UK MFTS on or off the rails?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by just another jocky
Wow, lots of opinions floating around here. I can see not many of them are informed.
Be advised, those of us actually doing the job don't really care about your uninformed opinions.
Do please carry on though, it provides moments of entertainment in days otherwise interrupted by....oh yes, flying. Students too!
Be advised, those of us actually doing the job don't really care about your uninformed opinions.
Do please carry on though, it provides moments of entertainment in days otherwise interrupted by....oh yes, flying. Students too!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,195
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
TOTD - perhaps you should ask around the grown-ups at Shawbury to find out that what I describe regarding A2s and superivison was exactly what happened at Shawbury under DHFS for many years - the gradual depletion of the number of A2s was not intentional but happened because fewer QHIs wanted the nause of doing the upgrade.
Are you seeing any students training on the Juno? Oh no, that will be the staff being converted onto type which will be a completely different syllabus from the main Shawbury course - that is what I mean about no syllabus, the one for the main course is AWOL.
You might be interested to know that Bristow are struggling financially and the UKSAR contract is the only thing keeping them profitable - despite this they are pushing hard to cut costs within SAR so it certainly isn't all sweetness and light there.
Are you seeing any students training on the Juno? Oh no, that will be the staff being converted onto type which will be a completely different syllabus from the main Shawbury course - that is what I mean about no syllabus, the one for the main course is AWOL.
You might be interested to know that Bristow are struggling financially and the UKSAR contract is the only thing keeping them profitable - despite this they are pushing hard to cut costs within SAR so it certainly isn't all sweetness and light there.
Of course there aren't any ab initio students flying Juno/Jupiter just yet - the contract to do that doesn't start until April. Until then, Ascent are perfectly entitled to be training staff and fettling what they do. Even in April, only one of their six squadrons will receive students. And why should they publish their syllabuses? Have the military ever done that? Have other commerical training ventures?
I'm not really that interested in Bristow's financial situation, as it wasn't the commercial aspects of their operation about which you were so derisory, was it?
Dear oh dear TOTD, your teddy must be tired of being thrown out of the cot - no, I haven't instructed at DHFS but I have instructed at Shawbury (2 Sqn and CFS(H)), Valley, Wattisham, Middle Wallop and Chivenor since 1989 and been an A2 since 1991 on several different types so I think I am entitled to an opinion about MFTS - just remind me where you have instructed and for how long and at what level before you start throwing insults around.
So I was correct, there isn't a syllabus yet for the Shawbury courses with only a month and a half to go............
As for Bristow - yes it was exactly the financial side I was concerned about because it drives everything else - for example the dilution of SAR experience when you have to absorb senior crews from the offshore side and the huge cost of training people on 139 and then re-training onto 189 (which still isn't complete btw).
So I was correct, there isn't a syllabus yet for the Shawbury courses with only a month and a half to go............
As for Bristow - yes it was exactly the financial side I was concerned about because it drives everything else - for example the dilution of SAR experience when you have to absorb senior crews from the offshore side and the huge cost of training people on 139 and then re-training onto 189 (which still isn't complete btw).
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is not a course for the Phenom. The instructors who have never flown the type are being made to write the course. Hardly conducive to flight safety.
As a result of this thread the COO sent out a letter threatening the staff to keep their mouths shut. The closing line suggesting the RAF police are going to investigate the RAF guys who may have contributed to the thread in some way. Evening Al!
I understand they even have instructors resigning now in frustrated by the cluster **** it’s becoming....
As a result of this thread the COO sent out a letter threatening the staff to keep their mouths shut. The closing line suggesting the RAF police are going to investigate the RAF guys who may have contributed to the thread in some way. Evening Al!
I understand they even have instructors resigning now in frustrated by the cluster **** it’s becoming....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,195
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BruisedCrab
Oh ffs get a room you two.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
there isn't a syllabus yet for the Shawbury courses with only a month and a half to go
Originally Posted by [email protected]
yes it was exactly the financial side I was concerned about
So, my 3 points then:
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.
there are a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?
Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?
