Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK MFTS Fixed Wing Flying Training : The Future

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK MFTS Fixed Wing Flying Training : The Future

Old 9th Aug 2017, 16:22
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by just another jocky View Post
Beagle, but how can you justify the expense of such excess capacity sitting idle awaiting some unquantified surge requirement?


I think it is still early days to be calling MFTS a creeping cancer. All reports from those already flying the 120TP seem very positive. Why don't we just wait and see instead of opinionating them to the dustbin so soon?
Because this is PPRuNe, and if it's not the 70s and/or a conspiracy to deny pilots the unfettered ability to go updiddly up, it can't possibly be a good thing.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 16:50
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great View Post
Because this is PPRuNe, and if it's not the 70s and/or a conspiracy to deny pilots the unfettered ability to go updiddly up, it can't possibly be a good thing.
Good point, what was I thinking?
just another jocky is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 19:33
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
just another jock y (sic), the reference to people 'hidden away' meant all those who used to be on various ground tours, QFI-ing on UASs or on various 'aircrew annotated' posts.

My Wg Cdr colleague who was tasked to research the number of aircrew in such posts soon discovered that things had changed considerably since the days which the Air Officer who set him the task remembered. This was about 5 years ago.

Many of the posts which the Air Officer thought must still be manned by aircrew had in fact been either civilianised or contracted out. So the assumed vein of 'misemployed' aircrew simply didn't exist. (Such as the idle bugger who was OC Sims at a certain station in the mid-70s and had a monthly FJ SCT allocation which he never used....)

Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....
BEagle is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2017, 20:38
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,670
It's far too easy to look into the future and see nothing but doom and gloom. That just makes us feel miserable.

I prefer to believe that things will all work out fine just as they always do. It makes me far happier to view life that way.

I may be wrong but I'll worry about it when it happens. It's just like Brexit in that regard. The doom mongers can say what they like. The fact is nobody has the first idea what's going to happen in the future.

So to bring it back into context, MFTS is different from what preceded it, but it is working so far and is still producing pilots of good quality. Those of us that are actually involved with it can either spend our lives whinging about it or we can get on with life and be happy.

I dare say if you're not actually part of the current system it is just possible that you don't know what it is actually like.

Sorry for my bluntness but half a bottle of wine removes my usual filters.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 01:38
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 300 miles south of EDI
Age: 51
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....
OK, I'll bite. BEagle, I've read your opinion on the contractorisation of military flying training on PPRuNe. I've been a civvy contractor Tutor QFI for the last 12 yrs. Consistently assessed by CFS & 115 as 'above average', yet did not serve as a Qualified Service Pilot. The problem is....?
Speed Twelve is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 08:01
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
just another jock y (sic), the reference to people 'hidden away' meant all those who used to be on various ground tours, QFI-ing on UASs or on various 'aircrew annotated' posts.

My Wg Cdr colleague who was tasked to research the number of aircrew in such posts soon discovered that things had changed considerably since the days which the Air Officer who set him the task remembered. This was about 5 years ago.

Many of the posts which the Air Officer thought must still be manned by aircrew had in fact been either civilianised or contracted out. So the assumed vein of 'misemployed' aircrew simply didn't exist. (Such as the idle bugger who was OC Sims at a certain station in the mid-70s and had a monthly FJ SCT allocation which he never used....)

Incidentally, while the Grob 120TP might be proving to be a success, I'm still wondering whence the next generation of QFIs will come....

Beagle (sic), so what you're saying is we should take current pilots off the front line and put them in sh1tty ground jobs just in case we need to surge pilots sometime?


I do, however, wonder along with you about your last statement and despite the post by Speed Twelve, I believe we still need ex-front line pilots within the training system to inculcate the military ethos into the cockpit and ground training.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 08:33
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
No mate. What I meant was that it used to be quite common for aircrew to be in various ground posts - and when the need arose, they could be hoiked out and given some refresher flying before returning to flying duties.

The archetypal 'OC GD at Machrihanish' was always implied as a threatened 'bad boys' posting for aircrew - but I don't think it was ever for real. But sadly there actually were a few 'aircrew' quite happy to receive flying pay who actively sought successive ground tours.

I vaguely recall a 'QFI trawl' in the early 1980s when 2 of our sqn captains were dragged back to the UAS system to free up ex-FJ pilots who could be refreshed and posted elsewhere, allowing others to be sent to join the build up of the Tornado force. Or so the story which filtered down to us went. But the system had enough flex to cope.

Similarly, I was liberated from UAS QFI-ing for about 6 months for GW1, when I returned to operational flying - as also was my FSS Chipmunk QFI co-pilot, F3 simulator navigator and air engineer from Boscombe Down.

The paper to which I referred was an attempt to identify the number of aircrew still in non-flying appointments, the assumption being that there must be quite a few. The truth turned out to be rather different.

