UK MFTS on or off the rails?
I was once a Victor tanker co pilot, 52 years and 15,000 hours ago, ( and later a standards QFI) later an airline training captain, and found SOME of the former fast jet types b....y hard work to get up to scratch. Most were first class, but some were arrogant beyond belief, arrogance not matched by their rather meagre ability to be a member of an airliner crew.
Many of us started as V force copilots, and developed from there .
.......and how would YOU know, since you trained in the 90s, that todays QFIs are better than , say, those on my days of the 60s and 70s, As the standards QFI. I flew with quite a few, ALL knew their jobs well., certainly up to CFS standards, no cuffs around the ear involved.
So, perhaps its unwise to generalise !
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 4th Aug 2019 at 11:56.
BA/BY
1. Did you ever make any disparaging comments either on paper, online or out loud about other fleets, pilots, aircrew, cabin crew, ATC, movers or others during your 52 years and 15000 hours? No? Hypocrite or liar? Or both?
2. I don’t give a toss what your CV reads. This thread is about MFTS. Not your ego. Get over yourself.
3. My comments are intended to provoke a reaction and they have, and I make no apologies. I happen to agree with some of what is written on here. What I can’t stand is ill judged, uninformed and crass comments about the state of the RAF and the training system from those who think that they know better but enjoy throwing rocks from a glass house. As LOM rightly pointed out. It’s just different. I’m glad I got a rise out of a few of you. Quite frankly you deserve it.
4. I would add one more thing to the mix. I said that the quality of training and instruction was better. The training has been enhanced significantly by synthetics. I believe that that goes for the quality of instruction too as they go hand in hand. That has led to standards being maintained within the fewer flying hours that have inevitably been forced on all of us. The task is also different so there is an apples/oranges issue which I accept is impossible to compare.
Pathetic.
My comments are intended to provoke a reaction and they have, and I make no apologies
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I was an instructor in the 90s and I’ve returned for an FTRS post now. Things are different, not better or worse, just different. Firstly and most important, the students coming through now are the highest aptitude scorers, meaning input average standard is higher. We don’t concentrate so much on low level flying, massively reducing the risk. The aircraft are higher spec and more reliable. That increases required management skills but reduces the need for handling skills. We have reduced the drinking culture, that matters!
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare
I was an instructor in the 90s and I’ve returned for an FTRS post now. Things are different, not better or worse, just different. Firstly and most important, the students coming through now are the highest aptitude scorers, meaning input average standard is higher. We don’t concentrate so much on low level flying, massively reducing the risk. The aircraft are higher spec and more reliable. That increases required management skills but reduces the need for handling skills. We have reduced the drinking culture, that matters!
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare
I repeat, it’s different nowadays, you cannot compare
The calibre of student pilots has never been so consistently high. Had the bar been set this high when I joined, I would never have made it and nor would the majority of my contemporaries. They are asked to do so much with so few hours yet the vast majority cope very well and move on to fly some of the most advanced and capable aircraft in the world. They still drink, but less regularly yet still seem to have a great time, they visit the gym more than the bar and have outside interests which we didn't seem to have back in the day. But most importantly, imo, they are taught from Day 1 that the RAF is now a place where we stick our hand up when we make a mistake so that others may learn, without fear of undue punishment. The unwritten culture when I was taught to fly was "do what you have to do, just don't get caught". I understand that tuc & Chug have major issues with the hierarchy, but down at the coal face, it is a much, much better place than it was from a safety perspective.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North of East, South of West
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Progress and technological advances are well and good, but we must avoid the situation in the fixed wing world especially the civil side where pilots become mere systems managers.
The basic hands on skills remain the fall back safety net when the automated system falls over, or is poorly designed/integrated. To be able to fly the raw aircraft can prevent disaster. Several airline crashes were preventable, two most recently.
I learned to have a healthy suspicion of any computer assisted systems.
The basic hands on skills remain the fall back safety net when the automated system falls over, or is poorly designed/integrated. To be able to fly the raw aircraft can prevent disaster. Several airline crashes were preventable, two most recently.
I learned to have a healthy suspicion of any computer assisted systems.
