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 23rd Oct 2017, 20:48
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Ken

I fully agree on the carrot and stick approach. I think what we need is an aircrew professional managed pathway - for all types of aircrew. The use of Enhanced Learning Credits, Standard Learning Credits, accredited learning, preferred suppliers with military discount, the use of Service flying clubs and the removal of the stigma of doing civilian licences will definately help. Also, growing some of our own rear-crew into pilots that will bring with them plenty of experience into the front seat. It won’t fix things over night, but the development of such a pathway will help people manage their own expectations, allow them to be up front with the Service about their aspirations, improve their professional knowledge for the efficiency of the Service and mean that they don’t feel the need to rush off as soon as the get a CPL/fATPL/ATPL.

By the way, for those dreaming of an easy life with the airlines then perhaps they should go with their eyes wide open? This is a good read from BALPA http://blog.balpa.org/Blog/October-2...alance-Pilot-A

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 21:03
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Those articles refer to the operation of military aircraft, not to the licensing of civil pilots.

Methinks thou doth protest too much....

Can we now just let the guys and gals who have been left to make this work get on with their job with our support, it will be hard enough as it is and if it does fail the only real loser will be the RAF/AAC/FAA...
Nope, when the nonsense of MFTS fails, as ultimately it surely must, I suspect that there will be a strong sense of Schadenfreude amongst those to whom officialdom failed to listen all those years ago.
BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 21:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Banggearo

Have a look at RA2101 - Aircrew Qualifications https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...01_Issue_3.pdf

It states in para 2 and 2d that a civilian pilot must hold an appropriate civil licence to fly a military registered aircraft. If it’s civil registered its the same. Surely an “appropriate civil licence” requires a suitable rating to fly the aircraft? If the aircraft had no civilian aircraft equivalence then a military CQT would be appropriate, but in the Phenom’s case this is not correct as it has a civil type rating.

I might be wrong, but I hope you are right with your viewpoint.

I do agree, making MFTS work is the only way ahead for us all.

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 21:29
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,010
Banggearo

I would suggest that it is not clear, is it not worth checking with the CAA to esnure that PART-FCL and the ANO is not going to be broken? Or has that already occurred? I would suggest that just denying it is not a defence because you thought it was alright!

Sorry to be a pain, but to me the ANO and the RA make your position unclear to me. A quick email or phone call to the SARG would clarify. As I say, I hope someone has already checked!

LJ
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 22:48
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Whether or not the nonsense of MFTS ultimately fails is one thing, expecting the snake oil companies' civil-licensed pilots to hold the requisite Part-FCL certificates and ratings for the aircraft they fly is quite another.

Banggearo, what legitimate excuse is there for a civil-licensed pilot flying the Phenom 100 not to hold a valid TR?
BEagle is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2017, 23:08
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,189
If the aircraft are military registered (or dual mil/civ) then this should apply
UK Military Registered Aircraft. In order to fly, or operate, UK military
registered aircraft aircrew should be qualified iaw at least one of the following criteria:
a. He is in possession of, or has previously been awarded:
(1) The appropriate UK military flying badge/brevet; or
if your civilian instructors are ex-military
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 13:24
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 19
A bit like a fitness test run

MFTS will start lumbering like a fat oaf until it gets underway and start to work.

I maintain serious misgivings about the level of prep for its delivery (rotary side) and I think with everything else going on around defence the goodwill of the experienced will be eroded. So they will start to leave if economic conditions allow.
Ricorigs is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 14:55
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,189
I don't think it will be anywhere near PFA level - might be lucky to manage the Rockport walk or the grip test with assistance

Just give it a fabloned biff-chit now and get it over with
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 15:15
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Lincs
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by roving View Post
Sir Baz North retired in May 2016

Jon Thompson moved to HMRC in April 2016

Lockheed Martin appointed Paul Livingston as its new Vice President for its Integrated Systems line of business in the UK in November 2016. His new responsibilities do not appear to include pilot training.

Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off.
Paul Livingston moved onto and remains on the board of Ascent to ensure continuity of knowledge - try checking for your facts.
DeaconBlue is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 11:04
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,736
Surely an “appropriate civil licence” requires a suitable rating to fly the aircraft?
One gathers that 'appropriate civil licence' will indeed now mean a Part-FCL professional licence, Class 1 medical certificate and Class / Type Rating for the aircraft in question. Hence an EMB-550 TR for the Phenom 100, for example.

Then there's the Ford Prefect. That will require civil pilots to hold an SET Class Rating, rather than the SEP Class Rating required to fly Das Teutor....

But I'm sure that the MFTS snake oil salesmen factored this into their business plan....
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2017, 13:44
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
If the aircraft are military registered (or dual mil/civ) then this should applyif your civilian instructors are ex-military
Only applies if they are still current or reserve and flying for the military not a civilian company as a civilian Instructor.
S-Works is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2018, 11:46
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: kent
Posts: 24
Does anyone have any more information on where the multi engine outsourcing is likely to go? I’ve heard that there is likely to be a gap between the cease of king air flying and the beginning of Phenom student training?
ppljames is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2018, 14:43
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,365
Read elsewhere the Phenoms are still civil registered because they have not yet had the MoD airworthiness/fit for purpose dhobi mark. And when is that likely. Does anyone else use the Phenom for training?
Wander00 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2018, 14:50
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
I think Pakistan has some but for VIP transport not training
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 00:06
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 435
Shawbury has it's own issues....

Apparently the new helicopters at Shawbury as so small that 90% of crewmen are unable to 'fit' into the cabin safely, which means airworthiness is a huge issue due to crash protection...

Perhaps I think in an unusual way, but surely someone asked a crewman at some point to have a look at the aircraft before they bought an entire fleet of them?!?
heights good is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2018, 00:50
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by heights good View Post
Apparently the new helicopters at Shawbury as so small that 90% of crewmen are unable to 'fit' into the cabin safely, which means airworthiness is a huge issue due to crash protection...

Perhaps I think in an unusual way, but surely someone asked a crewman at some point to have a look at the aircraft before they bought an entire fleet of them?!?
Or you specify something like “airframe provided must be suitable for 5-95 percentile male/female aircrew”, and “must provide crash worthy seating for all aircrew”...
flighthappens is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2018, 22:05
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,555
Bump:

Anything happening, or not happening?
airpolice is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2018, 00:54
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 63
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
I think Pakistan has some but for VIP transport not training
The Pakistan Air Force operate 4 Phenoms for (VIP)? transport. They are not trainers. For the record they are serialled V-4101 to V-4104 and were delivered in 2009.
Thaihawk is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2018, 23:16
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,962
FYI Airbus Helicopters only supplies crashworthy seating for all of its civil and mil versions..If the seats are removed preventing occupants from using them in flight....?
Rigga is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2018, 06:31
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,189
Many questions still to be answered about who will 'hold the risk' if the aircraft are used yet have been deemed to be unsuitable/unsafe for rearcrew operations.

There still isn't a syllabus for anyone to look at and very few instructors know if they will have a job yet post contract change.

The mil/civ balance has been been constantly assured yet the mil don't look like they have enough QHIs to fill their slots - and since so few are A2s anyway, all the experience will still be in the civ cohort.

The belief is that the contract was significantly underbid so what will be the plan B if it falls over commercially?????

Slow motion train-crash anyone?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk 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.