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 21st Oct 2017, 20:47
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,555
Let me just wonder out loud...

How many pilots per year is this new system producing?

How many aircraft do the RAF have / intend to have in five years?

Is everyone leaving after 6 years service?

I'm thinking it looks more like a state funded training school than a career.
airpolice is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 20:53
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 835
In my opinion outsourcing ME training to civil ATPL schools is the right way to go - no holding, good continuity for the studes & far cheaper for the RAF, plus they ought to be able to adjust numbers to meet demand. So a good outcome thanks to Ascent's inability to train the required numbers. Surely it's much more cost effective for the studes to learn basic asymmetric & NDB holding at a civvie school & leave 45 Sqn to do the formation, low level & other mil stuff?

The only snag I believe is that MOD is only paying for a 'lite' course so that the studes won't get a frozen ATPL out of it in the belief that this will be 'retention positive'. Far from it. Like pretty much all ME pilots they'll fork out for all the exams to complete their ATPLs after a couple of tours then think, 'now I've paid for it I'll jolly well use it' and leave at their earliest option point or PVR.

I've never understood how their Airships run so scared of giving people their licenses. The Germans, Belgians etc all get ATPLs during training & they have no retention problem, pilots stay to the end of their service & then leave to a guaranteed airline job, if they want it. The RAF builds as many obstacles as it can & the majority get out as early as they can. If the ATPL was held as a carrot at the end of your service most people would gladly go to the bar rather than studying for exams in their room, confident in the knowledge that they're sorted for the future.

Decades of 'stick' hasn't worked but they're still going to keep trying.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 21:48
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,187
Ken - exactly the conversation I had with a current ME pilot today - too much stick and no carrot and their airships still can't understand why they have retention problems.

With the number of civilian aircraft we have on the books, is it so difficult to give them type ratings/IR/Licence in order to keep them until their 20-year point?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 21:51
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,555
Perhaps you are both missing the point.

It would be better for the old air force, but retention is not going to generate profits for Ascent, is it?

The money go round needs folk to keep on leaving, so that a small fortune needs to be paid to a civvy company to train the next generation.

Last edited by airpolice; 21st Oct 2017 at 22:07. Reason: To add some more text.
airpolice is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 21:55
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,187
No, allowing Ascent to control the syllabus and paying them on the number of pilots finishing the course will give them all they need to make that profit!

Mil stds will be put under pressure to put bums on seats and allow graduation of students that might otherwise have been chopped or assessed as training risks.

A perfect recipe to drive down standards AND make money
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 22:05
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,555
Let's look at the possibilities here.

Can it really be that people who have reach Air Officer rank, and Civil Servants who have got to the point where they can retire with a quarter of a million pounds as a gratuity and get an £85,000 a year pension are stupid? I don't see that as likely.

So, if they are not stupid, they must know exactly what they are doing, and therefore have a good reason for it.

On the other hand, they might well be stupid, but if they can reach their current rank despite that, what happened to you lot? If the opposition were dickheads, why are you sitting at a keyboard instead of living the good life?

The system needs us to believe that the very best of the RAF are promoted to the top. So either that's a lie (and you were brighter but didn't get promoted because ....?) or it's true and they are so smart, that they have manipulated the system to get us to where we are today.

Is the Taxi Driver taking you the long way round, stupid for not knowing, or clever because his meter is running?
airpolice is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 23:34
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: In the Radio Bay
Posts: 43
I did once write to an Air Marshal pointing out he was factually incorrect in his contribution to a Government report mentioning my unit, and enquiring what he was planning to do to rectify the situation. He went batshit crazy and ordered a Wg Cdr to bollock me senseless for my temerity. On arrival at said Wg Cdr's office he said "Consider yourself verbally flayed. However, as you were perfectly correct in your facts, may I buy you a pint?" Elevation to VSO is not a guarantee of sense or decency.
DunWinching is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 23:41
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: East Anglia
Age: 70
Posts: 768
Air police,

Of course they're not stupid - they are clever enough to play the system. That's how they end up with big gratuities and pensions!

They don't give a sh*t about anyone but themselves - and being in the public sector - whether armed forces, police, civil service, NHS, social services etc, etc no-one is ever accountable for the f*ck ups.

Plus ca change ........!
1.3VStall is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 09:47
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
The forfeiture of pension is a bit of a myth really. I have taken some for Court Martial, who have been sent down for significant criminal offences, and they have still kept their pension. Pension that you have earned is protected by UK Law and it is very hard to take that away from anyone.

You need to commit treason and go down for 10+ years to even be considered...

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...regs-clean.pdf

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 22nd Oct 2017 at 10:27.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 10:21
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,187
airpolice - some of those who get to the top are good guys (and girls) but many are career-focused, back stabbing climbers of the greasy pole.

The big problem is they spend so little time in each position of power and are moved onwards and upwards before their decisions impact the job they are leaving - a nasty game of pass the parcel where you don't want to be holding it when the music stops.

The MoD as a whole has always been under pressure to save money and, by moving items off the main balance sheet, they can be seen to do exactly that - witness the privatisation of SAR as a classic example.

Military flying training is just another victim of cost-cutting which doesn't really save money, reduces flexibility and drives down standards.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 17:15
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 835
Airpolice: there has also been some correlation between VSOs negotiating contracts then retiring & taking up a directorship in said companies. Not stupid but perhaps a whiff of corruption?

Last edited by Ken Scott; 22nd Oct 2017 at 17:29.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 22:41
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,187
The famous revolving door used by many VSOs as part of Operation Feather Nest.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 13:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Do I hear that Affinity's civil instructors don't hold Type Ratings for the Phenom 100 on which they're training the RAF's ME students....

