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 25th Feb 2018, 08:11
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,719
JAJ

I absolutely agree with you. I find it all a little unseemly when those not involved seem to rub their hands with glee at the thought of the system failing.

For those that are ex Military, it doesnít make you look clever to constantly snipe from the sidelines.

Maybe just trust in those currently serving (and selected civilians) to continue to provide quality flying training.

I know that sounds a little optimistic and rose tinted but it doesnít make anyone happier to hear constant whinging.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 08:33
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: E
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by airpolice View Post
Meanwhile, on a tropical island just off the coast of Wales. All of the students were sent home on a six month gardening leave before Xmas, as there is nobody to teach them.

Then, only 3Ĺ months later, they are told to come back. They will need to get back up to speed and try to start learning the aircraft again. In the next 12 to 14 months, all of the experienced QFIs at Valley will be gone, some from Valley and some from the RAF.

Can it really be true that the Ascent contract has no provision for QFI training, only Pilots? That would mean that it's not Ascent's fault that their are no QFIs to teach the students. Who wrote this contract? I wonder if it is the same people who signed up for aircraft carriers that cost the same to not build, as to actually have them?

With Ascent being paid to produce new pilots out of Valley, to go to the squadrons, they will be able to get their money. When the well runs dry they can say that it is not their fault, and no doubt there will be a penalty clause, as the school is all geared up for students but has no teachers.


Maybe at that point Babcock can come along and (at huge cost) save the day with a host of recently ex RAF QFIs with Hawk experience. Maybe not, if by then the guys have gone to the airlines or Tabuk, to be treated like grown ups.
AirPolice, where do you get your duff gen from? Iíve just checked my log book and found lots of student names in it over the past 12 months, continually flying them week on week. I donít see a period of 3-6 months with no students.

As for all the experience leaving, again rubbish. Experience always leaves, this is called tour! At the end of your 3 years you move on like any other fast jet Sqn. At the same time the junior QFIs step up, prove themselves as A2s and are the new experienced guys. Ps there are also plenty of long term A2s who arenít going anywhere for a long time!
godsavethequeen is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 09:22
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,557
godsavethequeen, are you saying that you don't know abut the 6 month gardening leave for QFI students?

If it takes 2 years to become a Hawk T2 QFI, how long will they be productive for before their next tour begins?
airpolice is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 10:40
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: E
Posts: 11
This shows how little you know about whatís really going on and how much rumour mill has expanded.
Non of the SQFIs went/are on 6 months gardening leave.

Do you really think a tour starts at the beginning of the training? If you go to any FL jet your tour doesnít start until you complete the OCU, same here.

And as for 2 years to complete, you definetly have no idea. Not saying itís done as quickly as humanly possible, no where near 2 years though!

Guess you will have to find some other rubbish to spread. Not here to argue just making sure you have th correct facts
godsavethequeen is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 10:47
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,557
Are you being ever so careful with your words?

Who did get sent home at the end of the year, and why?

Now that they are back, what are they doing, and how long were they away for?

When a freshly minted Pilot leaves Valley, to go to a Typhoon Squadron, what's the minimum total hours you would expect them to have, and over how many years would that have been accumulated?
airpolice is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 12:46
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: deepest here
Posts: 42
Bob Viking

I think you may have missed my point. The civvies and Mil I know are most definately not full of glee at the prospect of MFTS failing. They are desperately sad, as they feel passionately about delivering the highest quality of training. The students will be the ones who suffer, nobody else.

We really care, perhaps too much.
ethereal entity is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 12:49
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,719
EI

My point wasnít directed at you.

Iíve been in the same situation you describe a few years back and Iím happy to say it sorted itself over time.

My ire is directed at those that throw spears despite no direct involvement.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 13:14
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,557
Bob, when the people involved have been muzzled, who is left to throw spears except those of us on the outside?

I'm only asking questions, as a taxpayer, who left Valley before the first Hawk arrived.

What is it, if not incompetence and greed, that Ascent have to hide?

So far I find only three people defending any part of the MFTS contracts, despite the large number of people in the know, and nobody from within has a bad word to post on here about it.

Why is the rumour mill going so hard? Why are people private messaging each other with tales of how bad it is, and reminders that they are not allowed to speak out?

Despite rules about keeping quiet, it seems that some of you are allowed to post, provided you toe the party line.

Is this dissent in the crewrooms all in my mind? Is it all great and on track? Are all of the people being trained all the time, or are they sitting around waiting for a slot to appear?

In short, could it be done better, and if so, why is it not?
airpolice is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 16:31
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,061
Originally Posted by airpolice View Post
Why is the rumour mill going so hard?
Because it's winter and folk are bored.

BV -
just another jocky is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 18:11
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,779
Because it's winter and folk are bored.
perhaps bored with being drip-fed, positively spun information about just how well everything is going when, to the average person who is likely to deliver the new system, there is no actual evidence that it is all going to be OK.

