Surely not!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Oop North
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely not!!!
Have a look at this:
http://www.motivark.com/homescreen.asp
Select the option, 'Training Top Gun Military Flying Experience'
Apparently HCS (Civvy Operators of JEFTS) have done a deal with 'Motivark' to fly Joe Bloggs on pleasure flights at Church Fenton and Barkston Heath. Using, of course, aircraft and instructors intended to be used by JEFTS studes. First flights begin this month, allegedly.
Your thoughts Ladies and Gentlemen....
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: lordG ]
http://www.motivark.com/homescreen.asp
Select the option, 'Training Top Gun Military Flying Experience'
Apparently HCS (Civvy Operators of JEFTS) have done a deal with 'Motivark' to fly Joe Bloggs on pleasure flights at Church Fenton and Barkston Heath. Using, of course, aircraft and instructors intended to be used by JEFTS studes. First flights begin this month, allegedly.
Your thoughts Ladies and Gentlemen....
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: lordG ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Land that time forgot
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did EFT not start up the Direct Entrant flights at various UAS`s around the country to take the burden off the JEFTS system?! I know YUAS has a large DE flt that shares aircraft with an already large UAS and AEF. This idea seems to suggest that JEFTS have more than enough spare capacity to finish courses on time, or in fact if that isnt a problem, take larger courses. Even if this operation goes on at weekends or evenings, is this not going to cause a large increase in engineering time, which in civvy land costs money. Also, will the unservicabilities caused during these operations run over into the instructional time given to the joint service students trying to learn to fly as a career! Will this not cause the instructors to work extra to make up for lost time due to U/S aircraft or one of their compadres flying joe civvy on a 30min formation sightsee. I only pose these questions because it was my initial thoughts on the subject. I suppose we can only wait and see what happens when the weather starts to grip the Vale of York and Lincolnshire in the coming months. Will courses slip their finish dates because of the above questions or will the priority lie with satisfying the paying punter who has travelled all day to fly rather than the studes who are there every day? An interesting topic that those with far more knowledge than I can probably answer far better. Im off to the Britney thread to try my luck!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds a reasonable idea to me, maybe the MOD might make some money out of it. Maybe all the RAF studes losing out on slots can make up their hours on Piper Warriors at Kidlington. In fact, why don't we widen the scheme to Tucano and Hawk flights - similar to the Russian MiG trips you can buy from Boots?!!
I wonder which rocket scientist thought of this idea - I bet all the lads and lasses currently on holding for months on end are dead chuffed! Bravo for another excellent decision in the training world!
I wonder which rocket scientist thought of this idea - I bet all the lads and lasses currently on holding for months on end are dead chuffed! Bravo for another excellent decision in the training world!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Have to say that my initial gut reaction was surprise in the least but....
I'm sure that in the contract, the aircraft owner will have a performance indicator of number of hours to be provided, serviceability rates, aircraft available etc. This is simply what the MOD would have negotiated. Now if the contractor has an excess capacity what is wrong with them using it for third party revenue generation? If the MOD is in agreement, seems sensible to me. As a civilian company they have a right (and indeed need) to make the balance sheet budget and generate profit.
Now considering guys and girls holding etc that is a different matter. If there is excess capacity perhaps the MOD doesn't want it or maybe it can't afford it.
As for using military airfields? Hope the locals don't complain about the extra weekend noise, but on the other hand maybe the services will get some reasonable PR who knows.
But overall, it doesn't surprise me. Don't forget the FSTA project will use the aircraft for third party revenue generation too (maybe, if it ever happens!)
I'm sure that in the contract, the aircraft owner will have a performance indicator of number of hours to be provided, serviceability rates, aircraft available etc. This is simply what the MOD would have negotiated. Now if the contractor has an excess capacity what is wrong with them using it for third party revenue generation? If the MOD is in agreement, seems sensible to me. As a civilian company they have a right (and indeed need) to make the balance sheet budget and generate profit.
Now considering guys and girls holding etc that is a different matter. If there is excess capacity perhaps the MOD doesn't want it or maybe it can't afford it.
As for using military airfields? Hope the locals don't complain about the extra weekend noise, but on the other hand maybe the services will get some reasonable PR who knows.
But overall, it doesn't surprise me. Don't forget the FSTA project will use the aircraft for third party revenue generation too (maybe, if it ever happens!)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Down the road from RAF Coleby Grange.
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprised in the slightest.
So long as VT Aerospace don't follow suit. Imagine the sales blurb:
Kitted out in full flying gear (befitting of the next Space Shuttle Launch!) you'll attend a detailed safety briefing before retiring to the crewroom to drink tea with some of the world's top military pilots, waiting for VMC.
Taxiing out onto the runway, it's a final instrument check before noticing that the f*****g engine has cut-out again.
Taking off in formation ("Where's the lead? Oh yeah - behind the bl***y canopy arch") you will then enjoy 20 airborne minutes of 'pure adrenalin' as you climb to FL050. Upon realising that you aren't cleared to do any aeros, you'll descend back into low-level for a real military NAVEX.
Flying at heights not below 500 feet and being sat alongside (not behind) your pilot (who has already twice flown 'Stalling 2', plus 'Circuit Consol 1' today) you will enjoy spectacular views as you repeatedly bounce off other aircraft who have not seen you.
After landing with a gross fuel imbalance, it's a gentle taxi in with the cockpit canopy open, allowing you to barf the remains of your lunch over the wing.
