72 Sqn trouble

[LincsFM]

Saw this on Facebook and thought it might cause some debate

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/826x1192/fb_img_1617006198381_ced9b126194cbcc7e76e80455fbf5640804fa49 3.jpg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/826x1176/fb_img_1617006203156_d0e41295aa33029ff005dfc686fcf6d08599e80 7.jpg

[Ken Scott]

Are Facebook/ pprune really the ideal venues for airing these types of issues?

[3 bladed beast]

Are Facebook/ pprune really the ideal venues for airing these types of issues?

Yes!! The Dasor system does not work and allows middle management and senior officers to "paper over the cracks" whilst effecting zero change.

This dasor could read across to many fleets at the moment.

Sad times.

[charliegolf]

Are Facebook/ pprune really the ideal venues for airing these types of issues?

My thought exactly... But if the powers that be have fingers in ears and are la-la-la-ing, the professionals being put at risk may feel they have nowhere else to go.

CG

[ShyTorque]

I can sympathise with those in this situation. In the 80s I worked on an RAF training unit with similar issues. The courses got well behind the drag curve (putting the Boss's future career path in danger) so it was announced that to get maximum usage from the available aircraft there would henceforth be two shifts, early and late.

We all ended up working both shifts....and some weekends.

[Count von Altibar]

In this day and age stuff like this should be long gone. I'd never have thought it'd be going on in the RAF of 2021.

[Chugalug2]

It seems that continuity (or the severe lack of it) has been a major problem for a long time. This from ten years ago :-

'No blame' Over RAF Tornado Crash - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/410127-no-blame-over-raf-tornado-crash.html?highlight=Kinglass)

plus ça change...

[Martin the Martian]

If not Facebook and PPRuNe, where? If a student and/or QFI died as a result of this situation you'd be the first screaming for heads to roll.

This should not be swept under the carpet and hidden. Ascent is being paid an inordinate sum of money to provide this service, and to hear their PR you'd think all was rosy. It is not and as a contractor they need to be made accountable and to sort it out.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Time for AOC 22 Gp and CAS, yes, CAS, to get up there and get to the bottom of this.

A totally outrageous situation, never ever saw anything remotely like this in my days as a QFI.

[hunterboy]

Maybe this is just what it needs. Public airing of the issues and red faces all round with any luck. The problem I foresee is the UK has previous form in shooting messengers rather than fixing the problem, especially where someone is making serious money out of the problems.

[Baldeep Inminj]

None of this should surprise anyone. It was always a foregone conclusion that MFTS would fail spectacularly - it could go no other way. The reason is this - prior to MFTS, the MOD ran its own FT system, and the driving force was Standards. The system was honed to provide the best quality training possible. This is no longer the case. MFTS is now run for a profit, plain and simple. Is there anyone who seriously believes that a profit driven system will provide a better prodect than a quality driven system?

Now, when you start to drill down into this, the reasons are clear and obvious. Ascent is a 'Special Purpose Vehicle' - a company 'invented' to run the MFTS contract. It has no other purpose and is not bidding for anything else..so why would they care about their reputation? They only existed to get the MFTS contract, and they achieved that. Job done. Also, Ascent is just another way of saying "Lockheed Martin and Babcock'. These are 2 companies that are not known for being charities - they exist to make a profit, and quite right too, why shouldn't they?

I have heard many describe the Ascent management as thoroughly incompetent and clueless. In fact, I have never heard them described as anything else. However, whether they are or not is dependant on what yardsick you use to judge them. Bear in mind they are not (poorly) paid to care about standards. They do not care about quality - quality costs money. They are paid to help Ascent make a profit and to defend the contract. They want to provide the cheapest solution they can to maximize the corporate profit. This means buying as few as possible of the cheapest airframes they can. It means employing as few people as possible and pushing them as hard as possible. It means minimizing flying and cutting corners wherever possible. Judged against this remit, the management suddenly look a lot less incompetent. They are doing what they are paid to do. The real issue is that this was blindingly obvious to everyone apart from the Senor officers who decided to implement this system. The sheer incompetence and dereliction of duty of those officers cannot be overstated.

Ascent have provided H135 for rearcrew training that are too small. H145's that 3 years after arrival still cannot teach overwater winching. Phenoms that are inferior as trainers to the aircraft they replaced, Hawks with insufficient engines...so these Texan woes are only to be expected. The MOD have got precisely what I and so many others told them they would get.

To the issue at hand. The DDH has 2 choices here. He either has the moral courage to do the right thing and to be seen doing it, or he protects his career. He should ground 72 Sqn immediately and launch a full and open investigation into the claims made here. If there is an accident and this is not addressed, he will quite rightly go to prison. I also have no doubt that he is was already aware of everyhing said here, but just kept looking resolutely out of the window rather than addressing the issue at hand. The genie is now out of the bottle and he no longer has that option. I pray the Press pick this up.

The parents of the students on 72 Sqn should all call the Stn Cdr at Valley and demand an inquiry - a public one. They should be calling their MP's and demanding a full public enquiry. They should be writing to newspapers.

The MOD wanted this system, and they must now accept responsibility for abject failure that it is.

[MaxReheat]

For the uninitiated perhaps you could explain the following:

a. Who are these 'schedulers'? In ye olde days the program was hacked out 'in house' ie on the squadron. Don't tell me the RAF now suffers from the same affliction the airlines do ie workloads and lifestyles determined by a spotty-faced clerk who knows all the rules but never has to live with the reality and the consequences of their output.

b. If there so little flying going on, and with an ever shrinking front-line, what is filling these 11 hour days?

Many thanks

[Mogwi]

Since when has 72 been an (F)? I thought that that was reserved for a defined small number of squadrons. Or is this another change to the RAF that I have missed?

Mog

[Jesse Pinkman]

Nomenclature is determined by history as much as it is by current role. II(AC)Sqn does very little by way of army co-operation these days.

[NutLoose]

Smoke and Mirrors Mogwi
How to make the RAF appear more potent with the stroke of a pen..

On 13 November 2020, No. 72 Squadron became No. 72 (Fighter) Squadron to reflect its former role as a fighter unit.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._72_Squadron_RAF#cite_note-24)[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._72_Squadron_RAF#cite_note-25)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._72_Squadron_RAF

[sangiovese.]

The number of roles offered on Ascents employment vacancies show it’s definitely not a competitive employer

[Baldeep Inminj]

The number of roles offered on Ascents employment vacancies show it’s definitely not a competitive employer

They have had QHI and QHCI vacancies at 202 for many months - they cannot fill them. The pay, terms and conditions at Ascent are dreadful. They survive (sort of) from the willingness and desire of those leaving the forces, and also the ex-Cobham people, to remain in the same location. I am willing to bet you cannot find anyone who can say, with honesty that they are proud to work for Ascent. It pays the bills and keeps them where they want to be, and that's it. That said, a LOT of Ascent people have quit since MFTS started, and I have not met one who did not find far more rewarding and lucrative work elsewhere.

