UK MFTS on or off the rails?
The answer is a nice round number! 0
What is often forgotten is the crucial CRM and captaincy taught during the 202 phase. SARTU was placed before TACEX under the old system because the skills and experience learned were vital. The failure of the system (it is not all Ascent’s fault) to provide winching training is a disgrace.
It is common knowledge amongst MFTS staff that Ascent refused to listen to people who knew what the solution to rotary training should be. They thought they knew better than people who had been delivering the training for years. They had A Cat DHFS instructors literally screaming at them, telling them their solution would not work, and explaining precisely why. They unfortunately did not listen.
It would be very difficult to overstate the Culpability the Ascent Rotary management team have in creating this regrettable situation.
However...
The MOD have not helped. In fact they have served only to add to the fundamental flaws in Ascents plan by adding layer upon layer of ridiculous requirements that have never been needed before. The risk-averse attitude of the MOD and the DDH - far beyond anything seen under DHFS - have ensured that this crucial training has not happened
I believe should be a public enquiry into this disaster of a project. Ascent management and MOD both need to be held fully accountable for this needless waste of hundreds of millions of Pounds of taxpayers money.
What is often forgotten is the crucial CRM and captaincy taught during the 202 phase. SARTU was placed before TACEX under the old system because the skills and experience learned were vital. The failure of the system (it is not all Ascent’s fault) to provide winching training is a disgrace.
It is common knowledge amongst MFTS staff that Ascent refused to listen to people who knew what the solution to rotary training should be. They thought they knew better than people who had been delivering the training for years. They had A Cat DHFS instructors literally screaming at them, telling them their solution would not work, and explaining precisely why. They unfortunately did not listen.
It would be very difficult to overstate the Culpability the Ascent Rotary management team have in creating this regrettable situation.
However...
The MOD have not helped. In fact they have served only to add to the fundamental flaws in Ascents plan by adding layer upon layer of ridiculous requirements that have never been needed before. The risk-averse attitude of the MOD and the DDH - far beyond anything seen under DHFS - have ensured that this crucial training has not happened
I believe should be a public enquiry into this disaster of a project. Ascent management and MOD both need to be held fully accountable for this needless waste of hundreds of millions of Pounds of taxpayers money.
Last edited by Doctor Cruces; 3rd Oct 2020 at 19:42. Reason: Spelling mistake
The one thing that everyone here seems to miss is that the Infra for Ascent is outstanding.
Perhaps at the expense of the Unit they are based, but everything works. What’s not to like?
Perhaps at the expense of the Unit they are based, but everything works. What’s not to like?
Covid Impact on MFTS
Does anybody know what, if any, impact Covid has had on the MFTS courses? Are they all now running with 100% loading, or is it at reduced capacity? Has the backlog of students on hold waiting for courses got worse, or, has the suspension of RAF pilot selection since March helped to clear the backlog?
Middle Wallop grading has just finished recently and I have 2 colleagues in the Rotary phase. One has been put on hold since July and is anticipating to start at Shawbury early in 21. The other was down in Jan/Feb at the final phase at Shawbury and said it’s not been a smooth course with various issues, but he didn’t get time to say what. Rotary courses are booked to come to MW in 21 with the Juno for their tactical phase.
I believe there are differences between what the military instructors and the Ascent ones are allowed to do re Covid.
One RAF/MOD/MAA element of the 202 cockup in the insistence on changing the cabin seats in the 145. The cabin and seating in a standard 145 allow winching without problems, you just don't get ridiculous Mil Spec 'crashworthy' seats and then have to limit the size of your rearcrew to gnomes!
One RAF/MOD/MAA element of the 202 cockup in the insistence on changing the cabin seats in the 145. The cabin and seating in a standard 145 allow winching without problems, you just don't get ridiculous Mil Spec 'crashworthy' seats and then have to limit the size of your rearcrew to gnomes!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
One RAF/MOD/MAA element of the 202 cockup in the insistence on changing the cabin seats in the 145. The cabin and seating in a standard 145 allow winching without problems, you just don't get ridiculous Mil Spec 'crashworthy' seats and then have to limit the size of your rearcrew to gnomes!
a) you could fairly lay at the MOD's door, not so much the RAF's; b) is on the contractor.
It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?