If not, why not?
BEagle is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 17:13
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Affinity...Ascent or whatever.

The Phenom 100 is not an Annex II aircraft, it is a complex SP-HPA type requiring specific OSD as part of the EMB-550 TR training. That's the requirement for any civil pilot flying the Phenom 100.

Why should the markings exempt the pilot from such a requirement? What legitimate excuse can there possibly be for a pilot licensed under Part-FCL to be exempt from holding a valid TR for the aircraft....or is it just to save money ??

Art 145 of the ANO only applies to members of HM Forces:

145. A person may act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom without being the holder of an appropriate licence if, in so doing, the person is acting in the course of his or her duty as a member of any of Her Majestyís naval, military or air forces.
So unless these civilians are also Sponsored Reservists, that article of the ANO does not apply to them.
BEagle is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 19:19
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Originally Posted by Ken Scott View Post
In my opinion outsourcing ME training to civil ATPL schools is the right way to go - no holding, good continuity for the studes & far cheaper for the RAF, plus they ought to be able to adjust numbers to meet demand. So a good outcome thanks to Ascent's inability to train the required numbers. Surely it's much more cost effective for the studes to learn basic asymmetric & NDB holding at a civvie school & leave 45 Sqn to do the formation, low level & other mil stuff?

The only snag I believe is that MOD is only paying for a 'lite' course so that the studes won't get a frozen ATPL out of it in the belief that this will be 'retention positive'. Far from it. Like pretty much all ME pilots they'll fork out for all the exams to complete their ATPLs after a couple of tours then think, 'now I've paid for it I'll jolly well use it' and leave at their earliest option point or PVR.

I've never understood how their Airships run so scared of giving people their licenses. The Germans, Belgians etc all get ATPLs during training & they have no retention problem, pilots stay to the end of their service & then leave to a guaranteed airline job, if they want it. The RAF builds as many obstacles as it can & the majority get out as early as they can. If the ATPL was held as a carrot at the end of your service most people would gladly go to the bar rather than studying for exams in their room, confident in the knowledge that they're sorted for the future.

Decades of 'stick' hasn't worked but they're still going to keep trying.
Ken

The average RAF students won’t have 150hrs TT to start the modular CPL/IR course, nor the EASA PPL(A), nor the EASA Theoretical Knowledge. They are not de facto Qualified Service Pilots to enjoy the exemption on the PPL to start CPL or ATPL groundschool. Having completed EFT and a multi engine lead in on the Tutor/Prefect they will be lucky if they have 60hrs and much of that will be dual not solo time.

So it really isn’t an option to give them CPLs in the time and money allowed.

I agree about the carrot and stick, but we would have to completely change the multi engine syllabus. I believe we are locked into the MFTS contract for 25 years and so we will all be very old when/if we changed it!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 19:21
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Ascent will be operating the ac on the MAR under MAA regs and so will be governed in the same way as any other Defence organisation or contractor engaged on a Defence contract.
European Law lays down the requirements for civilians flying EASA aircraft; neither the CAA nor MAA have any overriding influence.

Equally, on that basis, why should wearing a uniform exempt an individual from gaining a type rating?
Historically, ANO Art.145 and its antecessor provided such alleviation. For example, for military TPs assessing a civil aeroplane. For a fully-licensed civil pilot, adding an HP-SPA TR to their licence is fairly simple - but who should pay? The employer or the pilot? Wasn't that made clear when employment was advertised?

Nowadays, the RAF is a very much a minority airspace user. Much that I hate that, it's the truth. So in the 21st century, why shouldn't the MFTS snake oil salesmen be required to licence their civil pilots in exactly the same way as any another ATO / TRTO?

LJ, these days EFT provides absolutely pitiful levels of PIC solo consolidation for prospective ME pilots. A recent case with which I dealt involved a QMP(H) whose FW experience was around 70 hrs, of which less than 5 was as PIC.... Now I hear that 'they' want to reduce that even further.

Whatever happened to the high standards once provided by proper RAF flying training?

Last edited by BEagle; 23rd Oct 2017 at 19:32.
BEagle is online now  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 19:26
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Beags

I agree, CPL/ATPL FIs should have a type rating if flying the Phenom. It would be a huge oversight and a matter for the CAA Enforcement Team if they didnít!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 19:55
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 835
LJ: why couldn't the ME students do the whole cse, including single engine stuff, & get the CPL along with the rest of their fellow (civil) students? It would cost relatively peanuts & they could be bonded for their ATPL, rather than give them a bespoke half course.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 20:29
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Ken

I agree but we are on contract for the provision of EFT, groundschool, multi engine lead in (MELIN) and multi engine pilot training. We also stream off of the back of the EFT performance and aptitude scores. So to do the full integrated frozen ATPL instead would mean writing that off completely by streaming early and skipping training that is paid for under contract. I agree it makes sense and then to top up the military flying bit before OCU, but we didnít take that option 10 years or so ago when we opted for UK MFTS. If we offer it to the few extra expected to go to outsourced training then it would be unfair to those going the MFTS route. Also, if we give them EFT and MELIN first then with the fATPL integrated course then their training pipeline would be longer than MFTS - a luxury we cannot afford.

Donít forget we are in this situation because of SDSR15 where we need to train many more aircrew than planned for in SDSR10 when the MFTS contract was let. If I was in charge at the time, which I obviously wasnít, I would never have signed up to the inflexibility of a PFI flying training contract. But we are where we are (I hate that saying, even more so when itís true!). All we can do is make the best out of decisions made many years ago - some shiny new aircraft are coming for training and the front line, so there is at least some good news!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 20:36
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 835
And we'll continue to haemorrhage trained people early who might otherwise have been retained. As you say, we are where we are!
Ken Scott 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.