UK MFTS on or off the rails?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 85
Posts: 2,442
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, anyway, to steer this back in the right direction, does anyone know what the backlog of pilots waiting for courses is like? I have heard that the number on hold has fallen quite a bit, but there is still a way to go.
Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
Last edited by H Peacock; 31st Dec 2020 at 12:22.
Das Internationale Hubschrauberausbildungszentrum
Well the Bundeswehr are sending their RW students over to the rolling hills of Shropshire, so we must be doing something right...lest its overflow from Buckeburg or fort Rucker
cheers
cheers
This is the first time I have seen figures quoted for the shortfall in capability:
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...151649.article
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...151649.article
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!
"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."
Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?
"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."
Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?
Originally Posted by Double Hush
Wow!
"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."
Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?
"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."
Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?
Haven't heard of any issues with the RAAF hawks.
The Qatari Hawks are so much newer so hopefully a fix will be applied in good time. Do they have RAF trainees on them anyhow?
The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.
Was the 9500 fhrs was an aspirational figure - but I may be wrong?
The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.
Was the 9500 fhrs was an aspirational figure - but I may be wrong?
The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.
The following users liked this post:
I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.
Originally Posted by Timelord
I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.
All provisioning is based on the maintenance and fit policies, aircraft numbers, flying rate, disposition, minimum recovery rates and predicted reliability. (MTBR, not MTBF). This is a Service HQ function, carried out by (unsurprisingly) the Provisioning Authority and dictated to procurers in the 'Shopping List', along with funding.
For example, a 'for but not with' fit policy will reduce the numbers. Such policies are common, but would seldom if ever result in a lower buy than a/c numbers. Especially on something like an ECU, which is not allowed to fail before servicing (unlike most avionics).
But my assumption is based on the requirement that the repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet. If someone agreed in advance that, say, 40% of aircraft would not be immediately available, then yes, it's possible this slipped through. It is more likely to be a conscious Service policy to make the requirement look affordable, if only because the lower-than-aircraft-number would be a huge red flag, and automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)
A procurer may, belatedly, spot the madness, but can seldom do anything about it. And he/she would need a certain background, know what questions to ask, and be able to construct a counter-argument. Less and less likely because this is a job you did before being promoted to the MoD(PE)/DPA/DE&S grade minima. Today, there is no such recruitment ground, and direct entrants don't serve at this or the 4 grades below. They never earn what is NOT being done.
To work out what actually happened, you simply pull the HQ file with the provisioning parameters for the year the requirement was approved. Hark...I hear the rush to burn it.
tuc
Could you clarify 2 points?
"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."
Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!
"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"
Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?
Ta.
Could you clarify 2 points?
"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."
Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!
"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"
Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?
Ta.
Originally Posted by dervish
tuc
Could you clarify 2 points?
"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."
Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!
"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"
Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?
Ta.
Could you clarify 2 points?
"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."
Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!
"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"
Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?
Ta.
Dervish
1. 13% is the actual figure laid down, and related to Availability, Reliability and Maintainability, and ultimately what the Services are required to be able to do, and with what. Terms have changed, but I know this figure didn’t, at least until I retired. Low? Challenging, but I know what you mean. You didn’t always achieve 13%, but at least you had an identifiable individual who knew the solution, and answerable directly to a 2 Star who would then prioritise. I see mention nowadays of >50% aircraft unavailable.
All support funding and manning was based on this vicious circle and related assumptions, so you can see the link to….
2. The software is loosely related as some of the same data would be used in the manning equivalent. But no, not the same programme. The main difference is that the aircraft/equipment one had infinitely more variables and constantly changing parameters. It was more useful in briefings, to present trends and where the Assumptions were not being met. The final output to Resources & Programmes in MB was not allowed to be that spewed out by the computer. Those who managed this were, uniquely, permitted to override LTC Instructions using ‘engineering judgment’. In my opinion, the programme was developed (in house) because it could be, not because it added any value - the work still had to be done by hand, and you needed trained engineers to assess it, not data input operators.
Lacking this, funding WILL be horribly wrong, and seldom too high. OR/DEC can never get their quantitative requirement and hence costings right. It follows the procurers will be short of funding and/or unwittingly contract the wrong thing. (BOWMAN anyone?)
Hope that helps. Trying to condense the 30-odd pages of the Instructions.
Timelord - idiocy, yes, but actually now that buying fewer engines than airframes has actually paid dividends. It means that there are a pair of engines that are so new that the problem hasn’t manifested itself and probably won’t until well after the other engines are fixed. Obviously, that was more by luck than design!
My understanding of this module 1 problem is that it affects the majority of modern Hawks. However, it’s an hours based problem and so only the older higher used jets are affected right now. I understand that it is linked to poor quality titanium bought from our old friends the Russkis that sits at the end of the problem (that’s the rumour I heard anyway).
My understanding of this module 1 problem is that it affects the majority of modern Hawks. However, it’s an hours based problem and so only the older higher used jets are affected right now. I understand that it is linked to poor quality titanium bought from our old friends the Russkis that sits at the end of the problem (that’s the rumour I heard anyway).
The following 2 users liked this post by iRaven:
CAS says: "completely satisfied with the RAF Valley performance"
From Key.aero 2 February 2023
RAF students join QEAF training
QuoteAdding RAF students to the QEAF contract was seen by some as an indication that all was not right within the Ascent MFTS flying training programme at RAF Valley (for more, see UK news pages). The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston was keen to correct this misapprehension, and told AirForces Monthly that “after past, well documented, problems at RAF Valley” he was now “completely satisfied with the RAF Valley performance”. He added that training potential RAF fast jet pilots at RAF Leeming would give him “another option”.
Unquote
Not sure if we can have faith in his confidence after his pathetic dithering performance in parliament last week.
I'm interested to know:
Are RAF student pilots still being trained on 11 QEAF Squadron? Is this actually an option for CAS?
Does the QEAF share the same confidence that CAS has with their student pilots being trained at the Hawk T2 MFTS at RAF Valley?
Seems to me both sides use disinformation:
"Saturday Flying
As we have done in the past RAF Valley will soon be conducting some limited flying training on occasional Saturdays. This decision has not been taken lightly, however, with the backdrop of events playing out in Eastern Europe, it has seldom been more important for us to ensure we train sufficient pilots to ensure front-line needs are met. Only Hawk aircraft will be operating with the first flights on 11 March. The RAF would like to apologise for any inconvenience and thank our neighbours and the public for their support and understanding. Prior notice of Saturday flying will be publicised on our social media channels and in the local press."
Or is it just comedy?
"Saturday Flying
As we have done in the past RAF Valley will soon be conducting some limited flying training on occasional Saturdays. This decision has not been taken lightly, however, with the backdrop of events playing out in Eastern Europe, it has seldom been more important for us to ensure we train sufficient pilots to ensure front-line needs are met. Only Hawk aircraft will be operating with the first flights on 11 March. The RAF would like to apologise for any inconvenience and thank our neighbours and the public for their support and understanding. Prior notice of Saturday flying will be publicised on our social media channels and in the local press."
Or is it just comedy?