Glad to see they've got the priorities right again.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Blue Stuff ]
So long as VT Aerospace don't follow suit. Imagine the sales blurb:
Kitted out in full flying gear (befitting of the next Space Shuttle Launch!) you'll attend a detailed safety briefing before retiring to the crewroom to drink tea with some of the world's top military pilots, waiting for VMC.
Taxiing out onto the runway, it's a final instrument check before noticing that the f*****g engine has cut-out again.
Taking off in formation ("Where's the lead? Oh yeah - behind the bl***y canopy arch") you will then enjoy 20 airborne minutes of 'pure adrenalin' as you climb to FL050. Upon realising that you aren't cleared to do any aeros, you'll descend back into low-level for a real military NAVEX.
Flying at heights not below 500 feet and being sat alongside (not behind) your pilot (who has already twice flown 'Stalling 2', plus 'Circuit Consol 1' today) you will enjoy spectacular views as you repeatedly bounce off other aircraft who have not seen you.
After landing with a gross fuel imbalance, it's a gentle taxi in with the cockpit canopy open, allowing you to barf the remains of your lunch over the wing.
Glad to see they've got the priorities right again.
[ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Blue Stuff ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sangiovese
Surely holding is an issue here! It was made public not that long ago that holding was necesary because JEFTS didn't have the capacity for all the studes currently awaiting EFT. Hence the avenue of flights on UASs to ease the burden was explored. With frontline pilot shortfalls at their greatest ever, surely all efforts should be in getting these guys through the system!!
If JEFTS is too busy for them, fair enough. If JEFTS has enough spare capacity to give civvie joyrides at the expense of guys waiting in the system - and no doubt doing shi##y jobs - because of, for example, a badly written contract, than something needs to be done about it!
Even if these flights are done at weekends, they still use instructors and may well send back a/c u/s on Sunday night that cock up Monday's programme!
Just a gut reaction to this scheme, but it seems ludicrous to me.
Surely holding is an issue here! It was made public not that long ago that holding was necesary because JEFTS didn't have the capacity for all the studes currently awaiting EFT. Hence the avenue of flights on UASs to ease the burden was explored. With frontline pilot shortfalls at their greatest ever, surely all efforts should be in getting these guys through the system!!
If JEFTS is too busy for them, fair enough. If JEFTS has enough spare capacity to give civvie joyrides at the expense of guys waiting in the system - and no doubt doing shi##y jobs - because of, for example, a badly written contract, than something needs to be done about it!
Even if these flights are done at weekends, they still use instructors and may well send back a/c u/s on Sunday night that cock up Monday's programme!
Just a gut reaction to this scheme, but it seems ludicrous to me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Al Titude
Couldn't agree more mate. Holding is ridiculous and needs addressing. We join the RAF to fly and not hang around in trg. The point I'm trying to make however, is that the company has a bottom line and has to use it's assets to best measure. If the only way to increase profit is by this scheme then fine.
As I'm sure you know, they'll have performance indicators to meet under the contract. If they don't, they get a slap and may be sacked. If they do then all is well for them.
Our problem is that of the budget. Flying Training gets £X million per year. When it's gone it's gone. Overspend has to be sourced from elsewhere. And nobody has the excess.
Now if somebody were to make a proper leadership decision and look for where to cut and where to add addition value then I would cetainly vote for giving cash to the FTSs'. It might make my job on the front-line a damned sight easier than always being stretched and give me a fully manned squuadron.
Fully manned sqn = less cr@p from wife from being away/in work too much = I might stay in the RAF even when life outside gets better
(the Sangiovese equation)
Now how to work the budgets better.
Answer, lead the accountants rather than be led, understand what they do, and pester the TLB holder. And when the cuts come to increase Operational Readiness, don't complain.
Couldn't agree more mate. Holding is ridiculous and needs addressing. We join the RAF to fly and not hang around in trg. The point I'm trying to make however, is that the company has a bottom line and has to use it's assets to best measure. If the only way to increase profit is by this scheme then fine.
As I'm sure you know, they'll have performance indicators to meet under the contract. If they don't, they get a slap and may be sacked. If they do then all is well for them.
Our problem is that of the budget. Flying Training gets £X million per year. When it's gone it's gone. Overspend has to be sourced from elsewhere. And nobody has the excess.
Now if somebody were to make a proper leadership decision and look for where to cut and where to add addition value then I would cetainly vote for giving cash to the FTSs'. It might make my job on the front-line a damned sight easier than always being stretched and give me a fully manned squuadron.
Fully manned sqn = less cr@p from wife from being away/in work too much = I might stay in the RAF even when life outside gets better
(the Sangiovese equation)
Now how to work the budgets better.
Answer, lead the accountants rather than be led, understand what they do, and pester the TLB holder. And when the cuts come to increase Operational Readiness, don't complain.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: >30000'
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does this mean that Qualified Pilots may be able to 'hire' the aircraft to take their nearest and dearest on a little aero's trip? Would be nice but can't help but think that this would all be to the detriment of studes in EFT. I can't see this scheme lasting long!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if there's any chance of the RAF allowing its Tutor QFIs to rent the Firefly to do some flying in cloud? The Tutor obviously desolves everytime it goes anywhere near cloud so using another aircraft to keep an instrument rating might be a jolly good idea.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been reservations expressed, but whatever happens it's unlikely to impact much on the students. Given that weather is the main delaying factor for the students (the Fireflies are quite good re serviceability) and formation is one of the few things you can do in crap weather then conflicts will hopefully be minimised. Fenton can work on weekends as the airfield's open anyway so no problem there, but Barkston will have to do it during the week which is one of the reservations. I don't see the aircraft becoming available for general hire though as the risk of pranging would then become unacceptable.