[BEagle]

Back in 1976, it took a fatal accident involving a solo Hunter student before 'fatigue' became an issue. If I recall correctly, the working day thenceforth was to be no longer than 8 hours.

I've done a fair bit of flying training scheduling, both 'strategic' (e.g. course scheduling) and 'tactical'. Strategic was OK, provided that fellow instructors had given me their availability (i.e. not on leave, on a course etc.) so I could build the course tasking in plenty of time and tell the squadron our day-to-day needs for the following week, bearing in mind GDT/ODT/CCS and other 'service diversions'. All went swingingly until some Boss tried to insert his "I'll get smartie points from this" personal wish for a co-pilot to captain course for some chosen one into the game plan, which buggered the whole plot. The only other problem was when some instructor or other would suddenly announce that he wanted a week on leave despite having already been scheduled.... That was all done using chinagraph boards....and then came some infernal IT system which made scheduling MUCH slower. At Brize it was known as STARS and was utterly appalling!

'Tactical' scheduling was the sort of thing needed for exercises. First go and talk with the Engineers to find out availability of jets, then Sqn ops to find out how many crews were available and also establish the RS requirement. Then build the crew call-out sequence; Rule No. 1 being to allocate the Boss to the first available jet to keep him out of the way! Again that went well until some eager beaver Flt Cdr wanted everyone in at Taceval Part 2 startex, which totally blew the plan if peacetime fatigue rules were to be respected.

'Tactical' scheduling was also need for day-to-day UAS planning. At around 16:30, speak to engineers and find out how many aircraft would be available the following day, also check the diary to know which students were coming. Try to match students to their normal QFI where possible, then check weather to see what effect that might have. With the assistance of one of the students, write QFI and student / exercise no. on magnetic plaques and put them on the board, allowing time between sorties for brief/debrief, dual to solo, duty QFI in tower allocation etc.... Quite a multi-dimensional art and often opitmisation rather than total solution was the only outcome.

Sorry for rabbitting on, but the art of successful flight training schedule is not something learned overnight, nor can IT systems cope adequately with the plethora of competing inputs with which the programmer has to deal.

[charliegolf]

Timetabling in any setting is often described thus: "For those who have done it properly, no explanation is required; for those who haven't, no explanation is possible!"

CG

[RetiredBA/BY]

.....so just what are these competitive salaries being offered by Ascent to Hawk and “Texan” QFI s. ?

.. and 72 WAS a fighter squadron, last with Javelins, its now an FTS, so why do they persist with F ?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

.

Sorry for rabbitting on, but the art of successful flight training schedule is not something learned overnight, nor can IT systems cope adequately with the plethora of competing inputs with which the programmer has to deal.

IT systems can. Just not the ones generally bought by the MOD and their contractors for 5p off their mate.

[wrecker]

Even it the military world a CHIRP report could be filed.

[langleybaston]

IT systems can. Just not the ones generally bought by the MOD and their contractors for 5p off their mate.

IT systems don't do nuance.
Way back when Finningley was the Nav trainer, and I was the occasional Met. Lecturer, to see "Sgt Mac" [if memory serves] juggling real time problems of timetabling involving lecturers/ students/ classrooms/leave/sickness/detachments and flying programme interfaces armed with a whiteboard and pencil and paper was an education in itself.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

IT systems don't do nuance.
Way back when Finningley was the Nav trainer, and I was the occasional Met. Lecturer, to see "Sgt Mac" [if memory serves] juggling real time problems of timetabling involving lecturers/ students/ classrooms/leave/sickness/detachments and flying programme interfaces armed with a whiteboard and pencil and paper was an education in itself.
The point isn't to let the IT system schedule. It's just a better scheduling board. But a bas one is definitely worse than the old board!

[Thaihawk]

There's mention of a chronic shortage of aircraft on the early part of page 1. However, four additional Texans were delivered to Valley during the first week of last November. Since their arrival these four airplanes have not seen the light of day, and indeed have been placed on the CAA register.

This seems strange. Can anyone explain why this has happened?. The initial order for ten airplanes, was, IMHO was way too few, MoD penny-pinching, as usual?.

[Baldeep Inminj]

There's mention of a chronic shortage of aircraft on the early part of page 1. However, four additional Texans were delivered to Valley during the first week of last November. Since their arrival these four airplanes have not seen the light of day, and indeed have been placed on the CAA register.

This seems strange. Can anyone explain why this has happened?. The initial order for ten airplanes, was, IMHO was way too few, MoD penny-pinching, as usual?.

No, not penny pinching by the MOD. The training solution is entirely owned by Ascent - the military get no say in how their people are trained. Ascent selected the aircraft and decided on numbers.

As I said earlier, they have no interest whatsoever in the standard of training - at Ascent the cost is EVERYTHING. They provided the cheapest platforms they could, and the minimum number.

They have now had to order more Texans and more 145’s as their plans were complete crap. They are staggeringly incompetent when it comes to any ability to provide training, but my goodness they understand profit.

[beardy]

1. What was the date of the narrative in the first post?

2. Is Ascent more focused on profit or cost?

Just as an aside, the case for fatigue is well made in the narrative. I'm not sure that any case has been made for 'mental health' problems, the use of this (somewhat vague but trendy) phrase rather devalues the serious problems that seem to exist.

[Training Risky]

This is unbelievable! Which senior officer/MOD wonk negotiated this contract with Ascent and how do we back out of it?

What annoys me even more is that they resurrected 1 FTS at Shawbury when they could have converted DHFS back into 2 FTS as it should have been.

[Mogwi]

.....so just what are these competitive salaries being offered by Ascent to Hawk and “Texan” QFI s. ?

.. and 72 WAS a fighter squadron, last with Javelins, its now an FTS, so why do they persist with F ?


And it my time it flew Wessex, so should it be 72 (H)?

[Fortissimo]

.
Just as an aside, the case for fatigue is well made in the narrative. I'm not sure that any case has been made for 'mental health' problems, the use of this (somewhat vague but trendy) phrase rather devalues the serious problems that seem to exist.

I beg to differ. There is a well-established medical link between fatigue and depression - if you are fatigued you are 4 times more likely to become depressed, and vice versa. It is all there in the literature. The reporter describes people being ground down, staff becoming distressed, animosity and resentment between students, all indicators of low morale or, as the medics might have it, low mood. I think that is actually a good case showing impact on their mental health which adds weight to the scale of the problems, not devalues them.

