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 20th Aug 2017, 05:37
  #221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,692
Modern commercial airline training is proficiency, or competency based. I call this 'just enough to pass training'. Training is a cost to be bore and whether it's the airline or the pilot paying for it, the less the better. My airline trains it's own cadet pilots, who bear no part of the cost of their training. In the time I have been in the airline, the training hours for the CPL course have dropped from 250 to 165. And now we have MPL cadets who get to sit in the right hand seat of an A320 with only 95 hours in the air. The philosophy is that these pilots have less time practising irrelevant skills such as visual navigation and more relevant training in a simulator. However, the lack of 'core skills' is evident, particularly with regard to motor functions.

Unfortunately, it's the modern way of training to a price set by accountants. Proficiency based training is not the training for excellence that I was bought up with. It's almost as if the industry has accepted that there will be accidents and it's possible to train to mitigate, but the cost is too high and a certain level of loss is acceptable.
Dan Winterland is online now  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 07:19
  #222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
and any Military System of training is designed to produce just enough pilots to fit into the forecast aircraft availability plus a small cushion for wastage etc.

No-one can tell me that if the Traesury went mad and gave the RAF enough cash for 100 more F-35's the training system would say - "sorry we can only deliver 20 pilots"

80 guys and girls who would have "failed" would suddenly be "the world's best trained pilots" (MoD 2019 Press release)
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2017, 10:13
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 70
Posts: 1,400
I note Dan Winterland's comments. In the wider civilian Multi-engine world the reduction of the flight crew role to that of ever more junior partners in an FMS seems to be steadily evolving .
The resultant eventual extrapolation would seem to be apparent; just a matter of time and public acceptance.
My gran wouldn't go in a lift without the presence of a lift operator..............

Last edited by Haraka; 20th Aug 2017 at 10:25.
Haraka is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 07:25
  #224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 54
Posts: 0
In the wider civilian Multi-engine world the reduction of the flight crew role to that of ever more junior partners in an FMS seems to be steadily evolving .
Depends on the type to be honest.

The long haul 5 landings a month if they are lucky out of 90 hours flying then yes its done to the hilt. But then we get incidents like DXB failing to ensure that TOGA button push results in the power levers going forward.

Regional aircraft we still fly them. The turbo props don't have auto throttles and have various limitations which mean you have to get your hands on the stick. eg Q400 with basic approvals you can't do a coupled ILS with flap 35.

Plenty of aircraft still out there without Vpath or a level change button.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 15:58
  #225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,178
yup! and it's happening in the RW world as well.
Could you give some examples please?
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2017, 18:17
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,690
Not until MFTS RW is up and running but reducing the amount of actual flying in favour of synthetic trg is something that finds favour with bean counters and those trying make a name/career for themselves.

Reduced time in a real cockpit reduces airmanship, handling skills and decision-making and ultimately captaincy ability.

No-one wants to listen to those who have been involved in flying training for 30 plus years because our opinions don't match the fiscal desires and career aspirations of those involved.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 07:55
  #227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,178
Not until MFTS RW is up and running
Ah, so your previous post needs an edit. It should have read:

yup! and it might possibly happen in the RW world as well, but this is pure speculation because I don't have any knowledge of what Ascent will deliver (and my involvement with DHFS has been peripheral at best so I don't really know what they do either)
Feel free to copy and paste
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 18:46
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the Radio Bay
Posts: 43
A little cutting. The problem is that there is no obvious reason why MFTS is a good idea. Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved. And there is a lot of both. Telling, I think, that when the previous PuS was challenged (while sitting next to Baz North) by the Parliamentary Committee as to whether MoD would have gone down the MFTS route again, he finally said (after much obfuscation), no. One could reasonably infer that the project is not delivering, or not expected to deliver, the promised improvements. More than a hint of MR4a, but no chance of this one getting a 9mm double tap. Glad I am old.
DunWinching is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 19:47
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,271
Originally Posted by DunWinching View Post
Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved.
I suspect rather than 'privatisation is better' the real mantra should be 'buy now-pay later is better' - less upfront capital costs are what the Treasury likes.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 20:24
  #230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,690
Feel free to copy and paste
there we are, that was easy

But you would prefer a non-tested, very ambitious training system which aims to 'sweat the assets' to achieve the promised efficiencies despite some very obvious shortcomings in its planned flypro generation and 'taxi-rank' system of aircraft availability?

There are some fundamentals of flying training that do not change, however much you apply corporate spin and 'blue-sky' thinking to them and these have been largely ignored by whoever signed up to this.

I may be on the periphery of DHFS but so many people within it have serious doubts about the success of MFTS I am afraid I can't ignore them.

