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 6th Jan 2016, 20:44
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 59
Posts: 221
Glad you liked it Phantom. Re the glass/analogue debate, personally I think it's advantageous to be training in a glass cockpit from the outset. Many of the future pilots who will train in the G120TP will only ever fly glass, and not just in their military and later civil careers. I've flown quite a few LSAs that were purely glass, not even standby analogue ASI and altimeter. Even the standby instruments on the 120 are digital!
I still think that the first ten hours should be in something really basic, like a T-61. The long wings really help develop co-ordination due to adverse yaw, while the monowheel sharpens up anyone's footwork on the ground, plus the analogue ASI and altimeter can be covered up in the circuit, and the engine even shut down in flight (both exercises are excellent confidence-builders). BUT, to put analogue instruments in a modern turbine-powered retractable would be a retrograde step, IMHO of course.

Last edited by DaveUnwin; 7th Jan 2016 at 10:49.
DaveUnwin is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2016, 16:24
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 59
Posts: 221
Oh, and FWIW, I thought the G120TP to be a very fine flying machine!
DaveUnwin is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 07:53
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
The announcement by the MOD yesterday on the award of the MFTS 1.1billion Contract to AFT (Ascent Flying Training).

Headline MOD 'Infographic' ...



Image Credit : MOD

More info here ...

MOD MFTS Contract

But no news yet around any 'interim' arrangements until AFT are fully up an running.

23 Prefects (Grob G120TP), 10 Texans (Beechcraft T-6C) and 5 Phenoms (Embraer P100) ... 230 Students a year ... which I assume is a total of RAF, RN and Army Students ?

This did make me smile in the Press Release ...

Originally Posted by MOD
Personnel will also be able to fly Voyager aircraft - used for air-to-air refuelling - on completion of their training.
... Well that's good then


Thanks to ORAC for picking up the announcement yesterday ...

Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 3rd Feb 2016 at 08:12.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 08:52
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 787
Good lord who thought up the name 'prefect'? 'Tutor' sort of made sense but what did a prefect ever teach? (Cue all sorts of fagging jokes - 'go & warm the toilet seat for me boy' etc). Who would wish to fill their logbook with 'Prefect T1'?

I assume that they were attracted by the close spelling to 'perfect'. Surely that can't have been reason enough to give it a daft name?

It also seems to be a very small number of ac to train 230 pilots a year even assuming excellent availability. Quite where they're going to find all the instructors, civil & military, is also a big question. I hope they intend offering market rate salaries & not 'pension offset' ones especially if they hope to fill the Valley slots.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 09:02
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,875
By the early 90's the Tucano fleet had increased to 130 aircraft.

We now require just 10 aircraft to replace them.

Just This Once... is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 09:52
  #46 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
Ken ...

I suspect that 230 number might not just be Net New Pilots ... Hopefully someone will elucidate further.
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 10:35
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 787
Coff: from the NAO report on Mil Flying Training (12 Jun 15):

1.4 Currently, around 250 UK aircrew (150 pilots and 100 rear-crew) begin training. Trainee aircrew may be direct officer recruits, selected serving officers, senior non-commissioned officers or, in the Army, selected non-commissioned officers. 2
so the 230 looks to be the total number of all aircrew, front end & rear crew, which makes the students per ac ratio marginally better although the rear crew trades still need to go in one sometimes.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 11:45
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,745
Ken, I believe that anyone in reciept of a service pension may find the pension abated (reduced) if the combined pension and new (service) pay exceedes their previous pay scale.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 12:14
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,637
OAP

I doubt Ken was talking about FTRS/military pilots. Ascent will potentially be employing civilian (albeit it ex-military) QFIs.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 13:05
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,503
BobViking wrote:
Ascent will potentially be employing civilian (albeit it ex-military) QFIs.
And when the supply of ex-military QFIs dries up, as inevitably it will, what then? Whence will come the snake-oil salesmens' next instructors?

Even in the lowly GA world, more and more FIs are being picked up by the airlines as airline recruiting gathers pace. Now that the RAF has let its previously excellent flying training system fall into the hands of mercenaries, how will future instructor requirements be sustained.

Doomed, I tell ye, doomed you are!
BEagle is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 13:35
  #51 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
Thanks Ken ... I thought as much

So if we assume 150 Student Pilots annually ... and apply a Chop Rate of X% (any offers on a speculative CR% ?) ... then it would be interesting to speculate on the number of FJ or ME first tourists joining the OCU's in a year. Feels like low numbers to me


Sorry for using 'Chop Rate' above ... but I couldn't come up with a more New World PC 'Descriptor'.

And I think BEagle's observation on sourcing future Mil QFI's is very apposite ... But I doubt we'll get an answer to that one for some while yet ...
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 13:54
  #52 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
Mind you the RAF has had a 'Prefect' in the past

CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 14:00
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 1,277
Prefect is a terrible name. Surely they could have come up with something better than that.
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 14:13
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,875
It's nicely inconspicuous; perhaps named by a Douglas Adams fan?
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 14:29
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,542
212man is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 14:46
  #56 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
212

And the Avro 'Prefect' was developed from the Avro 'Tutor' ... History/Heritage Box Ticked then
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 15:36
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 787
Without Google the Avro Prefect would be almost unheard of outside the RNZAF museum environs so perhaps an apposite precedent for the Grob Prefect as the ac that follows the Tutor?

I still thinks its a silly name.

Concur fully with Beagle's comments re RAF QFIs, there is a severe shortage in the ME world (can't comment on the FJ or RW fleets), we no longer train them in sufficient numbers since the UASs went predominately FTRS so we don't have enough for our own current needs & consequently the supply into the future will surely dry up which doesn't bode well for Ascent's recruitment plans even if they don't offset salaries for pensions (for ex-mil QFIs).

You reap what you sow.

If Ascent is unable to staff all of its civil posts will the military be expected to make up the shortfall? Could this actually lead to an increase in the number of mil QFIs in the future? With the manning cap & the extra ac & sqns post SDSR would there even be enough pilots to make up the shortfall?
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 18:01
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,191
BEagle and Coffmanstarter,

Your points about military QFI's...

I thought that a document released a year or so back on the exact numbers of aircraft and staff confirmed that 75% of all instructors and 100% of AFTS instructors would be serving military?

Since then we have had SDSR2015 which increased the need for qualified aircrew and MoD announced that they were negotiating to increase throughput of MFTS, yet the very same numbers of aircraft appear in that infographic?

Odd.

10 T-6? Yet the equally privatised RAAF equivalent is going to utilise 49, for a much smaller outfit.

Even odder.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 18:22
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Dorset
Age: 21
Posts: 45
10 Texans to me (I'm just a cadet so feel free to ignore my opinion) seems ridiculous, is this assuming 100% availability and 0% attrition of the fleet through its lifetime?!
Hawk98 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2016, 18:28
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 787
Hawk98: you might be 'just a cadet' but you've spotted what ought to be the obvious flaw in the plan! Either you're a very astute & wise young man or Ascent have planned a little below the optimum number - or both!
Ken Scott is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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