Trendy it might be, but the trend has led to armed forces, regulators and airlines across the world taking mental health seriously. That move has been long overdue.

[falcon900]

Unless I am very much mistaken, here on planet earth in 2021 employers are required by law to have a variety of systems and policies in place to protect their employees, including, inter alia, whistleblowing and health and safety protocols.
In recent times, the scope and scale of personal liability of management and responsible persons has grown markedly, and as has been mentioned, can include prison.
Whilst I have no issue with the original poster airing the issues here, they might be better served by using the existing means at their disposal, which can mostly be invoked anonymously.

[charliegolf]

Whilst I have no issue with the original poster airing the issues here, they might be better served by using the existing means at their disposal, which can mostly be invoked anonymously.

I recall the late Phil Pynegar's suspicion of such schemes... "All very well, but a bit of a shocker getting a call starting with, Ah, Flt Lt Pynegar, about that CONDOR you sent in..."

Bit of a bummer if that happens when you are having a serious pop at the senior management, eh?

CG

[beardy]

I beg to differ. There is a well-established medical link between fatigue and depression - if you are fatigued you are 4 times more likely to become depressed, and vice versa. It is all there in the literature. The reporter describes people being ground down, staff becoming distressed, animosity and resentment between students, all indicators of low morale or, as the medics might have it, low mood. I think that is actually a good case showing impact on their mental health which adds weight to the scale of the problems, not devalues them.

Trendy it might be, but the trend has led to armed forces, regulators and airlines across the world taking mental health seriously. That move has been long overdue.
There is a world of difference between being depressed and depression, being unhappy with your lot is NOT the same as being ill although I believe it can be a precursor. It is very unhelpful for those who are suffering from mental illness to confuse understandable emotional reactions with symptoms of illness.

[Tankertrashnav]

Dont know relevant this is to the current discussion, probably not very, but to someone who has been out of the game as long as I have, it is staggering to read what has happened to the RAF in recent years.

When I went through nav school in 1969-70, I recall it as a time of intense activity, a year crammed with flying, classroom work and survival training etc, with little time to draw breath. I remember that at the end of basic nav training at Gaydon we had a wash up where were asked for suggestions which might help improve the course. I suggested that perhaps one afternoon a month might be left free so that we could carry out routine admin tasks such as going to SHQ, visiting stores to exchange kit and that sort of thing. The DS were shocked by the suggestion and I was told in no uncertain terms that there was no chance of fitting such a period into an already crowded training programme. It now seems that far from an afternoon a month to do a bit of admin, some of these poor sods are getting so little flying they could be given a month off and told to go away and find something useful to do. Heartbreaking.

[Party Animal]

TTN - in today’s RAF, it’s more like one afternoon per month being allocated to flying!

[toratoratora]

My lad, nearly 17, has had his heart set on flying in the RAF since he was a nipper, following family tradition. As of now, I cannot recommend that path to him.
Sad times.

[Paul Rice]

30 per cent of professional pilots throughout the world are unemployed with little to no chance of finding work in the medium term. 17 % of professional pilots are furloughed with little to no chance of significant numbers returning to work in the short to medium term. Those remaining at work are braced for further job losses and deep cuts to their terms and conditions of employment. While a 11 hour working day is a long duty period its not exceptional and 12 1/2 hours is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector. If your only flying 140 hours per annum you have it easy. 100 flying hours per 28 days is the summer target for the airlines and these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in. You report 12 QFIs to 12 student QFIs and 22 students. That divides up to less than 3 students per instructor which seems very reasonable and manageable. If students are not flying often enough and your concerned about continuity and safety, then as the QFI you do not send them solo and if the course foot print over runs so be it. If your concerned about flight planning software and other dispatch issues deal with them your not flying much you have all the time in the world to resolve these problems. While the report highlights domestic problems within your Squadron these concerns should have been managed domestically in house using the established chain of command. This report should not have been published in an open forum and it borders on mutiny if it has been published by a military officer. It certainly brings the service into disrepute. Frequent shift changes not getting home when you expect to get home bluntly "thats life in a blue suit" please be thankful that your on salary right now, that your flying a wonderful aeroplane with a ready supply of talented highly motivated and aptitude selected students. Your the QFI you know what the problems are fix those that you can, recruit colleagues to fix those that you cant and when you have done all that you possibly put the kettle on have a cup of tea and chill out. Seriously enjoy being on salary.

[RetiredBA/BY]

....but please use you’re where you mean you’re not your.!!

I see it made the Daily Mail today,

[Dominator2]

Paul Rice, Your comments are from one who is totally out of touch with the present situation at Valley. You imply that maybe you served at some time but then your comments show that you have little understanding of Military Aviation and even less of Military Aviation Training.

Whilst one may agree in principal that a DASOR should not be printed in the public domain one needs to understand the frustration that has led to this.

MFTS has put the RAF Flying Training system into total disarray. The reason is the Senior Officers responsible for signing off on Contracts that are worthless. The only interest that Ascent has is to make a fast buck. Right from the outset the company never resourced enough assets to fulfil the REAL requirement. Not enough QFIs, not enough aircraft, not enough engineers, not enough Ops staff, not enough hours in the day!! How would they even expect 95% serviceability from their aircraft? How could they expect to run a Training Programme on flying for 16 hours a day with no factoring for weather.

An example of a student at present in the system is: Achieved 75 hours on Tutor at UEA in first 2 years at university. Struggled to get much flying in 3rd year. A year to get to Cranwell and complete IOT. A year holding at various units around the RAF doing mostly c**p jobs. A further year to complete EFT and EFT Refresher course. Start at BFT at Valley and now delayed in starting flying for the 3rd time in as many months. Reason, not enough QFIs and not enough serviceable aircraft (for what ever reason).

Maybe those who are prepared to speak out are loyal. They are loyal to their friends, their students and to the Royal Air Force. Keeping quite to cover up Senior Officers screw ups is not "loyalty".

When you read comments such as As of now, I cannot recommend that path to him. Sad times. it makes one believe that something has to change before it is too late!

[plans123]

a. Who are these 'schedulers'? In ye olde days the program was hacked out 'in house' ie on the squadron. Don't tell me the RAF now suffers from the same affliction the airlines do ie workloads and lifestyles determined by a spotty-faced clerk who knows all the rules but never has to live with the reality and the consequences of their output.


Airlines now use some very good optimisation software for aircraft and flight crew scheduling. The days of the 'spotty-faced clerk' as you put it are well past , Maybe ASCENT could take a leaf out of that book.

[NutLoose]

....but please use you’re where you mean you’re not your.!!

