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

UK MFTS on or off the rails?

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 on or off the rails?

Old 12th Mar 2019, 12:25
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,263
Received 463 Likes on 187 Posts
Our military aviators are leaving to go to civilian flying jobs at an amazing rate.

I am a member of a couple of groups on Facebook that are focused upon that situation.

My main group is Army Warrant Officer oriented.....and the news seen there is not promising for the US Army.

Service in the US Military has imposed a real hardship on those who serve...multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, assignments to Korea, short deployments to other parts of the World, along with temporary deployments for training within the USA.

The pay and benefits in Commercial Aviation are exceeding that of the Military....and offer far more stability and fewer re-locations.

Throw in the shortage of pilots at the Air Carriers.....no wonder we have good people leaving well short of military retirement to go fly for the airlines.

The point of my post was to point out how the FAA considers Military Aviation experience (training, check rides, flight hours, etc) as compared to what the British CAA does for the British Military Pilots.

The FAA is far more accommodating.....thus making the transition from being a Military Pilot to being a civilian licensed pilot much easier and far less time consuming and costly financially.

That facilitates our guys and girls leaving the military and going to the airlines.

The other point that needs considering is the fact it is the individual pilot who is able to take their military records to the FAA and be able to document the training and flight experience as the basis for the issuance of a civilian rating/license with no requirement to actually undergo FAA administered Flight Checks as the FAA honors the Military Check rides and Flight Training.
SASless is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 12:42
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,279
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
Sasless, it is only your last sentence which shows a difference between the two sides of the pond, there are already plenty of exemptions given to Brit-mil pilots towards the licences but you still have to do the ground exams and flight test.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 09:25
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Angels 20 and climbing
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-...he-cliff-edge/
NorthernKestrel is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 11:03
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks

Originally Posted by NorthernKestrel
Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-...he-cliff-edge/
Thank you for posting, a worrying read.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 11:26
  #285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Originally Posted by NorthernKestrel
Insight here on the coming train wreck from a former OC at RAF Valley https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-...he-cliff-edge/
Not an OC of any flying training unit or even aircrew. She did attempt pilot training and went on to attempt navigator training too, so she has experience as a student before becoming an ops officer.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 11:53
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
She quite rightly highlights the problems of furnishing sufficient numbers of service QFIs. However, she misses out the parallel problem of promotable pilots. Late accumulation of experience will result in fewer relevant reports on which to base the decision to promote individuals, so there will either be a (7 1/2 year?) gap in the career progression structure of the RAF or there will be some speculative decisions and/or senior officers with limited front line experience. Or a dearth of aircrew senior officers.
beardy is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 12:29
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 667
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is there now a case to treat our QFI's as a 'special case' and offer them a seperate career path/pay and loyalty inducements to retain them in the face of the civilian and other markets?

You are not going to unblock the pipeline without Instructors.
Treble one is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 13:06
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
The problem is not just with QFIs though. Delayed or protracted training plus a shortage of frontline hours makes it difficult to find the experienced (ideally) third-tourists to fill QWI, QTI, QFI, TP, promotion cadre, exchange slots, SQEP for specialist roles etc.

The issues are exacerbated by a reduced number being pulled through to initial pension point since it was moved further away from the previous 38/16 point. Imposing restrictive RoS measures also pushes many to the door earlier than planned.

The aircrew cadre has not had a viable structure since the early 90s. Only the repeated cuts and manpower reductions have enabled the structure to survive. There simply isn't a plan in place to support steady-state aircrew manning.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 14:53
  #289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,279
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
Not an OC of any flying training unit or even aircrew. She did attempt pilot training and went on to attempt navigator training too, so she has experience as a student before becoming an ops officer.
so she has experience of the Fg TRg system from a 'customer' point of view and she was OC Ops at Valley during the time the MFTS ball started rolling - that makes her reasonably well qualified to comment I think. She was probably privy to far more 'managerial' discussions than any of the QFIs.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 17:57
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please do not say 'customer'. She was a junior officer under training and failed an arduous course. OC Ops means managing a military airfield. Fuel provision, ATC, etc etc. A complex and demanding task as a manager but does not involve any involvement of the provision of flying training.
HarryTims is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 23:04
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have a question.

How long does the MOD expect our fleet of 28 Hawk T.2's to last?
The Hawk T.1 has been in British military service for 43 years and she is still going, but, from what I can gather, she had a rather solid sustainment fleet from around 160(?) total airframes, which allowed each airframe to be maintained properly without causing a major disruption to the training system.
How will the RAF/RN make the T.2 last for even half that time when we don't even half 25% of the numbers of the original Hawk T.1 order to spread out the flying hours more evenly?

If memory serves, the "fly away" cost of a single Hawk Mk.128 is £28 million. It's possible that they will all be knackered in 15 years or less so that doesn't seem like value for money, from my subjective, fiscally conservative point of view.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2019, 18:45
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hawk TMk2 Life

Planned lifespan for the T2 = 25 years.

28 airframes x 10,000 fg hrs per airframe divided by 9,200 flying training hrs per year less an attrition rate of about 1 airframe every 3 years.

Those were the original assumptions. Things have changed somewhat over the past few years!
Double Hush is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2019, 17:48
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,119
Received 80 Likes on 46 Posts
RIAT 2019 static

Also at Fairford last weekend, I did a stroll around the static. So it was nice to see again for another year running, Ascent line up lol (my photos below).

Cheers








chopper2004 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2019, 06:44
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,776
Received 253 Likes on 101 Posts
Who were they trying to fool with that Phenom?

Did they manage to fly it there and back without hitting anything this time?
BEagle is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2019, 14:04
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Does that suggest a Phenomenally stupid decision.......hat, coat
Wander00 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2019, 07:34
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asymmetric

How do you demonstrate the full effects of asymmetric flight with the engines so close together? Cheat I guess...
ANAPROP is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2019, 10:42
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Anaprop,

I think that it is possible to demonstrate the effects of asymmetric flight in an aircraft with the engines close together if the engines produce enough thrust. Even in the F4 Phantom (with engines embedded within the fuselage) if the pilot did not carry out the BOLDFACE to fly the aircraft the result was often disaster. Only due to having an ejection seat were more lives not lost.

The Phenom 100 is too under-powered for it's proposed use in the RAF for a number of reasons.

Once again the advice that was given by those aircrew at the "front line" was ignored by those at the top of Ascent and the Air Staff at HQ22 Gp.
Dominator2 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2019, 19:48
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 85
Posts: 455
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Dominator2,

How right you are! Scimitar, Phantom and the Vulcan could all "bite" on one or two !!

Bill
Bill Macgillivray is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2019, 21:10
  #299 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
We might have bought 28x “Airframes” but we did buy less than that number in some rather essential bits of kit!
The B Word is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2019, 15:11
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here n there.
Posts: 905
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Bent Phenom

Did the bent one get fixed?
Hueymeister is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.