Seven and a half years

[effortless]

To qualify? And some mealy mouthed politician on the wireless spewing the usual bollocks. Apparently you are developing a world leading training system thanks to private involvement. :*

[Fareastdriver]

Most of my initial flying course were tidying up their licences with a couple of thousand hours before going on terminal leave taking their 8 year option.

[ian16th]

We trained National Servicemen to fly Meteors in the 1950's.

And got some service time from them.

[ExAscoteer]

I was at Wittering recently. The prospective pilots that I spoke to have been holding between 18 months to 2 years post IOT!

[Herod]

First flight on an operational squadron three weeks short of two years from joining. Still only nineteen years old. Mind you, that was in the sixties.

[Pontius Navigator]

First flight on an operational squadron three weeks short of two years from joining. Still only nineteen years old. Mind you, that was in the sixties.
Little slower than you but had to do the Lindholm course pre-OCU. The AEOs OTOH had fewer flying hours and I think shorter course so 19 was average.

Echoing the NS training, 5 year commissions were available for pilots.
​​​​​

[NutLoose]

Year one..... Shoe lace tying and potty training
Year two..... Advanced tying, the Winsor knot
Year three..... Potty training phase completed,
Year four..... Arifmatic, speling and ACB's twaining

That only leaves three and a half to learn to fly :E

[effortless]

R4 20.00 tonight, File on Four, sounds as though it might be relevant.

[NutLoose]

The stupid thing is these people being "placed" while waiting are sucking up resources, what is the point accepting them in when their courses could be two years away, that's two years of paying someone that might get chopped in the first month or two of training.

[ExAscoteer]

Listening to the Radio 4 Prog it is apparent that MFTS is not fit for purpose. I say this as an ex (A2) QFI.

Having been at Wittering recently, and having talked to Aircrew Stude holdees, they have holds of 18 months to 2 years post IOT and they are still not entering the trg system.

What a complete **** Up!

[ExAscoteer]

Air Commodore Simon Edwards, RAF flg trg, you sir are a ******* tit if you think the MFTS works and that holds of 18 months to 2 years post Initial Officer Trg prior to EFTS is acceptable.I say this as a retired A2 QFI.

We TOLD you why MFTS wouldn't work.You should bloody resign!

Don't even get me started on ME flg trg.
Oh and get rid of the facial fuzz.

[The B Word]

Ex Ascoteer, to be fair he has only recently taken responsibility for UK MFTS inheriting decisions made as far back as 2005. As ever, this was poor investigative work by today’s clowns that call themselves Journalists. Just why they needed to drag up the sad death of Alex Parr during a programme about flying training is beyond me. I thought better of Radio 4 but I guess I should have known better.

I would struggle to give this programme a Below-Average grade in aviator parlance...there were so many factual inaccuracies and misleading statements I don’t know where to start!

[ditchvisitor]

there were so many factual inaccuracies and misleading statements I don’t know where to start!

I was sat with circa 6-8 pre EFT and post EFT holdies and they were all rather glad the absolute shambles is actually out in the open, a lot of what was said in the broadcast has been discussed in the mess for the last few months and it’s too far from the truth at all!!!!

[Timelord]

As has been said elsewhere, I think it is indisputable that U.K. flying training is broken, but it is not all the fault of MFTS or the contractors. The widespread adoption of business practices without the resources or knowledge to do them properly, contractorisation pre MFTS and the conflicting requirements of SDSR 10 and 15 are also to blame. At least by sending trainees to the USA and to civil training organisations and by resurrecting the T1 SOMETHING is being done. I just feel sorry for the youngsters suffering.

[ExAscoteer]

Ex Ascoteer, to be fair he has only recently taken responsibility for UK MFTS inheriting decisions made as far back as 2005.

Indeed. And he has done **** all about it. Ergo he should resign (or at least **** off)

We had a Flying Train
ing system that was the envy of the world (CFS). Now we have **** all!

[ExAscoteer]

Ex Ascoteer, to be fair he has only recently taken responsibility for UK MFTS inheriting decisions made as far back as 2005.

Indeed. And he has done **** all about it. Ergo he should resign (or at least **** off)

We had a Flying Trainining system that was the envy of the world (CFS). Now we have **** all!