I see it made the Daily Mail today,

Link

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9420837/RAF-whistleblowers-fears-pilot-safety-warns-exhausted-instructors-flying-much.html

[sangiovese.]

Airlines now use some very good optimisation software for aircraft and flight crew scheduling. The days of the 'spotty-faced clerk' as you put it are well past , Maybe ASCENT could take a leaf out of that book.

Yes but airline planning works on CAT 3B weather minima mostly and 98.5% aircraft availability. Also a huge amount of statistical data to schedule. Planning training that way isn’t a job for too much IT

[RetiredBA/BY]

Yes but airline planning works on CAT 3B weather minima mostly and 98.5% aircraft availability. Also a huge amount of statistical data to schedule. Planning training that way isn’t a job for too much IT.....
........yes, and in commercial aviation, proper airlines certainly, you get a fixed roster, ( mostly) you can plan your life and you get vastly better pay than the RAF.. A senior captain, earns more than the CAS, a line captain can easily earn more than an air rank officer, enabling a better standard of living for you, your family, gets a better pension and has FAR more control over his life. Add some very nice aircraft to fly, some very nice routes on longhaul and time to do your own thing, got my vote.

Yes, things are difficult at the moment due CV, but they WILL get better, back to normal.

[NutLoose]

But retired, you don’t get to runaround in a respi...gas mask, while carrying a musket..

[m0nkfish]

30 per cent of professional pilots throughout the world are unemployed with little to no chance of finding work in the medium term. 17 % of professional pilots are furloughed with little to no chance of significant numbers returning to work in the short to medium term. Those remaining at work are braced for further job losses and deep cuts to their terms and conditions of employment. While a 11 hour working day is a long duty period its not exceptional and 12 1/2 hours is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector. If your only flying 140 hours per annum you have it easy. 100 flying hours per 28 days is the summer target for the airlines and these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in. You report 12 QFIs to 12 student QFIs and 22 students. That divides up to less than 3 students per instructor which seems very reasonable and manageable. If students are not flying often enough and your concerned about continuity and safety, then as the QFI you do not send them solo and if the course foot print over runs so be it. If your concerned about flight planning software and other dispatch issues deal with them your not flying much you have all the time in the world to resolve these problems. While the report highlights domestic problems within your Squadron these concerns should have been managed domestically in house using the established chain of command. This report should not have been published in an open forum and it borders on mutiny if it has been published by a military officer. It certainly brings the service into disrepute. Frequent shift changes not getting home when you expect to get home bluntly "thats life in a blue suit" please be thankful that your on salary right now, that your flying a wonderful aeroplane with a ready supply of talented highly motivated and aptitude selected students. Your the QFI you know what the problems are fix those that you can, recruit colleagues to fix those that you cant and when you have done all that you possibly put the kettle on have a cup of tea and chill out. Seriously enjoy being on salary.

I'm sure the Instructors at Valley will be really pleased to have their 'reality checked' by a commercial pilot. The two are quite different and if you served in the military you would well know that. Flight instructor duties are numerous and flying is just one of them. They don't rockstar up to the airport, get handed their flight plan, do a quick weather check and go on their merry way, fly for 7 hours on autopilot, land at their destination and take a crew bus to the hotel. An 11+ hour day is easily achievable with only a couple of relatively short (1-1.5 hour) sorties when numbers are low and you also need to man the auth desk, be duty pilot, rehash training documentation that the RAF has paid someone else to write, etc. All duties that the average 'commercial' pilot does not need to worry themselves about.

We are all, military and civilian, aware that times are very hard for many. But the idea that we should 'just be happy to get a salary' is non-sensical, especially when the roots of this problem were established well before the pandemic. The current situation should not be used as an excuse to ignore, belittled, or ridicule individuals for speaking out.

I remember my time at Valley as a welcome reprieve from the frontline where 12 hour days were the norm. Although students were keen to get out of the island as quickly as possible, the instructors were mostly happy and the flying was plentiful if a little monotonous. I'm truly sorry to hear how things have turned out.

[Ken Scott]

The claims – in a bombshell document obtained by the Daily Mail

Now where might they have sourced that document? Exactly why I stated at post #2 that Facebook & on here weren’t the forums to raise this. Washing our dirty laundry in public might make the author feel better and that ‘he didn’t have any other option as the senior officers wouldn’t listen’ but the DM has managed to roll this up with the totality unrelated Hawk crash at Culdrose to make a major safety point against the RAF (& the FAA but they probably don’t really see there’s a difference).

Something of an own goal as I see it.

[ex-fast-jets]

I have no knowledge of how the RAF Truckie Fleet did it's scheduling - other than to observe that they never went U/S at Deci, Belize, PSAB or Mount Pleasant - but only at Bermuda, Nassau, Nice, Las Vegas etc etc. A challenge for the programmers.............perhaps a predictable challenge!

I have absolutely no idea (or interest) how Commercials do their programming.........

I have done a bit of fast-jet programming - and I do not believe there is a computer programme that could cope with the various demands required to run a successful flying schedule.

Happy to be proven wrong, but the variables - in no particular order - of jet availability/serviceability, aircraft fit, range availability, weather, pilot ability, required supervision, desired progress towards combat readiness requirements, necessary check rides, currency requirements for AAR, night flying, QWI/QFI/IRE checks etc etc - the list is almost endless........It requires someone with a flexible and understanding brain to cope. No matter how clever a computer can be programmed, I do not believe it could do better than an experienced and knowledgeable human.

If Valley has a problem - only those actively involved can resolve it. No external advice from Commercial or Truckie experts can do it. Or from has-beens.

To my old-fashioned way of thinking, this is a very strange way to highlight a problem, but if that is the way of the world, then so be it - I hope (feel sure?) that the modern hierarchy of the RAF is sufficiently familiar with this trendy way of doing things that they are aware and will resolve.

I really do hope so.

As an aside, on my first operational squadron, we had an SAC Ops Clerk who could have very easily run the whole flying programme with due consideration to all of the above...........

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

MFTS has put the RAF Flying Training system into total disarray. The reason is the Senior Officers responsible for signing off on Contracts that are worthless. The only interest that Ascent has is to make a fast buck. Right from the outset the company never resourced enough assets to fulfil the REAL requirement. Not enough QFIs, not enough aircraft, not enough engineers, not enough Ops staff, not enough hours in the day!! How would they even expect 95% serviceability from their aircraft? How could they expect to run a Training Programme on flying for 16 hours a day with no factoring for weather.



You forgot 'the wrong aircraft'. Is any of the Ascent platforms actually able to deliver the same quality of training as its predecessor? I don't know much about the Avenger, but both rotary types have major problems for their intended usage, the Prefect appears to be beset by limitations and is an absurd elementary trainer for helicopter pilots, the Phenom seems to have engines in the wrong place for proper asymmetric work, leaving only the Hawk - which owes any success to being a sexed up version of the original!