However, in the face of adversity, doubtless a pig-headed refusal to see the obvious will be the position of those in charge and the only ones to benefit from the ensuing mess will be the contract-lawyers.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2017, 20:31
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 67
Posts: 194
Crab I agree,
Well I may be an old military FJ pilot, but I bet I have made more landings in my life than many 40,000hrs plus civilian airline pilots. And i'd still rather have my hands on the stick at most stages of flight.
I am sure I will be damned for saying so...
MACH2NUMBER is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 11:32
  #232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,178
But you would prefer a non-tested, very ambitious training system which aims to 'sweat the assets' to achieve the promised efficiencies despite some very obvious shortcomings in its planned flypro generation and 'taxi-rank' system of aircraft availability?
No - if what you say above comes to pass. Be careful about who you listen to at Shawbury, because there is a lot of conjecture and doom-mongering from people with very few facts about the future to base it on! I'm sure I remember an old saying about innocent until proven guilty, but maybe we got rid of that as an efficiency measure.

However, at the same time, it's inevitable, the same is happening elsewhere, and in some respects it's demonstrably better than what we have at the moment. I agree that more time in the air would be preferable in the ideal world, but the real world appears to have drifted some distance from the ideal...

The problem is that there is no obvious reason why MFTS is a good idea. Even to a humble nav, it seems odd that "privatisation is better" has been accepted as gospel despite the costs and chaos involved.
True, although I'm sure that many people said much the same 20 years ago when DHFS was starting. And yet it turned out pretty well after the inevitable, and significant, teething troubles.
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2017, 17:19
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,690
True, although I'm sure that many people said much the same 20 years ago when DHFS was starting. And yet it turned out pretty well after the inevitable, and significant, teething troubles.
And therefore you acknowledge the likelihood of inevitable and significant teething troubles in a new venture.

MFTS is not a like for like DHFS replacement, it is an attempt to reduce training costs - very admirable in intent but where do those savings come from?

Trying to get more effort out of less instructors and aircraft to speed up the pipeline sounds like a great idea - in theory!

DHFS wasn't, to my knowledge, broken so why replace it with untried and untested ideas when actually we probably just needed replacement aircraft.

I, like many here, have run many flypros on a daily basis and the one constant requirement is flexibility and the need to adapt to problems with aircraft, students and particularly the weather - this computer-generated flying programme will need to be double-super-flexible since they have removed any fat from their training system.

The problem with teething troubles in the modern world is that any ambiguities in the contract will result in each side blaming the other and the military being exploited - again - by contractors with better lawyers.

If the new system doesn't work, what will we do about it and what will we replace it with - if that is even possible contractually?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2017, 11:17
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,178
And therefore you acknowledge the likelihood of inevitable and significant teething troubles in a new venture
In an undertaking of this size, I think there's a fair chance that there will be at least the odd ripple to sort out along the way. Surely noone would expect any different?

DHFS wasn't, to my knowledge, broken so why replace it with untried and untested ideas when actually we probably just needed replacement aircraft
I agree, and one of the challenges Ascent face is that DHFS has worked pretty well over the years. However, even an aircraft replacement/major upgrade programme within the existing set-up would cause significant turbulence for a period - how could it not?

If the new system doesn't work, what will we do about it...
You've got me there!
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2017, 09:45
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,690
I think we might see more than the odd ripple - the decision not to have a dedicated flight/sqn down at Middle Wallop for the tactical/NVG phase is a massive error.

The claim that they will be able to deploy every few weeks and get the whole package done in 2 weeks is absolute fantasy.

If that is the quality of their planning then Shawbury is in for a rough ride.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2017, 18:18
  #236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the Radio Bay
Posts: 43
Plainly it cannot be done in the same way as DHFS did it or someone might wonder what the point of it all is. Different = better. Or possibly not, time will tell.
DunWinching is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2017, 14:45
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,155
Scampton Airshow - prefect

I popped into the Scampton Airshow which was umm interesting - ok but not as good as RIAT , and very very small turnout.

However I did come across this lovely gem of a Prefect (I did not take photos of Prefect, Phenom or Texan at RIAT) so here are my photos from yesterday

cheers



chopper2004 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2017, 18:12
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 827
Never mind the latest carbuncle of the plastic pig, look at the beautiful Chipmunk in the background - phwoar!!
The B Word is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2017, 14:43
  #239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 804
Gentleman, having perused the numerous threads on MFTS a common theme is that Ascent is offering low salaries in the expectation that the candidate has a pension already to add up to a living wage. Is there anyone here who can actually put a figure on what salary level they are paying? Serious answers only, please! (Yes, I know this is PPRuNe.....)
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 8th Apr 2019, 23:33
  #240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,155
Visit to USAF PTN to learn about speeding up training

Looks like contingent from 22 Group went to states to see Pilot Training Next program at Randolph (?) to see how we can speed up training lol. And to see an AAC Lt C 2ic /Deputy of RAF Flying Training

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/raf-...oS-jvdYZU2lfmo

I know in the 80s that some AAC pilots who went through CFS for the course had the pleasure of flying JP (one of which ended up as instructor in RAFO then came back and led the Islanders during Desert Storm) so do some of the chosen few AAC instructors fly the Tucano and shortly the T-6?

Cheers
chopper2004 is offline  

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.