[The B Word]

Exascoteer

Again to be fair, according to the ARAL the individual has been in post for 10 months - https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-appointments/. The MFTS Programme started as far back as 2005 - 14 years. So with your logic, you are trying to sack someone who has been heading it for less than 5% of its lifespan. Also, do you know what changes he has made since his ‘feet were under the desk’? I suspect you don’t.

I don’t know anyone who thinks MFTS is going well but making hysterical claims for sacking people is going to help no one. In fact, in the short term it is likely to make things worse with such a change. We either roll up our sleeves and find ways to make it work or walk away (costing ££££s in penalty clauses, plus with nothing to replace MFTS with then ALL training would cease!). Doing nothing, as ever, is not an option. As already reported a number of outsourcing options have been announced in the past 9 months with more rumoured to come, so something is at least being done in parallel to seeking resolutioj to the reported issues (some of which were vastly inaccurate).

[[email protected]]

B word - that means that more than 5 senior officers have presided over the MFTS situation since 2005, maybe more, and each appears to have passed the parcel to the next, glad to rid themselves of the poisoned chalice before the dose became fatal. Which of them did anything to prevent this situation?

It was always apparent to those in instructional roles that the plans were flawed but senior careers were being made on the back of them so no-one listened and here we are.

[BEagle]

No-one listened to those at the coal face - one of the chief problems with the MFTS farce being a sustainable supply of instructors. Back when training ramped up for the Tornado, the front line was raided to supply ex-QFIs to the UAS / BFTS, allowing their ex-FJ QFIs to return to the front line. There was enough flex in the system to cope in those days.

But now? Not enough QFIs, training aerodromes or training aeroplanes. So much has been cut and so many aerodromes closed (or ear marked for closure) that it would be virtually impossible to ramp up pilot supply if there was an urgent need.

[Tedderboy]

Give the seniors some credit....AOC 22 Trg Gp took the important decision to shorten IOT by 6 weeks in order to speed up the flow of pilots to the cockpit following CAS' direction that he did not want aircraft waiting for pilots. Had he not done that the wait could well have been 7 years and 7 and a bit months rather than 7 years and 6 months so at least some people are alive to the issue.

[teeteringhead]

Whilst PPRuNers don't want to think kindly of VSOs, this mega running goat of MFTS will have an enormous impact on future VSOs, some of whom will be currently "in the hold".

If we are looking for a future CAS to be a four star in - at the latest - their (gender neutral pronoun) early fifties, working back from that you inexorably finish up with about a 30 year old sqn leader. Given that the majority of officer entrants are now graduates - thanks to Bliar's nonsense of 50% going to Uni - and coupled with this appalling 7+ year hold, guys (gender neutral noun) will have scarcely finished their first tour by 30.

Or (dons flak vest) does this mean that a future chief may not be a member of the Master Race????

[Krystal n chips]

Reading the many, and varied, threads and posts re flying training, just be thankful that engineer training was spared, albeit it was very close, the same fate of privatisation around 2008 -2010 in the form of "Metrix "......I hate clichés, but, allied to the fiasco being discussed, this would have produced the "perfect storm " as the plans were for Tri-Service training and a significantly diluted course content .

[Minnie Burner]

No-one listened to those at the coal face - one of the chief problems with the MFTS farce being a sustainable supply of instructors. Back when training ramped up for the Tornado, the front line was raided to supply ex-QFIs to the UAS / BFTS, allowing their ex-FJ QFIs to return to the front line. There was enough flex in the system to cope in those days.

But now? Not enough QFIs, training aerodromes or training aeroplanes. So much has been cut and so many aerodromes closed (or ear marked for closure) that it would be virtually impossible to ramp up pilot supply if there was an urgent need.


Just as well the TWUs have been shut down, then. Manning them would have been impossible and the training time would run to ten years. Tongue out of cheek: rather than nick T1s from 100 Sqn and others, should Valley graduates not be sent to the Ton for 'operational use' and there assessed for their front line tours? The RAAF use their FLIT Hawks for fleet support, Hornet/F-35A DACT, FAC and so on and the 'students' continue to be trained and evaluated as useful members of society before being eased out to the OCUs. I guess that's what Fighter Lead-in Training means.

[NutLoose]

Reading the many, and varied, threads and posts re flying training, just be thankful that engineer training was spared, albeit it was very close, the same fate of privatisation around 2008 -2010 in the form of "Metrix "......I hate clichés, but, allied to the fiasco being discussed, this would have produced the "perfect storm " as the plans were for Tri-Service training and a significantly diluted course content .