I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........
that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please accept that you have extremely limited factual knowledge of either the old or the new, and your chum at Shawbury (who also has little factual knowledge about the new era) may not be a reliable source.
Sorry - I genuinely don't see how you deduce this. And if the planned syllabuses are being tweaked as the start date approaches, why shouldn't they be? The 'old' DHFS syllabuses have been improved/changed/'streamlined' countless times.
Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?
I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........
Bullsh!t. Remember all that guff about 330-degree radars
I remember swapping helicopter types for one small, but significantly important, organisation.
The first thing we were told about our future operational needs was that we had to totally re-think them and re-design them to fit our perceived needs...and then look forward to adjusting them to fit our actual needs when we got the practice of using them.
It was like trying to compare a Leyland Truck to an MG Roadster. Their only similarity are wheels and tyres and even they are profoundly different in needs, form and function. The philosophy behind each design is differently interpreted by different people with different backgrounds for a different perception of a need.
I'll let you decide which vehicle is which for your conversations.
The first thing we were told about our future operational needs was that we had to totally re-think them and re-design them to fit our perceived needs...and then look forward to adjusting them to fit our actual needs when we got the practice of using them.
It was like trying to compare a Leyland Truck to an MG Roadster. Their only similarity are wheels and tyres and even they are profoundly different in needs, form and function. The philosophy behind each design is differently interpreted by different people with different backgrounds for a different perception of a need.
I'll let you decide which vehicle is which for your conversations.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,138
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TorqueOfTheDevil
But we have to keep JAJ amused somehow!
You'll have to work a bit harder then....if it's not the bloody crosswind out of limits, it's the fire truck breaking down or an icy runway!
At least the propellers are remaining intact!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,195
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So, my 3 points then:
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.
I have considerably more than one chum at Strawbs and on both sides of the fence - I am not in the habit of mentioning things that do not come from reliable (but deniable for their own protection) sources.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
there are [sic] a whole bunch of massively experienced instructors who could be used to tweak the syllabus - if it is complete (or nearly so) why wouldn't you market-test it on those who will deliver it?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Btw the 'old' DHFS syllabus was a cut and paste from the even older Gazelle 2 AFTS syllabus so it had some pedigree - can you say that about the shiny new one?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I admire your positive spin on MFTS and I hope you aren't disappointed with it but I won't be holding my breath..........
Originally Posted by [email protected]
that was and remains a factor - the new SAR model doesn't have Radops (even though the ex-mil ones will monitor the letdown) so you have the co-pilot doing it instead - not a particular problem if it is regularly trained for but it still lacks the flexibility and assurance of a Radop with (almost) full radar coverage - ask a Radop if you don't believe me.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: deepest here
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOTD
To correct a few points if I may...
"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"
Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.
"Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate."
The Cobham Staff moving across to Ascent will make sure it works, simply because they know what it is supposed to look, feel, and smell like. They know what is required, Ascent are still learning. Nothing wrong in that of course, but it would have been a much more expedient process if they had hired the correct people in the first place...I shall leave that one there.
"I do believe you - but are you saying that this issue (or anything else) has stopped Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?[/QUOTE]"
Runaway success? Yes, I agree. Why? Because they hired military experts and LISTENED to them!
To correct a few points if I may...
"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"
Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.
"Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate."
The Cobham Staff moving across to Ascent will make sure it works, simply because they know what it is supposed to look, feel, and smell like. They know what is required, Ascent are still learning. Nothing wrong in that of course, but it would have been a much more expedient process if they had hired the correct people in the first place...I shall leave that one there.
"I do believe you - but are you saying that this issue (or anything else) has stopped Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?[/QUOTE]"
Runaway success? Yes, I agree. Why? Because they hired military experts and LISTENED to them!
Last edited by ethereal entity; 13th Feb 2018 at 06:57.
Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?
Well let's see how it turns out once ab initio student training is under way, and praise or pillory Ascent as appropriate.
Bristow's delivery of UK SAR being anything other than a runaway success?
Last edited by Al-bert; 13th Feb 2018 at 14:17.
Yes, if you define runaway success as still not meeting the terms of the contract (the 139s have not been fully replaced by 189s yet).
