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 30th Dec 2020, 09:07
  #461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oxford
Age: 85
Posts: 456
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
Bill Macgillivray is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2020, 15:37
  #462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Quite so, Bill!
BEagle is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2020, 18:18
  #463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 86
Posts: 2,498
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
The FMS in the Argosy was much better the the Civil FMS in the Britannia!
brakedwell is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 09:59
  #464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 343
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
So, anyway, to steer this back in the right direction, does anyone know what the backlog of pilots waiting for courses is like? I have heard that the number on hold has fallen quite a bit, but there is still a way to go.
Sky Sports is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2020, 11:58
  #465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 607
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Smile

Originally Posted by Bill Macgillivray
Beagle,
However, there are many others who can and some can even use a FMS!!
Come on, get wth it gents! I'd over 7000hrs before I got my hands on one - but its most certainly an FMS (i.e., a Flight Management System).

Last edited by H Peacock; 31st Dec 2020 at 12:22.
H Peacock is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2022, 20:36
  #466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,127
Received 93 Likes on 49 Posts
Das Internationale Hubschrauberausbildungszentrum

Well the Bundeswehr are sending their RW students over to the rolling hills of Shropshire, so we must be doing something right...lest its overflow from Buckeburg or fort Rucker



cheers
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2023, 22:51
  #467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: East Riding
Posts: 74
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
This is the first time I have seen figures quoted for the shortfall in capability:

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...151649.article

teeonefixer is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2023, 02:47
  #468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow!

"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."

Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?
Double Hush is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2023, 02:56
  #469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 1,280
Likes: 0
Received 95 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally Posted by Double Hush
Wow!

"Options previously outlined.....accelerating planning for 11 Sqn.....to train RAF pilots...2022 until 2027."

Will the engine problem also affect the Qatari Hawks? Or was it a case of the RAF not procuring enough spares?

Haven't heard of any issues with the RAAF hawks.
rattman is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2023, 06:35
  #470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: East Riding
Posts: 74
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
The Qatari Hawks are so much newer so hopefully a fix will be applied in good time. Do they have RAF trainees on them anyhow?

The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.

Was the 9500 fhrs was an aspirational figure - but I may be wrong?
teeonefixer is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2023, 07:21
  #471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cayley's County - Yorkshire
Posts: 288
Received 40 Likes on 15 Posts
The RAAF Mk.127 Hawks use the 871 engine which, hopefully, is not affected in the same way.
Currently, although after a series of 871 issues which have affected users such as the RAAF and the USN (T45), the RAAF have contracted to refit the Mk127 fleet with the 951 engine. Fingers crossed that the current issue is sorted before the RAAF engines reach that point.
CAEBr is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 17th Jan 2023, 11:02
  #472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.
Timelord is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2023, 16:10
  #473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
I can’t quote chapter and verse but I seem to remember talk of procurement idiocy at the time the T2s came into service. Something like buying fewer engines than airframes ? Maybe it was just rumour but maybe chickens coming home to roost.
I think I might be repeating myself from when was mentioned before, so apologies in advance.

All provisioning is based on the maintenance and fit policies, aircraft numbers, flying rate, disposition, minimum recovery rates and predicted reliability. (MTBR, not MTBF). This is a Service HQ function, carried out by (unsurprisingly) the Provisioning Authority and dictated to procurers in the 'Shopping List', along with funding.

For example, a 'for but not with' fit policy will reduce the numbers. Such policies are common, but would seldom if ever result in a lower buy than a/c numbers. Especially on something like an ECU, which is not allowed to fail before servicing (unlike most avionics).

But my assumption is based on the requirement that the repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet. If someone agreed in advance that, say, 40% of aircraft would not be immediately available, then yes, it's possible this slipped through. It is more likely to be a conscious Service policy to make the requirement look affordable, if only because the lower-than-aircraft-number would be a huge red flag, and automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)

A procurer may, belatedly, spot the madness, but can seldom do anything about it. And he/she would need a certain background, know what questions to ask, and be able to construct a counter-argument. Less and less likely because this is a job you did before being promoted to the MoD(PE)/DPA/DE&S grade minima. Today, there is no such recruitment ground, and direct entrants don't serve at this or the 4 grades below. They never earn what is NOT being done.

