UK MFTS Fixed Wing Flying Training : The Future
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,757
GT
You can say whatever you like but you won’t be able to prevent many of us from thinking you’re a gloating, miserable old (possibly) git!
As for the kool aid remark, I'm afraid you’re a little wide of the mark. In case it escaped your attention, my ‘spare a thought’ remark was intended to consider the mental well being of the students in (or waiting to commence) training. Clearly you would rather ‘points score’ than to think about the young men and women in the system. Your choice.
My involvement with MFTS is solely with the Valley portion (and even then my current involvement can only be described as peripheral at best) and I have no knowledge of the other establishments. Therefore I am not drinking any kool aid. I am just remembering what it was like when I was in that position and how I might have felt.
BV
As for the kool aid remark, I'm afraid you’re a little wide of the mark. In case it escaped your attention, my ‘spare a thought’ remark was intended to consider the mental well being of the students in (or waiting to commence) training. Clearly you would rather ‘points score’ than to think about the young men and women in the system. Your choice.
My involvement with MFTS is solely with the Valley portion (and even then my current involvement can only be described as peripheral at best) and I have no knowledge of the other establishments. Therefore I am not drinking any kool aid. I am just remembering what it was like when I was in that position and how I might have felt.
BV
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 50
Posts: 178
I’m getting cynical in my old age.....
When I did METS on the Jetstream in the early 90s there was no formation, no low level.
At some point (not sure if it was pre- or post-king air but probably aligned with the streaming direct from EFT) there was a syllabus review and low level and formation came in, the justification supposedly was that potential ME pilots needed formation skills for tanking and future Herc crews needed low level. I’ve spoken to former students and instructors and the level at which these skills were taught was way over the top and largely taught, as with most of the RAF ME training, as a single pilot skill.
it’s almost as if the instructors of the day were writing the syllabus that they wanted to teach, rather than what was needed (said the cynic)
Basic (common) skills should be taught at an early stage of training. ME training should teach the common skill sets specific to ME flying. Type training should teach how to apply basic skills to that type.
I haven’t seen the new syllabus, but understand from friends that is has been heavily driven by the ex-king air personalities. Instructional time would be far better teaching pilots multi pilot skills - how to perform effectively as PM or as PF in a 2 pilot flight deck for example, rather than formation and low level that will be flown in a completely different manner on the front line. Just my opinion!
When I did METS on the Jetstream in the early 90s there was no formation, no low level.
At some point (not sure if it was pre- or post-king air but probably aligned with the streaming direct from EFT) there was a syllabus review and low level and formation came in, the justification supposedly was that potential ME pilots needed formation skills for tanking and future Herc crews needed low level. I’ve spoken to former students and instructors and the level at which these skills were taught was way over the top and largely taught, as with most of the RAF ME training, as a single pilot skill.
it’s almost as if the instructors of the day were writing the syllabus that they wanted to teach, rather than what was needed (said the cynic)
Basic (common) skills should be taught at an early stage of training. ME training should teach the common skill sets specific to ME flying. Type training should teach how to apply basic skills to that type.
I haven’t seen the new syllabus, but understand from friends that is has been heavily driven by the ex-king air personalities. Instructional time would be far better teaching pilots multi pilot skills - how to perform effectively as PM or as PF in a 2 pilot flight deck for example, rather than formation and low level that will be flown in a completely different manner on the front line. Just my opinion!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 599
DCT
Thanks for that and I’m sure there is a lot of truth in it. By the time I was a Jetstream QFI (97-2000) formation and LL were well embedded in the syllabus so that narrows that down a bit. LL was taught as a handling skill and LLnav very much a two person thing, which given the C130 was our biggest ‘customer’ by far makes sense.
I don’t have a sense of how much form had been taught prior to arrival on 45, but I guess we used it as a stepping stone on the small to medium to big. I don’t know how it is now but back then most of our ‘customers’ had AAR requirements so it seemed reasonable to do some at least.
Your comment on the syllabus certainly rings true and these two elements very much enhanced the enjoyment as a QFI of what was by then a really varied and enjoyable job. Is that a good reason for doing it? It seemed easy to rationalise it at the time!
Now looking backwards from my 20th year in commercial aviation it is clear that METS then was very much ‘one man band’ stuff with the exception being LLnav! But then it was back in 85 when I did my MEXO course. Plus ca change....
As an observer it will be interesting to see how the syllabus ends up.
Thanks for that and I’m sure there is a lot of truth in it. By the time I was a Jetstream QFI (97-2000) formation and LL were well embedded in the syllabus so that narrows that down a bit. LL was taught as a handling skill and LLnav very much a two person thing, which given the C130 was our biggest ‘customer’ by far makes sense.
I don’t have a sense of how much form had been taught prior to arrival on 45, but I guess we used it as a stepping stone on the small to medium to big. I don’t know how it is now but back then most of our ‘customers’ had AAR requirements so it seemed reasonable to do some at least.
Your comment on the syllabus certainly rings true and these two elements very much enhanced the enjoyment as a QFI of what was by then a really varied and enjoyable job. Is that a good reason for doing it? It seemed easy to rationalise it at the time!
Now looking backwards from my 20th year in commercial aviation it is clear that METS then was very much ‘one man band’ stuff with the exception being LLnav! But then it was back in 85 when I did my MEXO course. Plus ca change....
As an observer it will be interesting to see how the syllabus ends up.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: A very long way North
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Vortex - my very first student as a baby B2 QHI at SARTU (1989) decided he definitely didn't want SAR post Shawbury - his flying was fine over land but went to pieces inexplicably over the water. An overheard comment from one of his course mates led to the penny dropping for me - he had deliberately failed the sortie. After a firm debrief in which he was reminded that if he didn't pass SARTU, he didn't get his wings at all, suddenly he was good as gold again.
Baldeep - good post
Baldeep - good post
The desired end state was to pass, but without the dreaded SAR recommend, so there was most definitely a fair bit of not-doing-quite-as-well-as-perhaps-one-could going on.
That's for the frontenders, the crewmen were understandably far more keen.
