UK MFTS on or off the rails?
What’s the low down on the T6 Texan II these days, are they ‘mission capable’ yet? Why T6 and not PC21? I ask as two places I’ve visited recently seem to have no problems getting swarms of the things airborne everyday (with the aircrew wearing U.K. AEA to!). Is it purely down to money or is something else happening?
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What’s the low down on the T6 Texan II these days, are they ‘mission capable’ yet? Why T6 and not PC21? I ask as two places I’ve visited recently seem to have no problems getting swarms of the things airborne everyday (with the aircrew wearing U.K. AEA to!). Is it purely down to money or is something else happening?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not very innovative to be unable to deliver on contract. Indeed, contracts involving MoD seem to have this unnerving quality on a recurrent basis. In my opinion due to a complete lack of accountability, and the nonsense that is 2 year command tours.
Programs like this this should be taken from cradle to delivery by a single responsible owner. If we used relevant experience, rather than throwing people on MSP/ six sigma courses and pretending the generalist development approach we seem to follow (despite being a technologically advanced organisation requiring depth of knowledge In programme management) works, guess this will happen time and time again. The prime contractor was warned , yet seemed to be happy cracking on.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFTS does seem to be degenerating doesnt it, both in terms of delivery shortcomings and the resulting commercial relationship - pretty much in the way that quite a few (old timers!) on here had been forecasting it would.
I do agree that simply throwing rocks at ASCENT is massively oversimplifying the issues at hand. The accountability (the buck) still stops with MoD (PE) or whatever they are called these days, regardless of the shortcomings of their chosen delivery partner.
Fundamentally the current situation has come about by a misguided attempt to simultaneously modernise and strip out cost of Flying Training. So whereas previously we had a flying training system that was (arguably) the envy of the world it did come at a cost and also was facing quite acute recapitalisation challenges. Further coupled with the ever changing face of modern warfare you can kind of see why some relatively clever, career minded professionals, decided that MFTS had legs.
All sounds good so far, however the next step is where I imagine it started to unravel. This is the bit where the "cost challenge" is laid down and instead of working to a, for arguments sake, 10% cut on the headline costs of the legacy system you are then told it has to be 40%. Cue a load of headscratching, from which said professionals declare that what is being asked for is impossible, i.e. no way it is possible to save 40%, recapatilise the fleet and modernise the syllabus all at the same time. Next they get told they have no choice they will "have to make it fit" so, and this is the clever bit, a set of assumptions are documented, e.g. assume that student pilot numbers will remain at 2010 levels for the next 25yrs, assume that International Training requirements will decline over next 25yrs, assume that availability rate of Texan II will be 99.999% for next 25yrs, assume that MPA capability will not be required for next 25yrs, assume that outflow rates will remain at Y% per annum for next 25yrs, etc, etc
If all of those assumptions (and many more) would have held true then maybe this MFTS malarkey would have stood a chance, but as soon as those assumptions started to change then an already marginal delivery plan suddenly becomes a worthless pile of garbage. Then you have to find somebody senior with an ounce of gumption to go and tell the DefSec that MFTS is dead on its feet, then he has to listen, then DefSec gets replaced, then the VSO moves on, etc, etc
Eventually you end up where we seem to be today where all the poorly chickens come home to roost....
The only thing likely to dramatically alter prospects in the long term is to throw more money at it
I do agree that simply throwing rocks at ASCENT is massively oversimplifying the issues at hand. The accountability (the buck) still stops with MoD (PE) or whatever they are called these days, regardless of the shortcomings of their chosen delivery partner.
Fundamentally the current situation has come about by a misguided attempt to simultaneously modernise and strip out cost of Flying Training. So whereas previously we had a flying training system that was (arguably) the envy of the world it did come at a cost and also was facing quite acute recapitalisation challenges. Further coupled with the ever changing face of modern warfare you can kind of see why some relatively clever, career minded professionals, decided that MFTS had legs.
