RAF EFT

[AtomKraft]

My Daughter's in the UAS and she had one air experience flight last year.

Must be a bit annoying.

I hope the MoD has a penalty clause in place should Babcocks fail, for whatever reason, to supply the 80,000 flying hours p.a. that they are being paid for.

[Qfeye]

Yes it is annoying. The hrs contracted is about half what you've quoted. Never the less, still poor

[Lima Juliet]

Fox3

These days the UAS 'core syllabus' is 31 sorties if I recall correctly. A student will normally fly 10-12 hours a year over the 3 years to achieve it. A bit different to your 144 hours in 3 years isn't it?!

LJ

PS. Last time I looked EFT was about 55-60 hours over 6 months.

[betty swallox]

angel orange.

I think to compare this situation to the loss of XV230 to be niaive in the extreme.

[lj101]

Huey

The Times article as requested;

The RAF has been unable to teach new pilots to fly for nearly five months after its fleet of 90 training aircraft was grounded over safety fears.
The suspension of all flights by the RAF’s Grob 115E Tutor trainer after two planes shed their propellers in-flight was a “complete fiasco”, defence sources said.
Princes William and Harry are among pilots to have done their basic training in the Tutor, which is described by the RAF as a cost-effective aircraft with “docile handling characteristics and good performance”.
It is used by all new crews for the RAF, Navy and Army, as well as university air squadrons.
The aircraft are owned and maintained by the defence contractor Babcock, under a contract that was originally negotiated in a government Private Finance Initiative. It is supposed to provide 80,000 flying hours a year across several aircraft types.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that the 90-strong fleet had not flown since an accident on January 9 at RAF Cranwell, in which a plane’s propeller broke off in flight.
The same aircraft type suffered an identical accident on August 23 last year, also near RAF Cranwell. In both cases, the planes made forced landings without serious injury to the pilots.
The first incident was attributed to a lightning strike, but the RAF grounded its fleet after the second. Another incident in 2004 saw a propeller on a Tutor break up while it was conducting aerobatic manoeuvres.
A defence source said: “There is now a bottleneck. No military pilot has started training for six months and there is no solution in sight.”
The source said that the RAF, the aircraft manufacturer Grob, and Babcock were disputing where responsibility for the problem lay. “The aircraft are provided by Babcock under a PFI. The contract is to provide flying hours per year. They are wriggling out of it, saying it is a design fault, which is surprising considering the supply of flying hours is the essence of the contract.”
It is understood that Babcock does not agree that there is a question over liability for the problem or dispute between the parties.
After such a long gap, instructors will be forced to retrain on the aircraft.
Another defence source said: “They are trying to put a new prop [design] on but the new prop is not working well, there are problems with the oil supply. The remedy is proving a failure. It’s a complete fiasco.”
The source added: “There are big knock-on effects. We have got guys who’ve been delayed phenomenally.”
“This is deeply worrying,” said Julian Brazier, a Conservative member of the Defence Select Committee. “An extended pause in basic flying training will have a knock-on effect on pilot numbers. The long-term consequences are very serious.”
Defence officials said that the immediate impact of the crisis had been mitigated because an overall reduction in RAF numbers had reduced the need for new crews.
The MoD said: “The Babcock Grob Tutor aircraft are currently undergoing a pause in flying operations whilst an ongoing mechanical issue is investigated. The impact to the training pipeline is being mitigated by the adoption of a number of measures, including the use of other platforms.
“Whilst the Tutor aircraft is not being utilised to deliver basic flying training at this time, flying training activity as a whole has not ceased.
“There has been no impact to the front line.”
Babcock declined to comment, though an update is expected from the firm today.

[Hueymeister]

Thanks very much Lj

[chanter]

Surely it is up to Babcocks as the contractor to provide either an alternative aircraft that is fit for purpose at their cost to meet their contractual obligations and then argue the toss with Grob. The whole debacle is a disgrace.

Can I suggest to Babcocks that they could lease Lycoming motored DA40's in the meantime and get our EFT going again!!