To work out what actually happened, you simply pull the HQ file with the provisioning parameters for the year the requirement was approved. Hark...I hear the rush to burn it.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 09:26
  #474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 649
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
tuc

Could you clarify 2 points?


"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."

Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!


"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"

Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?

Ta.
dervish is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 12:55
  #475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
tuc

Could you clarify 2 points?


"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."

Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!


"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"

Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?

Ta.


Dervish

1. 13% is the actual figure laid down, and related to Availability, Reliability and Maintainability, and ultimately what the Services are required to be able to do, and with what. Terms have changed, but I know this figure didn’t, at least until I retired. Low? Challenging, but I know what you mean. You didn’t always achieve 13%, but at least you had an identifiable individual who knew the solution, and answerable directly to a 2 Star who would then prioritise. I see mention nowadays of >50% aircraft unavailable.

All support funding and manning was based on this vicious circle and related assumptions, so you can see the link to….

2. The software is loosely related as some of the same data would be used in the manning equivalent. But no, not the same programme. The main difference is that the aircraft/equipment one had infinitely more variables and constantly changing parameters. It was more useful in briefings, to present trends and where the Assumptions were not being met. The final output to Resources & Programmes in MB was not allowed to be that spewed out by the computer. Those who managed this were, uniquely, permitted to override LTC Instructions using ‘engineering judgment’. In my opinion, the programme was developed (in house) because it could be, not because it added any value - the work still had to be done by hand, and you needed trained engineers to assess it, not data input operators.

Lacking this, funding WILL be horribly wrong, and seldom too high. OR/DEC can never get their quantitative requirement and hence costings right. It follows the procurers will be short of funding and/or unwittingly contract the wrong thing. (BOWMAN anyone?)

Hope that helps. Trying to condense the 30-odd pages of the Instructions.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2023, 19:08
  #476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: W. Scotland
Posts: 649
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Thanks tuc. Explains quite a lot!
dervish is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2023, 07:18
  #477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 503
Received 40 Likes on 10 Posts
Timelord - idiocy, yes, but actually now that buying fewer engines than airframes has actually paid dividends. It means that there are a pair of engines that are so new that the problem hasn’t manifested itself and probably won’t until well after the other engines are fixed. Obviously, that was more by luck than design!

My understanding of this module 1 problem is that it affects the majority of modern Hawks. However, it’s an hours based problem and so only the older higher used jets are affected right now. I understand that it is linked to poor quality titanium bought from our old friends the Russkis that sits at the end of the problem (that’s the rumour I heard anyway).
iRaven is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by iRaven:
Old 25th Jan 2023, 17:33
  #478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,597
Received 35 Likes on 24 Posts
Royal Air Force grounds its entire fleet of fast jet training aircraft due to engine problem | UK News | Sky News
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2023, 05:48
  #479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Europe
Posts: 24
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
CAS says: "completely satisfied with the RAF Valley performance"

From Key.aero 2 February 2023

RAF students join QEAF training

Quote
Adding RAF students to the QEAF contract was seen by some as an indication that all was not right within the Ascent MFTS flying training programme at RAF Valley (for more, see UK news pages). The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston was keen to correct this misapprehension, and told AirForces Monthly that “after past, well documented, problems at RAF Valley” he was now “completely satisfied with the RAF Valley performance”. He added that training potential RAF fast jet pilots at RAF Leeming would give him “another option”.
Unquote


Not sure if we can have faith in his confidence after his pathetic dithering performance in parliament last week.

I'm interested to know:

Are RAF student pilots still being trained on 11 QEAF Squadron? Is this actually an option for CAS?

Does the QEAF share the same confidence that CAS has with their student pilots being trained at the Hawk T2 MFTS at RAF Valley?
KrisKringle is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2023, 05:11
  #480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Seems to me both sides use disinformation:

"Saturday Flying

As we have done in the past RAF Valley will soon be conducting some limited flying training on occasional Saturdays. This decision has not been taken lightly, however, with the backdrop of events playing out in Eastern Europe, it has seldom been more important for us to ensure we train sufficient pilots to ensure front-line needs are met. Only Hawk aircraft will be operating with the first flights on 11 March. The RAF would like to apologise for any inconvenience and thank our neighbours and the public for their support and understanding. Prior notice of Saturday flying will be publicised on our social media channels and in the local press."

Or is it just comedy?
typerated is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.