Good question. Considering the RPAS operators are now in the RAF pilot branch, will they be offered FJ/RW/ME crossovers after doing 40-odd hours on the Tutor?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
During my early time in the RAF, I had a healthy respect for earlier generation aircrew and the competence of their air force. I like to think that my own generation upheld that capability, albeit with different equipment and methodologies. Today, the equipment is way more sophisticated and capable, and I know that the aircrew (and groundcrew) of today, employing yet more different methodologies, are part of a highly effective air force - which is what it's all about. I admire and envy them, regardless of gender.
A heartfelt if boring post, prompted by some dismay over some of the foregoing debate. And well said Lom!
A heartfelt if boring post, prompted by some dismay over some of the foregoing debate. And well said Lom!
ME or RW pilots crossing to FJ have to do the full basic and advanced FJ courses. Of course, RPAS pilots would have to do the same. If the very slight reduction in the amount of elementary flying leads to any aircraft handling issues, it’ll be exposed in the basic course where it can be easily addressed.
FJ or ME pilots crossing to RW have to do the full basic and advanced RW courses....
You get the picture, I’m sure. We don’t send crossover pilots straight to OCUs, if that’s what you were wondering.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...ning-cs2n3fwsm
RAF missing half its pilots after cancelled training
The Ministry of Defence has failed to train 45 per cent of the pilots the RAF needs over the past six years, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has found.
Cancelled and delayed instruction means there is a shortfall of 125 aircrew a year. A senior MP last night poured scorn on the “saga”. The National Audit Office investigation, published today, found that the MoD was taking 7.1 years to train RAF fast-jet pilots — more than three years longer than the target of 3.9 years.
In May a freedom of information request by an RAF veteran revealed that 350 trainees, comprising 110 signed up to fly helicopters for the army and the Royal Navy plus 240 enlisted to fly fast jets for the RAF, had been grounded because of training delays. Critics warned that long passages of time between different phases of training could lead to skills fading.
The audit office said the government recognised the issues over the training bottleneck for pilots, which resulted largely from severe cuts to aircrew numbers in a 2010 defence review, many of which were reversed in 2015.
Although the government changed its mind about targets for pilot numbers, reversing the cuts to deliver the rise in numbers has proved difficult. Part of the training is designed and managed by Ascent, a venture between the defence contractors Lockheed Martin and Babcock, who signed a 25-year contract in 2008. It is thought it will take up to five years for the shortfall to be fixed.
The MoD is to enrol up to 100 students in a private flying school at a cost of £7.2 million over the next three years. Other British military pilots will be enrolled on Nato training programmes.
Meg Hillier, Labour chairwoman of the public accounts committee, said: “The military flying training saga continues with the MoD repeatedly failing to train the aircrew it needs . . . it is more critical than ever that the MoD’s much delayed new programme works.”
The MoD said: “The Military Flying Training System is the biggest transformation of UK military aircrew training in a generation and we welcome the audit office report on this programme. We acknowledge there have been some challenges, the transition to the new system is now well under way and a steady improvement in aircrew throughout is being seen in all areas.”
RAF missing half its pilots after cancelled training
The Ministry of Defence has failed to train 45 per cent of the pilots the RAF needs over the past six years, Whitehall’s spending watchdog has found.
Cancelled and delayed instruction means there is a shortfall of 125 aircrew a year. A senior MP last night poured scorn on the “saga”. The National Audit Office investigation, published today, found that the MoD was taking 7.1 years to train RAF fast-jet pilots — more than three years longer than the target of 3.9 years.
In May a freedom of information request by an RAF veteran revealed that 350 trainees, comprising 110 signed up to fly helicopters for the army and the Royal Navy plus 240 enlisted to fly fast jets for the RAF, had been grounded because of training delays. Critics warned that long passages of time between different phases of training could lead to skills fading.
The audit office said the government recognised the issues over the training bottleneck for pilots, which resulted largely from severe cuts to aircrew numbers in a 2010 defence review, many of which were reversed in 2015.