[beardy]

It has been clear for quite some time that this contract will not deliver. Is not Ascent simply fulfilling its CONTRACTUAL obligations? I believe that the root cause of this debacle is with those who proposed and drew up the shambles of a contract and those who approved it, signed it off and then awarded it to the cheapest bidder.

Now we are here, what are the options? Without radical action, very few I imagine. Hence the frustration which will ripple down the pipeline for years. Because of the delays in the system the age of first tourists is increasing all the time, how many promotees will have had more than 2 tours? Senior officers will have had less and less front line experience compared to their predecessors. The age profile of each rank will increase. Which intake years will be able to provide a future CAS who has had the breadth and depth of experience required to be an effective leader of the RAF? I would imagine none of the last 5 years and none of the next 5 of the aircrew cadre.

[CAEBr]

......​ leaving only the Hawk - which owes any success to being a sexed up version of the original!​​​​​​

While true, the reality is that the T2 was procured by MoD prior to the formation of MFTS and Ascent, allowing them to take no credit for its selection and leaving them with virtually a 100% unsuitable fleet platform choice.

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Now where might they have sourced that document? Exactly why I stated at post #2 that Facebook & on here weren’t the forums to raise this. Washing our dirty laundry in public might make the author feel better and that ‘he didn’t have any other option as the senior officers wouldn’t listen’ but the DM has managed to roll this up with the totality unrelated Hawk crash at Culdrose to make a major safety point against the RAF (& the FAA but they probably don’t really see there’s a difference).

Something of an own goal as I see it.
Not sure the DM got the information from here. That article clearly mentions male Squadron Leader as the whistleblower. The article copied in this thread makes no mention of these extra snippets.
As for own goal... if it gets the flight safety processes and flying training pressures looked into and problems get solved then it is as good as any England penalty in a world cup against Germany. It says a lot about a situation and the desperation felt when the only way to get a response is via social media.

[High_Expect]

🤦🏼 The Hawk was in this situation until March 2020..... that should read “The Hawk was in this situation from 2011 until 2020”. Whilst I feel for the guys on the Sqn and I’m sad the lessons don’t appear to have been learnt. There is no immediate fix to this - welcome to MFTS BFJT. You could always PVR like we all did. 👍

[vascodegama]

Ex-FJ
I must have been dreaming when I was U/S in MPA, Goose etc. Not only that but the times I have been U/S in Bermuda were down to the FJ serviceability states.

The AT/AAR world tries to chose it's (sic) routings to maximize payload /minimize hours etc-a point totally lost on a certain SLOPs at Goose who knew f all about the rules we worked under.

[huge72]

Whilst not making light of the problems mentioned above and there definitely appears to be one of fatigue amongst others. Yes it's soul destroying for the students to get so little flying and the programme slipping behind for lack of airframes etc. But just maybe they should look at 72's not to distant past. 84 Pilots, 38 Crewman, 26 Wessex, 3 Pumas & the occasional Chinook. 365 days a year tasking for 33 years (1969-2002). Crews scheduled for 21 days then 7 days off, exceeding the 28 day total hours in the 21 day period and having to go to SMO for an extension. SH Ops, SAR and training all programmed on 3 large chinagraphed boards. Different problems admittedly but nobody complained they just got on with it!

[KPax]

I was a very young Ops Clerk on 72 in 1979, the crews would come in and tell you what they wanted to do the next day and I wrote it on the board behind the Ops desk, the operational stuff came in separately. It was a big squadron.

[plans123]

I have done a bit of fast-jet programming - and I do not believe there is a computer programme that could cope with the various demands required to run a successful flying schedule.

Happy to be proven wrong, but the variables - in no particular order - of jet availability/serviceability, aircraft fit, range availability, weather, pilot ability, required supervision, desired progress towards combat readiness requirements, necessary check rides, currency requirements for AAR, night flying, QWI/QFI/IRE checks etc etc - the list is almost endless........It requires someone with a flexible and understanding brain to cope. No matter how clever a computer can be programmed, I do not believe it could do better than an experienced and knowledgeable human.



I can think of two companies off the top of my head that could provide software to do just that. But it all boils down to if you put cr@p in - you get cr@p out.

[lsh]

Whilst a computer might be able to produce an initial basic & efficient flying programme,
I do not think that it could ever replace the myriad of more subtle inputs that an experienced programmer can provide.
There is an awful lot more to consider than just "bums on seats".

lsh

[Chugalug2]

I find posts telling those trying to cope with the course and hopefully graduate under this total shambles of a system to man up and stop moaning to be in very poor taste. If I had had it inflicted upon me I doubt if I would ever have made the grade. This is an utter mess and those who have created it need to be shown the door. I have every sympathy with those who have spelled out the reality on the social networks. A once proud Service has been reduced to near impotence. At least in the 20s and 30s it scratched out an existence whereby the essential centres of excellence were maintained even if numbers and equipment were slashed. Now we seem to have the very lifeblood draining away before our eyes, even while the bottomless bucket is supposedly being continually topped up. The words root and branch come to mind....

[NutLoose]

Call me old fashioned and not experienced in anyway shape or form in negotiating contracts, but why wasn’t there some form of contractual clause inserted to financially hit the company until they rectified the situation to the satisfaction of the RAF and met pre contractual levels in delivering 123 number of students in xyz timeframes, whilst ensuring adequate staffing and aircraft fit for purpose to deliver those aims. And if there is such a clause why isn’t it being I acted upon.

[Billy Ribin]

Nutloose,

How many "once only resets" did 4 Sqn have to have? These had to be introduced as the MFTS contract paid Ascent for aircrew graduating to the front line, not for training instructors.

On a separate note, if the problem on 72 is so dire, where is the input to 25/4 coming from? Are they living off "fat' built up during the Tucano days? Or are there other streams feeding into the T2?

[tucumseh]

Call me old fashioned and not experienced in anyway shape or form in negotiating contracts, but why wasn’t there some form of contractual clause inserted to financially hit the company until they rectified the situation to the satisfaction of the RAF and met pre contractual levels in delivering 123 number of students in xyz timeframes, whilst ensuring adequate staffing and aircraft fit for purpose to deliver those aims. And if there is such a clause why isn’t it being I acted upon.

