring the fact they were ferried across the Atlantic, does a plausible explanation exist for this claim?
I heard it was not that the Texans couldn't fly over water, which is a ridiculous claim, but that the cockpit was too small to fit Pilot+Growbag+Immersion Suit/LifeJacket. Apparently, in America they fly them in jeans and a T Shirt.
Probably not true though.

[Timelord]

Reading the link in Chris Kebabs post, the unnamed source made the strange claim that the newly supplied US built trainers ( T-6 Texan?) are unable to fly over water. Ignoring the fact they were ferried across the Atlantic, does a plausible explanation exist for this claim?

Probably something to do with the (US) cockpit’s compatability with U.K. AEA: life jackets, immersion suits etc.

[Cows getting bigger]

It is a well known FACT that there are fewer lift-fairies living over the sea than the land. Whilst the concentration of Bernoullis is higher, the amount of suction they produce does not compensate for the loss in lift.

Simples.

[1771 DELETE]

To answer the original posters question, obviously well off the rails, has this whole privatization of the training system ever been on the rails?

[BTC8183]

It is a well known FACT that there are fewer lift-fairies living over the sea than the land. Whilst the concentration of Bernoullis is higher, the amount of suction they produce does not compensate for the loss in lift.

Simples.

Wow, I thought that excuse was in reserve for the P-8 😱.

[TUPE]

Reading the link in Chris Kebabs post, the unnamed source made the strange claim that the newly supplied US built trainers ( T-6 Texan?) are unable to fly over water. Ignoring the fact they were ferried across the Atlantic, does a plausible explanation exist for this claim?

I'd heard it was rotary that couldn't fly over the oggin due to a problem with SE.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

It is a well known FACT that there are fewer lift-fairies living over the sea than the land. Whilst the concentration of Bernoullis is higher, the amount of suction they produce does not compensate for the loss in lift.

Simples.
I think we all need to be careful posting sensitive information of this nature in a public forum. We wouldn't want it getting into the press.

[BEagle]

The BBC programme was most interesting. The MoD spokesman came across as an utter snake oil salesman who I wouldn't trust to run a bath, let alone a military training system.

The Phenom mid air collision was also mentioned - has there yet been a report released to the public, or is this something else which the MoD is trying to cover up?

[ExAscoteer]

The fact is that MFTS doesn't bloody work!

[DCThumb]

“Three hundred and fifty pilots, including helicopter and fast-jet pilots, are waiting to fly because of a shortage of planes and instructors.”

There has been a shortage of planes ever since they contractorised Stn Workshops.....

[Mogwi]

What a depressing story. Not the least because the Air Comode prefixed every sentence with "so". I always thought that we DID have a world-class training system in the old (pre-politically coerrect!) days.

[Mil-26Man]

Some more from Jane's here https://www.janes.com/article/87029/mod-reveals-ascent-penalties-for-late-pilot-training-delivery

[ACW342]

Parson, use the BBC website and search for "File on 4" the program "Winging It" is currently the latest one and is at the top of the list. On another point, I was only a Secondary school student, only attained the rank of Corporal and only closed Brüggen once by setting fire to the airfield. However, even I would NEVER start a sentence with "So" Maybe we'll get more from the Air Commode - "So, now it's time to view the phantom course skedule"

[Training Risky]

Listening to the R4 program now on the App. Shocking state of affairs. (Frightening to hear that holding officers were banned from talking to the MOD and had to do so incognito.)
From my experience, MFTS has taken an excellent helicopter training system and ruined it with holds of up to 2 YEARS leading to a front-line pipeline of 7.5 YEARS!
Someone at MOD should be lined up against a wall for this! You idiot senior officers who go through the public/private sector revolving door know who you are!!!!!

On a lighter note - the Sound of Silence comedy song by bored holding officers was good.

[Lima Juliet]

Listening to the R4 program now on the App. Shocking state of affairs. (Frightening to hear that holding officers were banned from talking to the MOD and had to do so incognito.

You need to read this - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/543320/20160728-2016_DIN_Communicating_in_public_FINAL.pdf

This has been out since 2014 and also QRs before that meant that Service Personnel are not free to publically speak to the media or make political statements. The latter dates back to our last Civil War!

[BVRAAM]

I notice some on social media are kicking off about the company being paid for "phantom courses" that aren't the fault of Ascent.

Clearly they must have so much money, they don't need to work, never mind depend on a pay cheque to pay for a mortgage and put food on the table for their family. The people who work have to be paid, and to deny them a wage for petty political reasons for something out of their control is just evil.

[BEagle]

Assuming that they actually do the work, of course....:rolleyes:

[BVRAAM]

Beags,
Nobody starts a business to hire employees that don't do what is asked of them. To suggest Ascent are lazy as a company - a company trying to make a profit - does not match up with the experiences of just about all of us who have experience with the private sector.
By throwing spears at Ascent, you allow the government to dodge the issue when it's as clear as day that it was them, as it always is in just about every other department.

I found it amusing when it was claimed that "the RAF had just about caught up with the problem in 2015." Uh, no... the MoD made over half of the student pilots redundant and stopped recruiting pilots for a while. That wasn't them dealing with it, that was mere damage limitation and they had the cheek to invite guys back eight years down the line, who were well in to their second careers. I know of one guy who was offered a fast track return to a frontline fleet with a year's holding first. Just imagine what the normal wait time is? :(
He told them to sling it.

[[email protected]]

BVRAAM - the problem lies with the piss-poor contracts that the MOD consistently enter into and the fact that someone wants to believe a snake-oil salesman when he tells them he can do the flying training job cheaper and better, despite not having any experience in the area.............

Most of the risk ends up being held by the MOD and little by the contractor - hence phantom courses and the contractor still getting paid for failure.

[BVRAAM]

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.