Although the government changed its mind about targets for pilot numbers, reversing the cuts to deliver the rise in numbers has proved difficult. Part of the training is designed and managed by Ascent, a venture between the defence contractors Lockheed Martin and Babcock, who signed a 25-year contract in 2008. It is thought it will take up to five years for the shortfall to be fixed.
The MoD is to enrol up to 100 students in a private flying school at a cost of £7.2 million over the next three years. Other British military pilots will be enrolled on Nato training programmes.
Meg Hillier, Labour chairwoman of the public accounts committee, said: “The military flying training saga continues with the MoD repeatedly failing to train the aircrew it needs . . . it is more critical than ever that the MoD’s much delayed new programme works.”
The MoD said: “The Military Flying Training System is the biggest transformation of UK military aircrew training in a generation and we welcome the audit office report on this programme. We acknowledge there have been some challenges, the transition to the new system is now well under way and a steady improvement in aircrew throughout is being seen in all areas.”
You've asked this before on another thread and I’ve made this point in response before. Here goes...
ME or RW pilots crossing to FJ have to do the full basic and advanced FJ courses. Of course, RPAS pilots would have to do the same. If the very slight reduction in the amount of elementary flying leads to any aircraft handling issues, it’ll be exposed in the basic course where it can be easily addressed.
FJ or ME pilots crossing to RW have to do the full basic and advanced RW courses....
You get the picture, I’m sure. We don’t send crossover pilots straight to OCUs, if that’s what you were wondering.
Yes got the picture - I do remember a few Tonka GR1 pilots at Shawbury who had to go through the whole Basic and Advanced course before ending up on the Chinook.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Wilts
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking along the lines of civvie APTL holders joining and going straight onto the ME fleet, flying the benign routes to the USA, Falklands, etc. In fact, don’t we have elements of this already doing that with the Voyager?
I have a question for those forum members with experience in the legal sector.
Is it possible that those young men and women who have been adversely affected by the unacceptable delays in their professional training, could raise a case against the MOD?
There's a generation of young pilots arriving on their Frontline types, in many cases in excess of 10 years since joining the Service. This represents an entire generation of pilots, who will be unable to have the career opportunities that they might reasonably have expected when entering into an employment contract with the RAF / MOD.
Pilots arriving on the FL after 10 years won't be completing their first tour until something approaching their 12/13th year of service. The current levels of competition on FJ promotion boards mean that even the most exceptional candidates won't be 'in the bracket' until completion of their 2nd tour (year 14/15). Even very high calibre individuals are likely to to require 3+ tours (year 16-18+) to be considered competitive for promotion within their respective cadre of peers.
If you were to trace through the likely career impact on young aviators directly caused by this MFTS 'debacle', and calculate the potential lost earnings caused by a failure to professionally train employees within a reasonable period of time, you could demonstrate loss of earnings through:- 1./ Lack of flying (sic retention) pay, 2./ Lack of promotion opportunity, 3./ Subsequent impact on lifetime pension earnings through point 2.
So could there be a case to answer? Could we potentially witness a future 'class action' against MOD?
Is it possible that those young men and women who have been adversely affected by the unacceptable delays in their professional training, could raise a case against the MOD?
There's a generation of young pilots arriving on their Frontline types, in many cases in excess of 10 years since joining the Service. This represents an entire generation of pilots, who will be unable to have the career opportunities that they might reasonably have expected when entering into an employment contract with the RAF / MOD.
Pilots arriving on the FL after 10 years won't be completing their first tour until something approaching their 12/13th year of service. The current levels of competition on FJ promotion boards mean that even the most exceptional candidates won't be 'in the bracket' until completion of their 2nd tour (year 14/15). Even very high calibre individuals are likely to to require 3+ tours (year 16-18+) to be considered competitive for promotion within their respective cadre of peers.
If you were to trace through the likely career impact on young aviators directly caused by this MFTS 'debacle', and calculate the potential lost earnings caused by a failure to professionally train employees within a reasonable period of time, you could demonstrate loss of earnings through:- 1./ Lack of flying (sic retention) pay, 2./ Lack of promotion opportunity, 3./ Subsequent impact on lifetime pension earnings through point 2.
So could there be a case to answer? Could we potentially witness a future 'class action' against MOD?