As EE said, they hired the right people, most of whom were experienced military SAR crews so the standard was always going to be high. However, the financial fragility of the mother company and the extra costs of training (139 to 189) within SAR do cause me to wonder at the plan B if a 'Carrillion-style' mismanagement to save money results in them struggling.
When they have been going 5 years with consistent training levels, then you can consider it a runaway success perhaps.
As EE said, they hired the right people, most of whom were experienced military SAR crews so the standard was always going to be high. However, the financial fragility of the mother company and the extra costs of training (139 to 189) within SAR do cause me to wonder at the plan B if a 'Carrillion-style' mismanagement to save money results in them struggling.
When they have been going 5 years with consistent training levels, then you can consider it a runaway success perhaps.
Touchdown autos on H135?
Just thought of something else, re the RW students and will they be conducting full touchdown autorotations in the Airbus H135 or will that be in the sim mainly with the odd practise in the airframe. I know that the H135 can have issues (not with the autos) but with airframe after a full touchdown.
I know their system is way different to ours but the Bundeswehr - HeeresfliegerInternationale Hubschrauber Ausbildiung Zentrum at Buckeberg has a contract with Motorflug. The company provides several Bell 206B based at Buckeberg .for the very purpose of autoration training and practise. This supplements their RW course on sims and H135.
At the same token, as of xmas ...the Bundeswehr is also outsourcing flying training to ADAC Luftfahrt Technik GmbH, the company will be providing 4 x H135.
Cheers
I know their system is way different to ours but the Bundeswehr - HeeresfliegerInternationale Hubschrauber Ausbildiung Zentrum at Buckeberg has a contract with Motorflug. The company provides several Bell 206B based at Buckeberg .for the very purpose of autoration training and practise. This supplements their RW course on sims and H135.
At the same token, as of xmas ...the Bundeswehr is also outsourcing flying training to ADAC Luftfahrt Technik GmbH, the company will be providing 4 x H135.
Cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 20th Feb 2018 at 18:07.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,195
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ethereal entity
TOTD
To correct a few points if I may...
"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"
Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.
To correct a few points if I may...
"Erm that is pretty much what is going on! But you don't expect every single instructor to be asked for their tuppence worth, surely? Especially those who work for a rival outfit who bid unsuccessfully for the same contract?"
Cobham did not ever bid against Ascent for a contract. They are not, and have never been, competing rivals. Cobham bid, unsuccessfully as you say, against various rivals for the aircraft and services provision - which was won by Airbus. This was a sub-contracted role, sub-ordinate to Ascent.
Originally Posted by ethereal entity
The Cobham Staff moving across to Ascent will make sure it works, simply because they know what it is supposed to look, feel, and smell like. They know what is required, Ascent are still learning. Nothing wrong in that of course, but it would have been a much more expedient process if they had hired the correct people in the first place...I shall leave that one there.
Originally Posted by ethereal entity
Runaway success? Yes, I agree. Why? Because they hired military experts and LISTENED to them!
I hadn't realised how influential you were TOTD - you seem to know who from Cobham will be employed which is far more than they do as the Matrix selection process hasn't been completed yet.
No wonder you believe everything you are told about MFTS and its future.......
Have you any idea what a disaster the regular deployment to Middle Wallop for tac and NVG is going to be??????
nice little jibe TOTD, about what I have come to expect. I have said before that they did me a favour and I am certainly far better off professionally and personally than if I had sold my soul for a Scottish Island posting.
I got the impression that they were anti-RAF (probably my fault entirely) but strange that many of the trainers and influential players are ex-RAF now - cream will rise to the top
No wonder you believe everything you are told about MFTS and its future.......
Have you any idea what a disaster the regular deployment to Middle Wallop for tac and NVG is going to be??????
As I'm sure you also know, Bristow SAR isn't quite Mil SAR in red and white aircraft. Some of the military folk who tried to tell Bristow how to do it (or told them that they wouldn't be able to do it) found their services were inexplicably not needed.
I got the impression that they were anti-RAF (probably my fault entirely) but strange that many of the trainers and influential players are ex-RAF now - cream will rise to the top