Many ex-mil instructors are very aware that they cannot be as critical of their civilian masters as they could of their military ones - they want to keep their jobs so few will put their heads above the parapet and make public statements here or in the press.

As EE says, if everything is so rosy, why is there so much grumbling.

Without doubt much is due, on the RW side, to seeing a perfectly excellent system (DHFS) replaced for the sake of cost-saving with a new, unproven and very ambitious system that seems hell-bent on efficiency but with very little focus on the quality of the training that will be delivered.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2018, 16:06
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
As EE says, if everything is so rosy, why is there so much grumbling. [sic]
Well, there are several feasible answers to this question.

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Without doubt much is due, on the RW side, to seeing a perfectly excellent system (DHFS) replaced for the sake of cost-saving with a new, unproven and very ambitious system that seems hell-bent on efficiency but with very little focus on the quality of the training that will be delivered.
But the outgoing system isn't perfectly excellent, is it? You have yourself pointed out the terrible shortcomings in the qualifications and experience of many of those in supervisory positions. Far less significant than your entirely accurate and insightful concerns are the long-standing problems with both the main aircraft types: the Squirrel, while still a lovely aircraft to fly, is woefully unrepresentative of any military helicopter which the students will go on to fly, while the Griffin has for years been crippled by both performance and reliability issues. This is not to say that the new empire (which will still be called DHFS - but you obviously knew that already) is the only way to solve these issues, and there are many many good things about the old system. Please bear in mind though that rose-tinted glasses, while deeply fashionable, are not essential PPE for a trip on the outrage bus.
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2018, 19:19
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,779
So in what way are the 135 and 145 representative of the front-line types?

They are shiny and new (unlike much of the front-line) and very representative of what a pilot might fly in commercial ops but military??

Lots of bells and whistles on the aircraft (which I'm led to believe the students won't actually get to use) and pretty powerful (again unlike much of front-line ops where performance is often an issue) so what are you actually teaching them.

As for the qualifications for supervisors - with mainly the same people being employed under the new system, how is that going to be better than the outgoing one?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2018, 19:29
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Alles ‹ber
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
So in what way are the 135 and 145 representative of the front-line types?
Multi engine, glass cockpit.
trim it out is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2018, 20:26
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 937
Plenty of available power (well, for one of our front line types anyway!)
pba_target is online now  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 05:23
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 224
I trust that if the EC*** crewmenís crash seat is unfit for purpose; or worse still hazardous to health, that the ASIMs process is in overdrive. You cannot and should not sweep flight safety under the carpet. The Duty Holder would be foolish to play statistic roulette with aircrew necks, for sooner or later somebody will get hurt.
Spot 4 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 05:24
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,779
Multi engine, glass cockpit
skids, fenestron, tiny cabin, a winch you have to stand on the skid to operate.....other than the fact it is a helicopter it is not representative of front line - they would have been better off with the Guimbal Cabri G2 and been able to operate hundreds of them.

Some don't believe there are enough aircraft in the bid - working all your fleet hard will cause problems with servicing, especially when C checks come around.

Spot 4 - this late in the process, a senior officer will be made to carry the risk, even if it is the crews who will 'wear' that risk every day. The ASIMS and MAA is paper-safety.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 08:03
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,557
Originally Posted by Spot 4 View Post
I trust that if the EC*** crewmenís crash seat is unfit for purpose; or worse still hazardous to health, that the ASIMs process is in overdrive. You cannot and should not sweep flight safety under the carpet. The Duty Holder would be foolish to play statistic roulette with aircrew necks, for sooner or later somebody will get hurt.

But not the duty holder. That's whole point of the thread about the MoD avoiding the blame for Flt. Lt. Cunningham's death.
airpolice is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 08:16
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 11
I am not sure anybody is really stepping up into being responsible for flight safety. Take the Phenom, you have Instructors writing course materials who have never flown the aircraft.

An ongoing argument about what ratings are actually required for civilians to fly and teach on the aircraft.

A curriculum that will have students with around 80hrs total time as pilots being handed the keys to a biz jet and being told to go off an fly together. Instructors that will have virtually no time on type before being expected to take command and teach on type.

In the civil world this would have an ATO shut down for negligence and the Head of Training dealt with accordingly. There is no such position in Ascent, just a bunch of self professed ex RAF "experts" who don't know a thing about civil regulation attempting to bluster there way through.

What will be interesting to see is the first board of inquiry.........
S-Works is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 08:28
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,557
Originally Posted by bose-x View Post

What will be interesting to see is the first board of inquiry.........
What will be inevitable to see is the first board of enquiry.
airpolice is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 08:44
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by airpolice View Post
What will be inevitable to see is the first board of enquiry.
Sadly, I have to agree.
S-Works 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.