As for speed twelve, I have nothing but sympathy. Being stuck in EFTS training for 12 years and with no chance of escaping back to operational flying is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Ironically, a few weeks after returning from KKIA I was back at the UAS when some young lady rang up from Binnsworth asking me to sign some 'war appointment' notice for her records - the appointment being to fly the Bulldog around the southern UK as some sort of recce asset or similar. "You really expect me to do that if there's a war, do you?", I asked her. "Well, yes".... I then explained in simple words that there'd just been a war and I'd indeed been sent away from the UAS - but not to fly Bulldogs! But she sounded so nice that I agreed to sign her form anyway.

Regarding the future sustainability of the MFTS system with ex-front line QFIs, I asked that very question at an MFTS brief at people-formerly-known-as-GAPAN. The response was what Blackadder once described as 'Guppy fish at feeding time'....
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 08:33
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 476
There is a need for some non-flying tours. After 11 years of non-stop FL FJ flying I needed a break, so a 3 year ground tour in flight safety was just the break and change I needed. If we don't have a suite of interesting non-flying jobs for our aircrew then we run the risk of burning them out. To be quite honest, even an instructor tour on a phase 2 trg unit would not have provided the break away that I felt I needed to support my family.

I think there are around 2,000 officer aircrew and 1,000 non-commissioned aircrew in the RAF. With only around 500 airframes to fly, then the numbers are probably about right at 6:1 if you consider that on average there are 2 aircrew per aircraft. If you man your Sqn about 2 crews to every airframe then that allows for a spare crew in the ground post system.

As for MFTS, there are pluses and minuses. We bought a system of trg that was designed to deliver aircrew pre a decision to buy more aircraft in SDSR15. So that means that the trg system is very very taught. Also, we were railroaded into buying Hawk T2 with a bang seat that has a crew weight limitation of 14kgs less than the T1 - so that means that the larger youths of today can't train on T2 even though they would easily meet the bang seat limits for Typhoon. We also have the Phenom which I understand has an issue with Cranwell's runway length if it uses the anti-icing system and wants to fly close to MAUM. There is the debacle of the Jupiter/Juno helos beinng too small for rear crew trg and so we'll likely have to buy something else in addition. No-one expected to do WSO(Nav) trg again, but now with Poseidon, Protector, Rivet Joint and E3D all needing Navs then WSO(Nav) trg will need to start again. Then there is the proposed shoehorning of everything into Cranwell, WIttering and Valley - it's just about feasible on paper but then in practice it will not work when slot times slip. However, I'm with Bob Viking in that we'll make it work, but we don't half make it difficult for ourselves!!!

iRaven
iRaven is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 22:53
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 300 miles south of EDI
Age: 51
Posts: 132
just another jocky; BEagle.

There are plenty of ex front-line people in the training system. Of the five at my current unit, 3 have plenty of time flying ops in everything from Corporate to Herrick, one is ex- Ground Branch commission, then myself, a mere ex officer cadet.

The customer appears inordinately happy with the product. I fully understand that there was a time when everything was done 'in-house', but times move on. Some of the punchiest QFIs I've flown with didn't serve full-time. It isn't a prerequisite. It also doesn't necessarily result in a lack of military ethos.
Speed Twelve is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2017, 23:45
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 476
Here is the Phenom 100 flight manual that I found online. This is the perf page for SL-1000ft prssure alt with anti-icing on:

http://img.pixady.com/2017/08/807247_img1317.png

I also note in the same flight manual the maximum that the demonstrated crosswind is max 17kts. So the Phenom would need to leave fuel behind at Cranwell if the wind is southerly or northerly by 17kts or more. Pretty sure that the King Air doesn't have the same issues and that the Citation doesn't need as much concrete either?
iRaven is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2017, 07:33
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
iRaven, that table states that it is a 'simplified' take-off analysis.

Although it would seem to show that at +5°C, the aircraft could only use the short RW at Cranwell with 54% fuel, it takes no account of surface wind.

Presumably there would be no need to use the short RW unless the crosswind component on the main was out of limits. So it would be interesting to see the take-off and landing performance figures under the same conditions, but with a headwind of, say, 20 kts.

Incidentally, while I admire your optimism regarding 'making it work', I gather that the aircrew outflow rate is now so serious that the shortfall cannot be made up with the current training rate, particularly for FJ pilots...
BEagle is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2017, 08:44
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 67
Posts: 325
Of course, as we all know Cranwell is on a hill with 2 of the 4 runways having slopes which severely degrade performance. Also, 3 of the 4 have obstacles which are a factor!

Obviously all of these factors were investigated and understood when it was decided to purchase the Phenom and operate from CWL.

We got away with it in the Dominie because no one in power wanted to understand the problem despite being told many times!
Dominator2 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2017, 09:10
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,044
Originally Posted by Speed Twelve View Post
just another jocky; BEagle.

