UK MFTS on or off the rails?
I hope that I have never suggested that those currently serving are doing “ a crap job” but they do seem to be served by a crap training system, slowly eroded as Dom suggests above. If someone currently in the know can reassure me as a taxpayer and NOK that the system is not FUBAR then I shall be delighted.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
high spirits,
If that is the kind of infantile discussion in which you wish to part take, hard luck. You forget, or maybe never knew, that many of us who served for 40 years were both Cold War Warriors and saw quite a lot of action since then. Equally, many of us have a wealth of experience instructing in the myriad of systems that the RAF has introduced since the 70s. If you wish to have a mature discussion, I'm sure that some may wish to join you. No one has 100% ownership of being right all of the time.
If that’s what you want to call a world class training system then you perhaps want to remove the rose tinted beer glasses for about 5 seconds. Today’s instructors are of far higher quality and the modern day RAF is in a better place than it was under the Cold War duffers who never saw any action anyway
No, I’m not after a bite. Some of the moronic and unfounded comments from ex RAF aircrew on this page just goad me to fight fire with fire.....
high spirits wrote:
It is quite impossible to have a serious debate with anyone who would make such a facile and frankly ridiculous statement.
2 x Phenom colliding is small beer, and yes I know how many we have.
ExAscoteer
Just for accuracy, formation has been in the METS syllabus for many years. It wasn’t when I did the MEXO course in 1985, but very much so when I was a QFI 1997-2000.
Just for accuracy, formation has been in the METS syllabus for many years. It wasn’t when I did the MEXO course in 1985, but very much so when I was a QFI 1997-2000.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to was caught out when leading a Night AAR Convex. I assumed that the 27 year old Graduate, Creamie with 1000 hrs was trained in basic night formation
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After that it was AAR on Albert.
Thence on the Domine
I was a QFI on the Jetstream post Domine and cannot recall teaching formation.
Last edited by ExAscoteer; 3rd Aug 2019 at 00:47.
Go back to your cup of cocoa in the old folks home BEagle. What do you seriously bring to a debate on MFTS?
We used to throw aircraft away with monotonous regularity in the 50s-80s. I would argue that we are just as capable now with fewer hours to go round and that the quality of training is better. This isn’t due to more hours, but higher quality. There you go, discuss that.
I underwent RAF pilot training in the '70s and am still involved in post-graduate training of experienced military pilots as well as still flying UK MAA regulated fast jet aircraft. Therefore, I have seen the changes in the capabilities of RAF pilots and instructional standards over the years. Many of the changes are purely in line with changes in the aviation environment overall, in particular the skill sets that are required; they are different now to 20/30/40 years ago. Top level thoughts: the ability of today's pilots is the same as what it ever was but ability is the potential to learn and fewer skill sets are actually taught and learnt. Therefore, the capabilities of today's pilots is, in some areas, less than it used to be (eg. aerobatics). Today, there is far more emphasis on flying by regulation and by numbers and less on applying judgement, both making decisions and interpreting visual and acceleration cues in order to achieve the desired flightpath of the aircraft. The problem with judgement is that you can get it wrong. The problem with regulation is what happens when a novel situation occurs? A balance of the two is required, and this is where supervision comes in as it is required to achieve the correct balance.
With respect to formation flying, the motor skills of flying 'on the wing' are not actually very perishable. However, formation leading skills are very perishable. This is mitigated in part by good SOPs. Knowledge of and adherence to these SOPs requires careful preparation, adequate briefing and practise. To my mind this is, and always has been, the biggest risk in close formation flying.
Today's military aviation world is different to that of the past. I believe that the training of the time was appropriate over the 46 years of military aviation experience that I have. Which was more fun - let's save that for a bar somewhere! Which was 'best', that can never be a meaningful argument until the day that it is proven that apples and oranges are the same.
And yes, I have flown the Phenom in formation.
Rgds
L
LOMCEVAK,
A lot has been said on these pages about the suitability of various aircraft being used under the MFTS contract. Did Boscombe Down pilots and rear crew have a say in the type selection, and who had the final say, RAF / Boscombe Down or Ascent?
Regards,
TL
A lot has been said on these pages about the suitability of various aircraft being used under the MFTS contract. Did Boscombe Down pilots and rear crew have a say in the type selection, and who had the final say, RAF / Boscombe Down or Ascent?
Regards,
TL
Rgds
L