I have no idea about the contract under discussion, but in general terms Commercial people concentrate on Terms and Conditions, and Technical people (and in this case, one assumes, 22 Gp flying staff drafted in to assist) on the Schedule of Requirements. Perhaps, like the SAR privatisation job, 95% of effort went into T&Cs instead of the other way round? There, experienced SAR aircrew were largely ignored. It is not unusual for a project to be deemed successful because T&Cs have been met, irrespective of time, cost or performance. Much depends on the structure of the project team. If dominated or even led by Commercial, what is described above becomes inevitable. One must recall that it is some years now since the Chief of Defence Procurement decreed he did not want technical people near technical projects. That was a lot of expertise to throw away, and very difficult to regenerate.

As Haddon-Cave noted, you don't put submariners in charge of aircraft. The programme will sink.

[Blackfriar]

As Mrs Friar was a flight crew scheduler for BA (using coloured pencils) they faced targets which regularly changed the focus - save cost, save crew hours etc. However the biggest hurdle they faced was removing the Copenhagen night stop where the fleet chief pilot's girlfriend lived and his golf course was located.
All long since changed to computers but whether anyone knows what the output actually means or they simply feed the machine is a debate.

[HEDP]

Nutloose,

I don't know the commercial construct of the the new system but if it is a company set up to deliver the contract on behalf of a consortium you will likely find that there are commercial barriers to liability falling back to the parent companies. Ascent probably has insufficient funds behind it to deal with penalties incurred through failing to perform. As a result even if penalties are involved, the penalties might bankrupt the business and, with no plan B, MOD can't afford to bankrupt their only plan.

It has happened before......

[NutLoose]

That’s just nuts, why would anyone award a contract to a company that hasn’t the resources behind it to guarantee its services, surely the said company could or should take out an insurance policy to back it up in such cases and that should have been written into the contract.

[Bengo]

Nutloose,

I don't know the commercial construct of the the new system but if it is a company set up to deliver the contract on behalf of a consortium you will likely find that there are commercial barriers to liability falling back to the parent companies. Ascent probably has insufficient funds behind it to deal with penalties incurred through failing to perform. As a result even if penalties are involved, the penalties might bankrupt the business and, with no plan B, MOD can't afford to bankrupt their only plan.

It has happened before......
Normal commercial practice would be to require either a parent company guarantee or a bond (insurance effectively)adequate to ensure that the job can be done. While transferring to another contractor if needed.

What the MoD does I know not.

N

[tucumseh]

Nutloose,

I don't know the commercial construct of the the new system but if it is a company set up to deliver the contract on behalf of a consortium you will likely find that there are commercial barriers to liability falling back to the parent companies. Ascent probably has insufficient funds behind it to deal with penalties incurred through failing to perform. As a result even if penalties are involved, the penalties might bankrupt the business and, with no plan B, MOD can't afford to bankrupt their only plan.

It has happened before......

Indeed. Again, I'm not entirely up-to-date, but a company cannot be awarded a contract that exceeds the value of the company at time of award. Marconi suffered from this some years ago, having been assessed as the winner of a huge contract by some margin. I've also experienced political overrules whereby a company who didn't even bid was awarded an even larger contract, only to state 6 months later that they'd make a loss. MoD staff were then instructed not to apply pressure, and ignore minor things like systems integration and whether it actually worked, regardless of the contracted requirement and regulations. And yet, someone had to make a false declaration that the work had been carried out. Which, I concede, has been ruled perfectly legal. Something to look at here?

[Big Pistons Forever]

The reality is that the process of outsourcing public work to the private sector almost always fails because there is no incentive for the public servants to prioritize quality. The political direction is to show cost savings above all else so that the politicians can take credit for being such awesome stewards of the public purse.

The private sector knows this and therefore will prepare a contract that represents the minimum possible package that will only work if everything goes perfectly, always. When there is the inevitable intrusion of reality the company first points to the contract to dodge responsibility and then loads on extra cost plus billing to provide the service they were supposed to provide in the first place.

By the time the program fails everyone on the government side has moved on to new jobs and can evade responsibility.

The really sad part of this story is other Air Forces have gone down the contracted training route before and invariably the end result is less training for more money. Unfortunately governments are loath to learn from the mistakes of others as the senior mandarins are convinced that under there outstanding leadership “this time it will be different” ......

Furthermore we haven’t even touched on the problem of compartmentalizing Air Force capabilities, instead of taking a wholistic view of the service.

Training squadrons represent a break for personnel from front line squadrons who for 3 years know they probably won’t be deployed and will usually have a stable relatively predictable schedule. Take that away and retention suffers which has its own very significant costs, but of course the pointy heads in charge of outsourcing don’t have to take responsibility for that. The true organizational costs never have to be accounted for and no senior leader is ever going to get credit for that kind of strategic thinking, assuming they are even capable of that level of understanding of the organization they are leading.

[beardy]

no senior leader is ever going to get credit for that kind of strategic thinking, assuming they are even capable of that level of understanding of the organization they are leading.


Sadly so true.

[LeftBlank]

The reality is that the process of outsourcing public work to the private sector almost always fails because there is no incentive for the public servants to prioritize quality. The political direction is to show cost savings above all else so that the politicians can take credit for being such awesome stewards of the public purse.

The private sector knows this and therefore will prepare a contract that represents the minimum possible package that will only work if everything goes perfectly, always. When there is the inevitable intrusion of reality the company first points to the contract to dodge responsibility and then loads on extra cost plus billing to provide the service they were supposed to provide in the first place.

By the time the program fails everyone on the government side has moved on to new jobs and can evade responsibility.

The really sad part of this story is other Air Forces have gone down the contracted training route before and invariably the end result is less training for more money. Unfortunately governments are loath to learn from the mistakes of others as the senior mandarins are convinced that under there outstanding leadership “this time it will be different” ......
.

Big Pistons Forever, you are 100% correct.
You only have to look at the recent CAA reports on the failures of the U.K. ATC management following privatisation to see where things are going with this.
Best of luck to those currently serving.

[Burnswannabe]

There is, I suspect, a surprisily large amount of naivety being shown here. Not in the specifics of the the MFTS issue itself but in the concept of how contracts work in general. I have seen from both side of the fence how poorly contracts are tendered/met. The MOD in general has a terrible habit of writing the contract first and then later putting the effort in to what the actual real requirement is. Thus, the contractor bids low to meet the entirely optimistic requirement knowing they will not be held to it because in fact the task they have been asked to meet is probably only 50% of the true need and so even if they hit all their targets, or not, the contract is doomed to fail. In that instance would you go all out, spend all of the company resource and still fail to hit anyone's idea of the quality required or would you draw in to a defensive position and point out that the contract is being met and the company stays afloat. Anyone who says the former has no idea how commercial interest works (and probably works for DE&S commercial). The mission creep, poorly defined requirements and constant push for in-year savings destroys programmes from the bottom line up.
In this instance, did the company over promise - probably. Could the MOD recognise this and see through the bid - undeniably it could and arguably it did. Did the MOD award the contract anyway - history shows yes. Reap what you sow/get what you pay for/if it seems to good to be true....pick your trite phrase as they all apply.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Blaming Ascent for this fiasco is like blaming the shark who attacked the swimmer with an arm full of bloody fish. Ascent is doing what shareholders expect of their management, maximizing profits.