If no-one is calling for the Mil Spec to be changed (does the wider RW community think it's rubbish?) then all anyone in the RAF could have done is waived a requirement for the contractor to implement a published safety standard. Why should any accountable individual take that risk simply to accommodate the aircraft selected by a contractor which would have been fully aware of the requirement and the specification? And, would another MFTS bidder have had grounds for legal review if a requirement of the bid had been waived after selection of the winner? (Almost certainly yes if they'd proposed a larger, more expensive aircraft with Mil Spec compliance in mind).
Last edited by Easy Street; 3rd Oct 2020 at 22:07.
How many senior RAF officers had a hand in selecting the winners of the MFTS contract or offering advice to influence the selection? - the RAF can't wash it's hands of the mess that RW MFTS has turned into.
Yes, you can point the finger at the contractor as well, their whole plan was a pipe-dream in terms on numbers of aircraft, planning and utilisation of same and the ability to cliff-edge the transition from one contractor to another.
Trying to just rest the blame on a Mil-Spec is avoiding the ocean-going disaster caused by ambitious contractors and senior officers plus the Treasury pushing for the cheapest solution.
Yes, you can point the finger at the contractor as well, their whole plan was a pipe-dream in terms on numbers of aircraft, planning and utilisation of same and the ability to cliff-edge the transition from one contractor to another.
Trying to just rest the blame on a Mil-Spec is avoiding the ocean-going disaster caused by ambitious contractors and senior officers plus the Treasury pushing for the cheapest solution.
The stupidity is that should you have a significant world event, large or small, it is likely to be over before those in training are going to be any use. Bodies or airframes cannot be mass produced like WW2, so the plan doesn’t work, unless it’s 2040. All the gaps you see now will remain gaps and those that signed the deal will be retired or unaccountable.
I would be surprised if there’s a significant proportion of you left that believe the utter tosh that spews about the success.
I would be surprised if there’s a significant proportion of you left that believe the utter tosh that spews about the success.
Last edited by Countdown begins; 4th Oct 2020 at 19:50.
........ If no-one is calling for the Mil Spec to be changed (does the wider RW community think it's rubbish?) then all anyone in the RAF could have done is waived a requirement for the contractor to implement a published safety standard. Why should any accountable individual take that risk simply to accommodate the aircraft selected by a contractor which would have been fully aware of the requirement and the specification? .....
Maybe this is more of a case of 2nd thoughts by the MoD regarding this part of the Requirement. If it was a late change to the Requirement to include Mil Spec seating then hard to blame the Contractor. Even if it had been in the initial Requirement, was the Contractor provided with a waiver relating to the seats which has subsequently been withdrawn? Don't know - just sayin'!
Clearly a ball has been dropped - but by whom? Wouldn't be the first time the MoD changes requirements late in the day - but, currently, I don't think it's clear what happened. Maybe someone can enlighten us. Cheers, H 'n' H
Last edited by Hot 'n' High; 5th Oct 2020 at 11:15.
Covid Impact on MFTS
Does anybody know what, if any, impact Covid has had on the MFTS courses? Are they all now running with 100% loading, or is it at reduced capacity? Has the backlog of students on hold waiting for courses got worse, or, has the suspension of RAF pilot selection since March helped to clear the backlog?
Does anybody know what, if any, impact Covid has had on the MFTS courses? Are they all now running with 100% loading, or is it at reduced capacity? Has the backlog of students on hold waiting for courses got worse, or, has the suspension of RAF pilot selection since March helped to clear the backlog?
Its a genuine question for somebody who is about to join the pipeline. We were just curious how long his training might take compared to the lengths quoted in recent FOI's, BBC reports and NAO reports.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
It seems the 145 is used very successfully around the globe for winching so who would you suggest caused the problem?
Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.
If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.
If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it
.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it
.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Apart from the fact you have to stand on the skid to operate the winch because of the skids, the 145 is fine for winching and the standard seat fit folds up to give plenty of room in the cabin.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.
If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.
Our CP flew and assessed the 5 blade 145 recently and was very impressed with it - the Leonardo TP couldn't understand how the RAF/Ascent had made such a mess of implementing it.
If it is a performance issue then it is no better or worse than the 412 which was used successfully for years.
Quite right 212man -Airbus TP for the 145 - our CP also flew the 169 with Leonardo....doh!
Baldeep - don't care what we get as long as it is new and shiny
Baldeep - don't care what we get as long as it is new and shiny
