RAF multi-engine training at Kidlington?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - thanks for the complement about our standards at Jerez. As you may know, we train pilots for a number of airlines (including BA) and the Jet sim course we do gets them up to speed on the faster aeroplane and jet handling - but it is quite a step up.
By the time BA cadet ahs done 44 hours (including the FHT) nearly all of which ahs been hand flown, he is up to speed on their SOP, procedural flying (good for situational awareness) and handling emergencies (engine failures at all phases of flight, fires, pressurisation failures, diversione etc.).
I am almost always astounded by the standard these chaps (and chapesses) achieve in such a short time -- if we had more groundschool time than the current week we could really do some good work.
BA reckon that the course we do saves them £1.5 million per year in reduced training at type conversion and line training level, and they reduced the B737 course from 64 to 48 hours sim time as a direct result of what we do.
I was not aware of how badly the standard had got at METS - but as always, tinkering with one budget at the expense of others does keep the bean counters happpy.
However, you are not alone, the awful influence of the bean counter is everywhere in commercial aviation and training - so we know how you feel.
By the time BA cadet ahs done 44 hours (including the FHT) nearly all of which ahs been hand flown, he is up to speed on their SOP, procedural flying (good for situational awareness) and handling emergencies (engine failures at all phases of flight, fires, pressurisation failures, diversione etc.).
I am almost always astounded by the standard these chaps (and chapesses) achieve in such a short time -- if we had more groundschool time than the current week we could really do some good work.
BA reckon that the course we do saves them £1.5 million per year in reduced training at type conversion and line training level, and they reduced the B737 course from 64 to 48 hours sim time as a direct result of what we do.
I was not aware of how badly the standard had got at METS - but as always, tinkering with one budget at the expense of others does keep the bean counters happpy.
However, you are not alone, the awful influence of the bean counter is everywhere in commercial aviation and training - so we know how you feel.
As the Training Command desk officer who was "instructed" to introduce civvy ME training in 1975 and mothball the then new Jetstream fleet, I seem to see my past life passing before me (again).!!!!!!
DB6 - as a Basic Flying Training aeroplane, the T67 is inadequate. As an Elementary Flying Training aeroplane, it has a dismal roll rate!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this may be provocative, but if we have to give up any flying training in the military then surely METS would be the least harmful option? I only say this as there are more elements of ME flying that are non-military than in the FJ or RW world. I accept that low level and formation are skills used in some aspects of the ME world, but (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't flying your VC10/Tristar/E3D/BAe 146 have a lot of similarity with the way civvy a/c are flown?
As for using OATS - they are a company in decline, with a p**s poor management run by accountants (sound familiar). I think it extremely unlikely that there will be any new a/c to solve the servicability problems they currently have.
...said my bit, now diving for cover...!
As for using OATS - they are a company in decline, with a p**s poor management run by accountants (sound familiar). I think it extremely unlikely that there will be any new a/c to solve the servicability problems they currently have.
...said my bit, now diving for cover...!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Duns Tew, Oxfordshire. England. UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oxford Aviation College(Nee CSE, who still exist but with Signature and... oh forget it!) are planning to do a lot of flt.trg. in the USA now!, maybe thats to make space for RAF multi trg, but don't think so!... but the good news is... Kidlington has the superb Ovisher Tandoori, nowhere as good as that in Lincs, or Lyn or BZN, I can assure you! 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't surprise me if this was the start of the end for METS. On paper it would look cheaper for MOD to lease a fleet of turbo-twins to be operated by Kidlington - who could use spare capacity on the ac for civi instruction. Then when no-one is looking, the specialist requirement (Herc tac LL/formation, maritime LL, etc) would be added to the OCU syllabus. No one would think to compare the total cost (Oxford + extra OCU time) with the nett savings in civilianising MET.
We have habit of changing the way we do business in this country, all in the name of the worship of the God MONEY. More often than not, insufficient thought is given to the long term consequences - short term savings look good and enhance careers. In about 15-20 years time it will change again and we will be back to the PFS-BFTS-AFT of the late 60s/early 70s.
In the meantime, we will have lost a complete generation whose training is not a patch on the tried and tested system which was once the envy of the world. Just like education, health,....
We have habit of changing the way we do business in this country, all in the name of the worship of the God MONEY. More often than not, insufficient thought is given to the long term consequences - short term savings look good and enhance careers. In about 15-20 years time it will change again and we will be back to the PFS-BFTS-AFT of the late 60s/early 70s.