All sounds good so far, however the next step is where I imagine it started to unravel. This is the bit where the "cost challenge" is laid down and instead of working to a, for arguments sake, 10% cut on the headline costs of the legacy system you are then told it has to be 40%. Cue a load of headscratching, from which said professionals declare that what is being asked for is impossible, i.e. no way it is possible to save 40%, recapatilise the fleet and modernise the syllabus all at the same time. Next they get told they have no choice they will "have to make it fit" so, and this is the clever bit, a set of assumptions are documented, e.g. assume that student pilot numbers will remain at 2010 levels for the next 25yrs, assume that International Training requirements will decline over next 25yrs, assume that availability rate of Texan II will be 99.999% for next 25yrs, assume that MPA capability will not be required for next 25yrs, assume that outflow rates will remain at Y% per annum for next 25yrs, etc, etc
If all of those assumptions (and many more) would have held true then maybe this MFTS malarkey would have stood a chance, but as soon as those assumptions started to change then an already marginal delivery plan suddenly becomes a worthless pile of garbage. Then you have to find somebody senior with an ounce of gumption to go and tell the DefSec that MFTS is dead on its feet, then he has to listen, then DefSec gets replaced, then the VSO moves on, etc, etc
Eventually you end up where we seem to be today where all the poorly chickens come home to roost....
The only thing likely to dramatically alter prospects in the long term is to throw more money at it
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depressing
RAF copying the USN?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the R4 interview a number of military pilots are now completing multi engine training at a civil provider down in Bournemouth? So these somewhat pissed off young people who have been kept waiting years for pilot training are now at a civil school where they can quietly pay to take their civil licences in parallel with the RAF course......
In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?
In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He sounded precisely like the 'politician' that he is, avoiding answering the questions being asked. The business-speak drivel coming out of his mouth was embarrassing.
Furthermore, Ascent's own website is replete with nonsense like "Delivering a world class Military Flying Training System" and "Delivering excellence." What tosh! MFTS is little more than the usual PFI-type stuff - an opportunity for some folks to put their hands in the taxpayers pocket and deliver not-a-lot.
Furthermore, Ascent's own website is replete with nonsense like "Delivering a world class Military Flying Training System" and "Delivering excellence." What tosh! MFTS is little more than the usual PFI-type stuff - an opportunity for some folks to put their hands in the taxpayers pocket and deliver not-a-lot.
According to the R4 interview a number of military pilots are now completing multi engine training at a civil provider down in Bournemouth? So these somewhat pissed off young people who have been kept waiting years for pilot training are now at a civil school where they can quietly pay to take their civil licences in parallel with the RAF course......
In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?
In next years news RAF suffers outflow of freshly trained first tour pilots to civil aviation?
As I understand it, the MoD have insisted that a crucial part of the training at Bournemouth isn't completed, such that it doesn't compromise what the RAF wants but does preclude the pilots from getting ATPL A at the end.
Such short-sighted petty-mindedness is why so many have left over the years - if they guaranteed ATPL A or H at the end of Service then far fewer would leave for fear of being left behind.
Such short-sighted petty-mindedness is why so many have left over the years - if they guaranteed ATPL A or H at the end of Service then far fewer would leave for fear of being left behind.
As usual, when it comes to aviation matters, we on the West Bank of the Salt Water Divide see things a bit differently.
One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.
But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.
Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.
Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73
One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.
But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.
Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.
Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73
As usual, when it comes to aviation matters, we on the West Bank of the Salt Water Divide see things a bit differently.
One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.
But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.
Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.
Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73
One of them is how the FAA treats the Military Aviator when it comes to licensing.
But then my recollection of the UK system reminds me of why ya'll just do not....and shall. not ever get it figured out.
Take a read of our Federal Air Regulation that deals with this licensing situation.....perhaps ya'll night consider copying what we. have done.
Now pay attention....when we talk "Type"....we have a completely different but much simpler system of "types".....ie we do not "type" for aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds....like Gazelles, Hueys, Jet Rangers, 350's.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.73
Not sure if you use social media, but on FB..there is the RTAG - Rotary To Airline Group , encouraging , assisting, running workshops, career fairs for military RW pilots across the USA into the commercial airline industry. Each week, one sees success stories of some former CWO or WO with picture of then in an AH-64/UH-60/CH-47 in flight suit to shirt and tie, epaulettes and standing /sitting beside/in a CRJ/ERJ etc.
Likes of AA, Alaska etc are offering training, bounty attractive resettlement packages etc all in the name addressing the airline pilot shortage. The RTAG roadshow goes along to the likes of Campbell AAF, Cairns AAF, etc
However on out side of the pond - the contracting out of M/E to Hurn....hmmm subtlely getting ones CPL then if the system passes them...still have several years of short service commission (12?) to pay back etc...lest forced PVR...
Cheers