This is 100% on MOD. Their failure to adequately define the requirement, set realistic project deliverables, mandate the project milestone scheduling, and impose suitable contract compliance obligations; guaranteed project failure.

This is the poster child for the government truism. “ There will never be enough time or money available to do the job right, but there will always be enough time and money available to do the job over”

The ultimate irony is that if this project was properly contracted in the first place the resulting bids would have been extremely high to reflect the actual costs of providing a safe, effective and efficient training scheme plus the expected Industry profit; it would likely have been abandoned at the outset.

I wish I could articulate a solution, rather than just moan about the problem, but I see no realistically achievable alternative. Government procurement is profoundly broken and there is not enough political upside to fix it.

One of the most interesting contracting stories, IMO, is the USAF Boeing KC 46 Tanker saga. For the first time in living memory the US government imposed a fixed price contract with real deliverables. Boeing undoubtedly figured that they could wiggle out of the consequences of their low bid, but found out to their chagrin that they actually had to take responsibility for their failures. They are now 5.4 billion and counting in the red on this contract.

In a perfect world this would be a wake up call to industry that the government was getting serious about contracting reform and their bids better reflect reality. In the real world Boeing and the other aerospace contractors put on full court press to prevent these kind of contracts in the future and the USAF is now on record that they will not continue with this “failed” contracting model......

[sittingstress]

is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector - these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in - your not flying much you have all the time in the world to resolve these problem - This report borders on mutiny if it has been published by a military officer - bluntly "thats life in a blue suit" please be thankful that your on salary right now - seriously enjoy being on salary.

I have snipped down your diatribe to the relevant points, the parts which could bore a glass eye to sleep have been removed in order to preserve the will to live for the rest of us. We are all entitled to an opinion but in this instance mine is unique as I am not aircrew, either military or commercial however, if I have picked up on your ill-informed and bitter points above then you really are in trouble. You come across as a horrid, jealous type with a huge chip on both shoulders. "That's life in a blue suit?" How the hell would you know? If I am mistaken and you did indeed serve in HM Armed Forces I bet you were an utter joy to crew with. I hate to stereotype but adjectives for you which spring to mind include, passed over, ancient, passed over, mood hoover, passed over and passed over. I have no horse in this race but the dribble you typed has irked me. I would like to suggest you swan off back to your outrageously long days doing a boring, (flying or not it is still boring) single strand job and leave the issue at hand to those who know best, not me clearly.

It took me a while to put my finger on it but I think you are the sort of chap who owns and uses a gas BBQ.

[Professor Plum]

Paul,

Commercial Reality Check Guys !
30 per cent of professional pilots throughout the world are unemployed with little to no chance of finding work in the medium term. 17 % of professional pilots are furloughed with little to no chance of significant numbers returning to work in the short to medium term. Those remaining at work are braced for further job losses and deep cuts to their terms and conditions of employment. While a 11 hour working day is a long duty period its not exceptional and 12 1/2 hours is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector. If your only flying 140 hours per annum you have it easy. 100 flying hours per 28 days is the summer target for the airlines and these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in. You report 12 QFIs to 12 student QFIs and 22 students. That divides up to less than 3 students per instructor which seems very reasonable and manageable. If students are not flying often enough and your concerned about continuity and safety, then as the QFI you do not send them solo and if the course foot print over runs so be it. If your concerned about flight planning software and other dispatch issues deal with them your not flying much you have all the time in the world to resolve these problems. While the report highlights domestic problems within your Squadron these concerns should have been managed domestically in house using the established chain of command. This report should not have been published in an open forum and it borders on mutiny if it has been published by a military officer. It certainly brings the service into disrepute. Frequent shift changes not getting home when you expect to get home bluntly "thats life in a blue suit" please be thankful that your on salary right now, that your flying a wonderful aeroplane with a ready supply of talented highly motivated and aptitude selected students. Your the QFI you know what the problems are fix those that you can, recruit colleagues to fix those that you cant and when you have done all that you possibly put the kettle on have a cup of tea and chill out. Seriously enjoy being on salary.

Genuine question - do you know what an average “day in the life of” a military pilot/QFI is? I ask, as I sincerely hope you do, before posting what I have quoted above from you.

Do you suggest that because “thats life in a blue suit” people should just shut up and not report their flight safety concerns using their companies safety management system?! I’d like to think your company promotes honest and open reporting. I am in violent agreement that this should not have ended in an open forum, although I see no evidence of the mutiny you claim, just some instructors that care about their students, who want to see the system work. A lot of the points/suggestions you raise aren’t being addressed, hence the report in the first place.

By the way, about a third of the QFI’s don’t wear a blue suit. Do you know much about Ascent? (That's another genuine question).

Regarding the “reality check”. We (in the military) are well aware of the pandemics effect on the industry. I am grateful for a job, when a lot of friends don’t have one. I go back to the point i made earlier. Do you expect people to shut up and get on with it simply because there aren’t many jobs around? Really not sure what point you are trying to make by bringing job market to this argument.

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[NutLoose]

One of the most interesting contracting stories, IMO, is the USAF Boeing KC 46 Tanker saga. For the first time in living memory the US government imposed a fixed price contract with real deliverables. Boeing undoubtedly figured that they could wiggle out of the consequences of their low bid, but found out to their chagrin that they actually had to take responsibility for their failures. They are now 5.4 billion and counting in the red on this contract.

In a perfect world this would be a wake up call to industry that the government was getting serious about contracting reform and their bids better reflect reality. In the real world Boeing and the other aerospace contractors put on full court press to prevent these kind of contracts in the future and the USAF is now on record that they will not continue with this “failed” contracting model......

They have probably got savvy after awarding the UH-72 Lakota helicopter contract to what was EADS US and is now Airbus Helicopters based on the EC-145 Civilian model, now 450 odd helicopters in and all delivered on budget and on time. Not only that, but where as in the past the US would fund and pay for the development of midlife update and modernisation programmes, these costs are covered by Airbus through their normal development of the Civilian model.



..

[wiggy]

While a 11 hour working day is a long duty period its not exceptional and 12 1/2 hours is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector. If your only flying 140 hours per annum you have it easy. 100 flying hours per 28 days is the summer target for the airlines and these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in..

Paul..I'll join the pile in...