In the meantime, we will have lost a complete generation whose training is not a patch on the tried and tested system which was once the envy of the world. Just like education, health,....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it this is just a stop gap solution until the introduction of MFTS (did I just say that, ha, ha). The current training system for ME pilots is woefully inadequate. At best they get 100hrs single piston (Firefly), broken down to JEFTS and MELIN. At worst 100hrs Bulldog spread over 4 University years and a 30hr MELIN top-up. They then step from that to the Jetstream which a considerable number find quite a challenge.
The Jetstream is falling to pieces, poor serviceability and recurring snags are commonplace. The Oxford plan is just a cheap unstudied method of squeezing a few extra pilots through for OCU places.
We are supposed to be Investors In People (Ha), are we investing in our young pilots by given them such minimal or slap dash training, I think not.
I remember when we trained for excellence, now perhaps we train for competence (or maybe even mediocrity.)
Now that’s off my chest where’s those 2 pencils - Wibble.
The Jetstream is falling to pieces, poor serviceability and recurring snags are commonplace. The Oxford plan is just a cheap unstudied method of squeezing a few extra pilots through for OCU places.
We are supposed to be Investors In People (Ha), are we investing in our young pilots by given them such minimal or slap dash training, I think not.
I remember when we trained for excellence, now perhaps we train for competence (or maybe even mediocrity.)
Now that’s off my chest where’s those 2 pencils - Wibble.
Absolutely right mate. The current system of expecting UASs to stream candidates before IOT (or, if they've got any sense, as DEPs after IOT) might be OK for the chosen few who still get a half-decent BFT course (albeit on the Tincan), but the MELIN-lemons are given very pi$$-poor training. Neither flying nor theoretical training are anywhere near adequate - and not a patch on the old JP/Pig or Wetdream route of the early 70s (before the dreaded 'Systems approach to training').
And I agree with the statement you made at RIAT, Wg Cdr-from-PTC-you-know-who-you-are, MFTS is indeed the 'crock of $hit' you referred to it as!
And I agree with the statement you made at RIAT, Wg Cdr-from-PTC-you-know-who-you-are, MFTS is indeed the 'crock of $hit' you referred to it as!
The Brit Bretheren may be interested to know that a similar exercise has been played out with the RAAF and BAe (Aust) in basic training over the last four years, with joint civil Fis and QFIs. Before this, school standards were (as you could imagine) debatable with accountants presiding over what could only be described as a commercial facade, however the resulting painful process saw the school in question now pushed into one exclusively for mil trainees, and the overall product is sound. Ex mil QFIs are sought as civil staff, but the pay is not very competitive, and commercial pressures still keep niggling away. A little birdy whispered to me that RAAF/BAe had done a deal before the whole experiment started……….......…sound familiar?
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit off the subject but I'd have to quibble about the Firefly, BEags old fruit. An EFT aircraft is all it pretends to be in its present role and, while it doesn't have the roll rate of an Extra 300 it's good enough for basic aeros. And what other machine can fly a full procedural ILS (in IMC), overshoot and climb to FL100 in less than 10 mins (while keeping your tootsies warm with its cockpit heater), spin down, fly an intermediate aerobatic sequence including outside loop and still be home in time for tea and kippers? And it's British built to boot. I've seen worse.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear its all going horribly wrong...I was a QFI on METS and enjoyed the experience. Also taught on the grey 4 jet just up the road from Cranwell. Alas getting gas requires formation teaching...the powers at be seem to be in the straw clutching business again!
Whether Teutor or Firefly, neither is an adequate aircraft for teaching the range of skills needed pre-Wetdream. A sucession of MELIN-lemons have proved what a cr@p idea that is......
OK - As a Chipmunk replacement, the T67M260 is probably fine. As a replacement for teaching half of a Jet Provost course, it certainly isn't!
OK - As a Chipmunk replacement, the T67M260 is probably fine. As a replacement for teaching half of a Jet Provost course, it certainly isn't!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle...
Don't be such a plonker! Which single-engine aircraft ever was a suitable lead into Jetstream? Skills can be assessed easily on Tutor or Firefly and recommendations made as to the likelyhood of success downstream. Seems to me you make quite a few rash comments on these pages!
P.S. This is intended as friendly banter
Don't be such a plonker! Which single-engine aircraft ever was a suitable lead into Jetstream? Skills can be assessed easily on Tutor or Firefly and recommendations made as to the likelyhood of success downstream. Seems to me you make quite a few rash comments on these pages!
P.S. This is intended as friendly banter
Which SE aircraft was ever a suitable lead-in to the wretched Wetdream? The Jet Provost. Or Tucano. The JP even graduated 3 pilots to a non-AFT multi course on the Andover in 1974 - and hundreds of pilots onto the Pig (Varsity for youngsters) in earlier years.