Has it been saved from dilution?, the dual trade course now for A/F Engines is now shorter than the single trade course I did, and the skill set of those leaving the RAF for industry I have found is poor in comparison. Indeed the ex RAF once the main source to industry is now a trickle due to low numbers and lack of skills, most companies now preferring in house training or sourced from civilian schools. It appears that gone are the days where you would do postings on different types and build up a broad knowlege base, these days it appears to be a single type for your career.

[k3k3]

I agree with Nutloose. The abolition of the JT rank was a huge mistake, expecting SAC dual (or more) trade mechanics to self improve to the standard of a single trade JT at the end of a 15 month fitters course is just impossible.

[beardy]

No-one listened to those at the coal face - one of the chief problems with the MFTS farce being a sustainable supply of instructors. Back when training ramped up for the Tornado, the front line was raided to supply ex-QFIs to the UAS / BFTS, allowing their ex-FJ QFIs to return to the front line. There was enough flex in the system to cope in those days.

But now? Not enough QFIs, training aerodromes or training aeroplanes. So much has been cut and so many aerodromes closed (or ear marked for closure) that it would be virtually impossible to ramp up pilot supply if there was an urgent need.
Is there a shortage of flying instructors?

[NutLoose]

I agree with Nutloose. The abolition of the JT rank was a huge mistake, expecting SAC dual (or more) trade mechanics to self improve to the standard of a single trade JT at the end of a 15 month fitters course is just impossible.

Totally agree,

[Lima Juliet]

B word - that means that more than 5 senior officers have presided over the MFTS situation since 2005, maybe more, and each appears to have passed the parcel to the next, glad to rid themselves of the poisoned chalice before the dose became fatal. Which of them did anything to prevent this situation?

It was always apparent to those in instructional roles that the plans were flawed but senior careers were being made on the back of them so no-one listened and here we are.

Not wanting to steal B Word’s chips, but the last two 1-stars have been compulsory retired at the end of their spell as Programme Director (2013-2015 and 2015-2018). At 1-star you are only good for your next job by selection. Neither work for the contractor as far as I’m aware either!

So let’s give this one a chance as he still has at least another year to turn it around - let’s face it, it can’t get much worse! :ok:

[VinRouge]

When it is considered necessary to offer commercial rates of pay for retirees (without docking the pension) with the requisite experience to provide a safe and quality output, we may start to get there.

I would love to know how a civilian service provider has been able to get away with relying upon Military training expertise to develop courses. Isn’t that what we are paying for? Let me guess, promised the world for the cheapest (best value!?) price and have delivered C0ck all.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Is there a shortage of flying instructors?

Oh yes! At every stage of training.

[ditchvisitor]

Oh yes! At every stage of training.

And a large number of those instructors want to leave/move on elsewhere due to the horrendously low flying rates on the front line, especially in the Rotary world.

[Whenurhappy]

Meanwhile, the previous AOC 22 Gp who waxed lyrically over the system in briefings I attended in 2017 and assured VSOs that the problems had been sorted- will soon be a 3*. Is there absolutely no accountability in the RAF or MOD?

[orca]

Good question and it illuminates a misconception in previous posts.

AM Baz North followed by AM Sean Reynolds who, in sequence, were appointed to be DCOM Cap were the Senior Responsible Owners for MFTS.

As we all know - only SROs are Accountable. Suggest we elevate the cross hairs from Edwards’ centre of body mass and aim instead at those charged with delivering the programme to a Performance, Time and Cost envelope - and indeed Accountable to Parliament for doing so.

I’m sure that it hasn’t escaped our learned readership that Edwards is the 1 star charged with delivering the Air Mobility lane for Air - if ‘RAF Senior Appointments’ is to be believed. Odd that MFTS should fall to him. Almost as if the SRO wedged into the nearest 1* portfolio for convenience. Seems to me to be case of blaming the player when the game’s at fault.

Then again - he’s a big boy and probably doesn’t care what I think.

[Whenurhappy]

Good post. I think another issue is the rapidity of postings/high turnover rate. Not only does it take time for the office holder to get up to speed, they will want to conduct a strategic review of the programme and then implement changes - and then move on to their next job - which makes it doubly hard to pin down individual accountability.

I can can think of a number of other programmes out with the Air Environment where process dominates output and that SCS 2s are signing off absurdly expensive projects because they won’t challnge grossly inefficient processes.