There are plenty of ex front-line people in the training system. Of the five at my current unit, 3 have plenty of time flying ops in everything from Corporate to Herrick, one is ex- Ground Branch commission, then myself, a mere ex officer cadet.

The customer appears inordinately happy with the product. I fully understand that there was a time when everything was done 'in-house', but times move on. Some of the punchiest QFIs I've flown with didn't serve full-time. It isn't a prerequisite. It also doesn't necessarily result in a lack of military ethos.
Speed Twelve, I wasn't decrying the use of non-military QFIs at all, just that military QFIs, in my opinion, should form the backbone of a QFI cadre in training. There are plenty of excellent civilian contractor FIs and if you took any other meaning from my posts, I apologise.


I think the issue is where do we get military QFIs in the future?
just another jocky is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2017, 12:07
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 300 miles south of EDI
Age: 51
Posts: 132
Ah, fair enough old chap. Yes, I do agree that the 'core' ethos should come from those who have been there, done that, on ops. I don't know how the military will sustain a flow of QFIs in the future either. Quite a few that I've worked with have been 'established' in the training system for multiple years/tours and are effectively lost to the front-line. But when they go....
Speed Twelve is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 12:57
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
Non-aerobatic RAF pilots???

Do I hear right? Does the latest 'common core' EFT syllabus really include no aerobatics before pilots are streamed? So that those going to the Phenom will never have turned their bums to the sun by the time they gain their wings ??

At a time when EASA Opinion 06/2017 proposes mandatory UPRT / LOC-I training for multi-crew pilots, it seems odd that the RAF does not appear to have embraced a parallel training requirement:

This Opinion proposes to integrate upset prevention and recovery training (UPRT) requirements and provisions into the EU pilot training regulatory framework. The proposed training requirements aim to provide pilots with competencies to prevent upsets or to recover from developed upsets. The main focus of the new training standards is on pilots who intend to pursue a pilot career with a commercial airline. Such pilots would likely complete either an aeroplane airline transport pilot licence (ATPL) or a multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) integrated training course, followed by training to act as a pilot in a multi-crew environment on respective aircraft. The proposed pilot training aims to deliver enhanced pilot competencies through additional upset-prevention- and upset-recovery-related theoretical knowledge (TK) and flight instruction for the commercial aeroplane licences. The newly developed advanced UPRT course, which is to be mandated as an addendum to ATP and MPL training courses and also to serve as a prerequisite prior to commencing the first type rating course in multi-pilot operations, is seen as an important step towards enhancing a commercial pilot’s resilience to the psychological and physiological aspects often associated with upset conditions. In support of the new standards, the proposals place greater emphasis on the training of instructors involved in the flight and synthetic training who are foreseen to deliver the various UPRT elements.
Full text here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...%2006-2017.pdf

I also hear that the new 'common core' EFT syllabus includes a mere 1:05 of solo circuit consolidation, but no other solo flying before the luckless student is sent off on a 1:00 solo navex. No solo sector recce, no solo PFL / steep turn exercises - and yet it's OK to send the poor sod off for the first time on his own out of the circuit on a 1:00 navex? Who on earth did the risk assessment for that piece of folly?

Has the RAF training world gone completely tonto...
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 13:33
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,636
Has the RAF training world gone completely tonto...
yup! and it's happening in the RW world as well.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 18:09
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,044
Beags, Incipient Spinning and Stalling are still part of EFT, which is what UPRT seems to be aimed at, especially since more & more modern aircraft wont let you inadvertently spin or stall and even if the flight controls failed enough to let you, that very failure would prevent a recovery.


I hear that the current "Interim" Common Core Syllabus may revert back to the original Common Core Syllabus as it was just an interim measure.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 19:29
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,549
UPRT is not part of a basic flight training course; please see EASA Opinion 06/2017 for a more complete explanation. And direct the attention of 22Gp to the topic....

I recall once talking to a ba A320 TRI. He was emphatic that it was impossible to stall an A320; sadly, he had little idea of the flight envelope protection available in anything except Normal Law, yet he was an instructor on type.

Nevertheless, what sort of idiot would ever allow a student to fly a solo navex without having flown either a sector recce or other out-of-circuit solo consolidation exercise beforehand?

That 'outline interim common core syllabus' doesn't even include solo flapless or low level circuits. 'Familiarisation' and EoC 1/2 are allocated 1:00 in total... But what on earth is 1:00 of 'circuit turns'?

Bonkers....
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 20:09
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post

So to bring it back into context, MFTS is different from what preceded it, but it is working so far and is still producing pilots of good quality. Those of us that are actually involved with it can either spend our lives whinging about it or we can get on with life and be happy.

BV
Hi Bob, I cannot compare the present Pilot training standards with the past but, given similar standards, one has to expect that, less training equals less learning?

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2017, 20:52
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,053
The time of the week to really sort out life, Friday!

Friday night was always a good brainstorming time.


BEagle , 18th Aug 2017 19:29
I agree with your sentiments. 👍
beardy is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.