By the way - does that Slingsby motor glider which we now have to use for 21st century military flying training really have fabric-covered ailerons? Or do they just look like that??
By the way - does that Slingsby motor glider which we now have to use for 21st century military flying training really have fabric-covered ailerons? Or do they just look like that??
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
The T67M's a pretty good piece of kit, you'll find, with good performance, and massively strong airframe. It's only down-side is its roll-rate, but that doesn't matter if you're doing all your procedural stuff, pre-METS.
As for completing a BFT cse prior to METS, thats absolute pants. Sure you've got some more hours in, and better hands, but you aint training good hands on the wet-dream.
Formation can be covered at EFT/MELIN, and the stude can pick it up again on the OCU, if it's relevant.
The current METS course is pretty comprehensive, and if the venerable Jetstream has to go, as is surely must by now, then a 'Basic' METS package on the Seneca would be fine, followed by a package on the Dominie, for all the chaps going MEJet.
You complain about the falling standards on the Skoda now, but that's because you're no longer grtting the 'Cream' of graduates, since you stepped out of the 'Captain-must-be-a-Sqn Ldr-Days'. As far as waste of money goes, what is it about your jet that warrants it the longest OCU in the RAF. Surely it's not more demanding than a GR7?
Farfrom...
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: Farfrompuken ]
The T67M's a pretty good piece of kit, you'll find, with good performance, and massively strong airframe. It's only down-side is its roll-rate, but that doesn't matter if you're doing all your procedural stuff, pre-METS.
As for completing a BFT cse prior to METS, thats absolute pants. Sure you've got some more hours in, and better hands, but you aint training good hands on the wet-dream.
Formation can be covered at EFT/MELIN, and the stude can pick it up again on the OCU, if it's relevant.
The current METS course is pretty comprehensive, and if the venerable Jetstream has to go, as is surely must by now, then a 'Basic' METS package on the Seneca would be fine, followed by a package on the Dominie, for all the chaps going MEJet.
You complain about the falling standards on the Skoda now, but that's because you're no longer grtting the 'Cream' of graduates, since you stepped out of the 'Captain-must-be-a-Sqn Ldr-Days'. As far as waste of money goes, what is it about your jet that warrants it the longest OCU in the RAF. Surely it's not more demanding than a GR7?
Farfrom...
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: Farfrompuken ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford(ish)
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to one of the original questions; is it a FJ x-over?
3 guinea pigs for new course.
1 from hawk (don't know 208 or 19), 1 from Puma OCF, 1 from mid Tincan cse.
Shortened ground school at Cranwell then to Oxford.
Wait out.
3 guinea pigs for new course.
1 from hawk (don't know 208 or 19), 1 from Puma OCF, 1 from mid Tincan cse.
Shortened ground school at Cranwell then to Oxford.
Wait out.
Farfrompuken - the T67M260 is a nice little light aeroplane apart from the woeful roll rate. And that's about it.
We do need people with good pairs of hands to fly things like the '10, TriStar, 130J and C-17 as, apart from the C-17, they require old-fashioned stick-and-rudder skills. We do need people with acceptable formation skills as it's ridiculous to train people up at several thousands of pounds an hour rather than a few hundred on the Tucano.
The '10 conversion is now longer because all courses are done concurrently. It's no longer than the old '10 course, plus the VC10C > K course, plus the AAR Role conversion course added together - which is what it now is.
Best solution - use UASs purely for air experience, send all pilots to do a 60 hr EFTS then send all the ME streamed pilots to do all their training in the US on the Texan II and Jayhawk.
PS - Forgot to add. We stepped out of the 'captain-must-be-a-sqn-ldr' days in 1983!
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
We do need people with good pairs of hands to fly things like the '10, TriStar, 130J and C-17 as, apart from the C-17, they require old-fashioned stick-and-rudder skills. We do need people with acceptable formation skills as it's ridiculous to train people up at several thousands of pounds an hour rather than a few hundred on the Tucano.
The '10 conversion is now longer because all courses are done concurrently. It's no longer than the old '10 course, plus the VC10C > K course, plus the AAR Role conversion course added together - which is what it now is.
Best solution - use UASs purely for air experience, send all pilots to do a 60 hr EFTS then send all the ME streamed pilots to do all their training in the US on the Texan II and Jayhawk.
PS - Forgot to add. We stepped out of the 'captain-must-be-a-sqn-ldr' days in 1983!
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]