Like others here I've had a foot in both camps..airline flying for several decades before Covid precipitated retirement, before that amongst other things QFI'ing (JPs) both at an FTS and at CFS and having lived both the military and the civilian dream :hmm: IMHO you simply cannot compare the two roles as it seem you are attempting to do, simply by using flying hours.

On the QFIing side I vividly recall the sequence of rushing to early "met" every day, then brief/sortie/ de-brief/write up sortie to go in students file... then repeat, 3 in a day , sandwich grabbed on the turn, and then at the end of this "three flying hour" day if you had the secondary duty of scheduler another hour or two writing the next days programme. For others there was usually some other form of squadron or station duties that had to be fitted in.

Even a two sortie ("two flying hour") day often meant half a day in the Tower as Duty Instructor or behind the squadron ops desk running the programme in addition to the flying...

When I moved on to the civilian world I suddenly discovered there was no mandatory "met brief",at 0715/0800, no sitting in operations keeping the plan running, no mandatory Friday afternoon ground training, no none-flying related secondary duties. No going into work everyday, even if not rostered just in case the programme changed.....and you sure as heck, at least where I was in the civilian world, didn't expect the default lunch to be a bag of crisps eaten whilst walking from the desk where you'd been writing a report to the briefing room to start briefing your third student of the day..

.....Oh heck, I've gone all Four Yorkshiremen.....:uhoh:

I do however certainly also recognise that working to a limit of 900 block hours a year in the civilian world, and the disruption on the body due to switching day/night/lates/earlies is ******* fatiguing..

In short flying hours is a pretty lousy metric for measuring aircrew work, ..we all know MOL likes to claim the 900 hours limit means civilian pilots "only" work a handful of weeks a year, and we know (don't we?) that's highly misleading, well you're (perhaps naively) doing similar with your 140 hours comment...

[idle stop]

Not looking for a halo, but back in the day, circa late 1981 at 1 Sqn, 2 FTS, (Gazelles) my QHI day was something like this: 07:30 arrive at Sqn to see how many aircraft we had actually been allocated from our wish-list the evening before; haggle with Duty Flight Commander at CFS(H) to attempt to find some extra sorties and resurrect a moribund flypro. Brief, fly, debrief usually 4 sorties. Not time to write them all up. Cobble together programme for next day. Hopefully leave at 18:00, taking one or student folders to write up. Repeat....
Did we complain? Not at all.
Fast forward a few years. Working for a well-known civilian helicopter operator, jumping through rigorous hoops to have selected two aircraft types for DHFS. The H135 in its then guise was too new to consider, and in any case the first RW trainer was to be only Single-Engine. But noted during my evaluation of the 135 for said international company that there was restricted headroom in the back. As to the twin, the hands-down winner was the Bell 412 for the rear crew training role, as well as up front. The BK-117, as then was, had been deemed short of space even with the control runs cabinet behind the pilot seats removed: as was the then EC proposal...which morphed into the 145.
Fast forward even further. Imagine my surprise when the 135/145 combo was selected to replace the 350 and 412. Whatever happened to all the careful decisions that were made in 1996? What had changed in the training role? Oh, and now there was a 350-B3 and a 412 with FADEC, glass cockpit, and FastFin tailfin to improve yaw authority in the hover. The 135 and 145 are fine aircraft, but Role Relation should not just be the province of the tp......

[Big Pistons Forever]

They have probably got savvy after awarding the UH-72 Lakota helicopter contract to what was EADS US and is now Airbus Helicopters based on the EC-145 Civilian model, now 450 odd helicopters in and all delivered on budget and on time. Not only that, but where as in the past the US would fund and pay for the development of midlife update and modernisation programmes, these costs are covered by Airbus through their normal development of the Civilian model.



..

I am not sure that this is a representative example as the UH-72 is basically the civilian helicopter with a new paint job because it is not being used operationally, only as a trainer. Fixed price contracting becomes a lot more problematical when bespoke military requirements are called for to enable operational capabilities. Nevertheless it is still encouraging to see contracting done right for a change.

When Canada upgraded the C130 fleet to the J model the then Chief of the Defense Staff insisted that Canada would buy a bog standard USAF airframe. There was extreme push back from inside the Air Force good idea club who had all sorts of reasons why it had to be "Candain-ized.". CDS ignore all the advice and the result was new C 130 J airframes on time and thanks to a favorable currency fluctuation significantly under budget. Fast forward a few years and the CDS has retired when it is time to buy some new Chinooks. This time the idea that Canada get the stock US Army CH-47F airframe is ignored and after they are Canadian-ized on a cost plus basis, the unit cost is 75% higher than the US Army is paying..... .

[Countdown begins]

I can’t be bothered to re-read the post by some utter turkey above have a tantrum about if this or FB is the place to discus.
if the system you have isn’t working then... of course it is.
From the CAS down to the Sqn LAC you answer to the taxpayer, who pays for your shiny kit.
The intermediary here is the government who get asked the interesting questions by tax payer.
You are training people to fight, it’s a good idea to be efficient and effective with that training. It doesn’t read like that is happening at all, and those that now resort to ‘whistle blowing’ don’t want the system to fail, really.
This is why the head of the RAF needs to be a civilian. Not someone who makes Xmas videos.

[skua]

"Not someone who makes Xmas videos."
Harsh, but fair. Though think his heart is in the right place.

[ex-fast-jets]

"This is why the head of the RAF needs to be a civilian"

May your God help us if this ever comes to pass.......

I would retire immediately........

Oops, I have retired already - thankfully..............

[Ewan Whosearmy]

"This is why the head of the RAF needs to be a civilian"

May your God help us if this ever comes to pass.......

I would retire immediately........

Oops, I have retired already - thankfully..............

The heretofore mentioned civilian head of the RAF could be ex-RAF. Would that really be so bad?

[cynicalint]

"The heretofore mentioned civilian head of the RAF could be ex-RAF. Would that really be so bad?
"Perhaps the Secretary of State for defence could be a serving Officer of any service. CDS Perhaps?

[popeye107]

"The heretofore mentioned civilian head of the RAF could be ex-RAF. Would that really be so bad?
"Perhaps the Secretary of State for defence could be a serving Officer of any service. CDS Perhaps?
Good point, should it be law? If an when Labour get in they may well struggle.
I think an experienced CEO would easily manage the RAF, finance acumen and real world experience are met. Not driving a mower through the Mess, like we did in Lasrbruch.

[taxydual]

Having heard of an unfortunate interaction at Lossiemouth last week, I would say leadership and common sense go no higher than Flt Lt now, and above that stupidity and arrogance excel.

Oh do tell. We're all ears.

[PICKS135]

Currently reading thisTales From the Headquarters: A year at RAF CranwellSeems nothing has changed just the prices keep going up, and people just want to keep ticking pre-promotion boxes.