[airborne_artist]

It's time to dig out the contract and see what the SLAs are and what is contracted in such an event.

Or find that such an event had not been foreseen in the contract

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

So, the student gets one flying hour per 3 weeks of University term time?

I take it the concept of continuity is considered passé these days?

I got 33 hours in my final term at Uni. I weep for the current generation. I really do.

[Bob Viking]

Fox3.
The UAS chaps will effectively get those hours just for fun. They will then go on to complete EFT just like everyone else.
When you look at it like that it's not as bad as you think.
Although of course it's not like it was in your day!
BV

[BEagle]

The UAS chaps will effectively get those hours just for fun. They will then go on to complete EFT just like everyone else.

Which might be true for those committed to the RAF, but destroys the traditional UAS raison d'être.

If students want to join a military organisation at university, a better option these days would be the URNU.

[oldmansquipper]

“There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey.”

― John Ruskin

PFI?

[ACW599]

>Which might be true for those committed to the RAF, but destroys the traditional UAS raison d'être.<

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Lima Juliet]

I've long been of the opinion to scrap the flying on UAS and just run it as an Officer Cadet Trg Unit. Send any of them expecting to go Aircrew to a Service Flying Club to do their PPL, which would cost ~£4,500 for an EASA or ~£3,500 for the less useful CAA NPPL. That would save a heap of cash for starters. Then send the others flying on trial flying lessons twice a year at around ~£200 per student. Again a massive saving.

First intro to military flying should be EFT and its 55hrs on 16 or 57 Sqn at soon to be Cranwell.

It'll all be different when I'm in charge!

LJ

[Mandator]

Is the grounding of the Little White Grubs an MAA thing? I can find no EASA Airworthiness Directiive making any mention of these propeller failures and requiring any form of fleet grounding or inspection regime.

If I were Babcock (and I'm not) I would point out to the MOD that EASA say the aircraft is safe to fly, therefore if you want to ground them and have a new propeller, then you pay for it. However, if EASA smacks an AD on it, then the ball is in Babcock's court. Until EASA does that there is no 'unsafe condition'.

[Lima Juliet]

I think the Tutor has a different prop? You know how the MoD like to screw about with something that works already?! The Vigilant is the same, it's a Grob 109B that's been screwed about and has more problems than the bog standard 109B.

LJ

[just another jocky]

Don't you just love it when folk who think they know a lot, draw conclusions and suggest advice, actually know diddly squat and look silly.

Come on guys, making suggestions on the back of minimal information is not very clever.....then again, this is P Pr.....etc.

This is old news, is in hand and should be sorted shortly. Leave it to those who know what is going on.

[The B Word]

Leave it to those who know what is going on.

Isn't that one of the reasons why we're in the position we're in? No primary training aircraft 6 months down the line?

The B Word

[just another jocky]

B Word - no.

[BEagle]

I've long been of the opinion to scrap the flying on UAS and just run it as an Officer Cadet Trg Unit.

Any sensible student would join URNU or the OTC instead. Who on earth would wish to bugger about at a non-flying UAS?

Send any of them expecting to go Aircrew to a Service Flying Club to do their PPL, which would cost ~£4,500 for an EASA or ~£3,500 for the less useful CAA NPPL.

A invitation to tender would need to be let to the flying training industry. Any favourtism towards Service Flying Club would be robustly challenged. Your figures for the EASA PPL or NPPL are way, way out of date, incidentally.

That would save a heap of cash for starters.

The price of everything, the value of nothing.

Then send the others flying on trial flying lessons twice a year at around ~£200 per student. Again a massive saving.

Absolutely no point in that.

First intro to military flying should be EFT and its 55hrs on 16 or 57 Sqn at soon to be Cranwell.

No, assuredly not. A flying scholarship between university and Cranwell, perhaps. Then a proper BFTS course on proper miltary training aircraft for ALL ab initio pilots, not just those deemed FJ material - and forget all about this ridiculous penny-pinching EFT nonsense.