Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Learn to fly at Leeming

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.

Learn to fly at Leeming

Old 26th Jan 2019, 08:53
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,921
Received 137 Likes on 62 Posts
The B Word,

All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?"
pr00ne is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 11:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
The B Word,

All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?"
it wasn’t 120 it was more than that (not including RPAS Pilots) and for the next 12-24 months intakes have been halved - not the 20 you quote. The reason for slowing the intake is because there are quite a few holding at various points in the pipeline. Think of the pipeline as a sausage machine producing various types of sausages - if you keep putting in the sausage meat and the various sausage finishing facilities are all not delivering 90% or more then the sausage meat hopper starts to build up. That is what has happened. As we all know the various parts of the new MFTS pipeline has had challenges in starting on time and delvering the planned capacity (that is thankfully now changing), but the effect has meant the hoppers are full for now so reducing to about 50% is the right thing to do - we would rightly be highly critical if the RAF didn’t.

As for the T1 I believe they are going to use the slots for creamies, skimmies and GR4 WSOs on crossovers to pilot. If that is correct, then again it is the right thing to do.

Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.

Last edited by The B Word; 27th Jan 2019 at 10:30. Reason: Spelling mistake
The B Word is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 11:37
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The B Word

there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.
Yep. From the outside, the fake news is that the RAF has a flying training system!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 11:54
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by The B Word
Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.
Is it fake news that the system at Valley have introduced a process which has colloquially become known as 'zero'ing'? My understanding is that 'zero'ing' allows MFTS to continue to graduate courses on time, in order to get paid. The fact that these courses, I am told, have 'zero' students on them, yet the company still gets paid, is quite frankly astonishing.

Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds?

Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard?
Typhoondriver is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 13:31
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Typhoondriver

Sounds like fake news, or half-truth, to me within a variety of your questions. For instance I know there are changes to the T2 syllabus upcoming that the FL asked for...

Look, I’m not saying MFTS is sweetness and light, but it is what it is and it is unlikely to change - so we can either all carp about “the good old days” (which in my experience had some big plus points but some significant negatives as well), or we can just move along and get it working. Don’t forget that MFTS was designed around 2006ish and then there was SDSR2010 that axed a load of capability and aircrew trg requirement (MRA4, Harrier, some Tornados, early draw downs of other types as well), then, for the first time in my lengthy time in the service a growth under SDSR2015 plus also Typhoon/Hawk sales with training requirements thrown into the mix. Here is SDSR2015 in brief:

Typhoon. We will create two additional front-line squadrons from our existing fleet and extend Typhoon in service to 2040.

F-35 Lightning. We will buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme. We will buy some of these aircraft more quickly than previously planned, creating an additional front-line squadron by 2023.

ISTAR. More than doubling the number of armed remotely piloted air systems and increasing the number of crews under the Protector programme to replace Reaper. Investing in a fleet of nine Boeing P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with an overland surveillance capability. Extending Sentinel in service until 2021. Upgrading E-3D Sentry, extending it in service until 2035, and increasing the number of crews. Expanding the Shadow fleet, with a corresponding uplift in the number of crews, and extending it in service until at least 2030. Extending Rivet Joint in service until 2035 and increasing the number of crews.

Air Mobility. Completing the introduction to service of 22 A400M Atlas tactical and heavy lift aircraft and 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelling and transport aircraft. Upgrading 14 C-130J Hercules aircraft and extending them in service. Upgrading the Chinook battlefield helicopter.

Military Flying Training. We will expand the capacity of the Military Flying Training System to meet the demands of the increased training demand.
Now the last bit of SDSR2015 is the interesting bit for this thread. There has been no enhancement so far to the UKMFTS fleet and what is currently being rolled out is still the same numbers for the requirement set for SDSR2010 - ie. 23x Prefect, 10x Texan, 5x Phenom, 28x EC135 Juno, 3x EC145 Jupiter and the previous 28x T2s. I am unaware of any addition so far to the fleet, but I understand the SDSR2015 increase is under starters orders (a bit late in my humble opinion) that will see additional numbers of airframes added to the extant ones. There is also the CPL/IR outsource activity that is helping increase capacity plus now we have 100 Sqn T1s and ENJJPT T-38Cs helping with that capacity. All this extra activity is broadening the output and feeding the demands of the OCUs and the FL for the SDSR2015 growth; as I said before, were the activity not going on then I would agree that something should be done, but it is, and a lot more than what people are bemoaning about on here.

As ever, everything needs to be looked at with a little less myopia and “Daily Mail” outrage then the challenges, issues and ways-ahead make a bit more sense!
The B Word is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 18:51
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Zero Loaded course indeed!

Originally Posted by Typhoondriver
Is it fake news that the system at Valley have introduced a process which has colloquially become known as 'zero'ing'? My understanding is that 'zero'ing' allows MFTS to continue to graduate courses on time, in order to get paid. The fact that these courses, I am told, have 'zero' students on them, yet the company still gets paid, is quite frankly astonishing.

Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds?

Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard?
I would add to that list of questions:


How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe?

Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making.

How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have?

Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 18:56
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Warren Peace,

Whilst in no way wishing to defend the bag 'o ****e that MFTS has clearly turned out to be, I think your rather hysterical rant is rather deflated by the fact that 75% of the instructors at 4 FTS RAF Valley ARE real, serving, blue suited current people....
I'm not hysterical, except with laughter. Let's take away the limited commitment guys, and the senior officers who just write reports and oversee (joke) the ascent process. Count the number of people actually teaching, who would be expected to go to Typhoon or F35 after they complete their current tour as a QFI at Valley.

You seem to be in the know, what is the ratio of instructors who are going somewhere : instructors who will never do operational flying again?
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 10:17
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Warren Peace
I would add to that list of questions:


How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe?

Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making.

How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have?

Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway.
Warren

The Valley output is, as I understand it, about what was planned for SDSR2010 - as I said above, the SDSR2015 increase in capacity is still to deliver. However, you are right that the numbers going to Typhoon and Lightning is not enough, but you need to go and have a look at how many RAF pilots there are on the average course size of 8 pilots - I’ll give you a clue, it’s normally less than half! Lots of other colours of uniform in the photos. Is that a fault of the RAF or its commercial partners - I would suggest it is not?

The fact that not enough are going to Typhoon and Lightning for the SDSR2015 increase in squadron numbers is exactly why measures like using the 100 Sqn T1 for more experienced pilots is being undertaken and the other measures like ENJJPT. Don’t get me wrong, the output from IV and 25 Sqns are not delivering 100% to plan (because real life is never perfect) but they are not far off from the statement of requirement demanded from SDSR2010 that is now working towards the requirement of SDSR2015 - being a pessimist myself they probably just about make that output for SDSR2020!

Again, why the delay in getting spun up for a new output requirement? So let’s look at SDSR2015:

SDSR 2015 - released in Nov 15
Budget plan for any SDSR cannot start in the Financial Year (FY) so that means...
SDSR15 Budget - releases budget lines earliest Apr 16
However, the manpower requirements need to be worked out and recruited for as well so you start recruiting/ training...
SDSR15 Manpower Plan - releases in FY16/17.
If you start recruiting against SDSR 2015 the earliest you will see output from IOT (a 6 month course) against that requirement set in say mid-2016 is the first quarter of 2017.
You then need to start them on Flying Training - but hang on, 2017 is the year of the big MFTS changeover. So you can’t manage to train everyone because of early ‘teething troubles’. Delays, holds and backlogs start in the system as the system is not configured to deliver the numbers needed.
So you have to adjust your recruiting numbers in 2018 as the backlog has built up and the previous year’s training plan has not delivered 100%. You don’t want to cease recruiting like you did in 2011 as that leaves demographic issues and also making “on/off/on” decisions in recruiting is bad for any organisation.
Now you are in 2019, the extra equipment that you have ordered in 2017 is starting to be delivered (things like spare engines, etc...) and the early issues are ironed out then the system starts to give you a better output. However, the new aircraft needed are still some way off as they aren’t sitting around ‘on the shelf’, so these don’t come for a couple of years yet.
New solutions needed to assist - Outsourced training, use of other in-service assets and spare capacity with our Allies all help.
Then SDSR2020 changes the requirement all over again...

Oh, and then BREXIT delivers ‘Global Britain’ requirements in the middle of this and we start selling Typhoons/Hawks to people that want training places to go with it. That further adds complexity and takes training places.

To me, this is the problem - the OODA loop of Defence Reviews, Procurement Cycles, Budget Cycles, Recruiting Timescales, Training Pipelines, Outflow Rates (end of engagement, medical and voluntary) and Political Shenanigans are so horribly mismatched that this becomes a classic ‘Penrose Staircase’:





Then your Lords and Masters give you 31,750 people to manage all of this and more doing a similar amount of tasking and other stuff that you used to do with 40,000-odd. Then we wonder why things aren’t perfect!

Last edited by The B Word; 27th Jan 2019 at 10:28.
The B Word is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 10:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are.

I worked for a company providing a PFI service and I can honestly say that everyone that I worked with had the best interests of the RAF, not the company, at heart. Can that be said of MFTS?
Timelord is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 11:31
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,921
Received 137 Likes on 62 Posts
The B word,

No need to apologise. If we are being suckered in with fake doom and gloom then it is good to have the other side explained.

Thanks for update on numbers.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:17
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are.
Timelord, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that post. I have taken the liberty to highlight the most important word in my opinion. The rot set in when we tried to run our services as businesses since the late 90s. Look at the frequency of UK Defence Reviews since 1945:We went from 12 years down to 5 years without changing our processes and ways of working. Also, all the idiots that tried to use their MBAs in our Service have seen to systematically destroy things with an insane desire for efficiency and ‘lean’ (which has ripped out any flexibility and resilience we ever had). Also the rustication of Gps into FHQs have totally fragmented the Command function. So I’m really not that surprised that things have been bad in the Flying Training world in recent years - I don’t blame the commercial partners, who are businesses, I blame those that forgot we are a service and failed to make the case to remain so...politicians and senior leaders alike.

Gosh, that’s a bit bleak for a Sunday afternoon!

Last edited by The B Word; 27th Jan 2019 at 14:49.
The B Word is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,597
Received 35 Likes on 24 Posts
There were also the Defence Cost Studies "Mini-Reviews" of 1993-1996 which made sweeping changes in an ill-considered manner. Serving in MOD / HQ LC / HQ STC throughout that period, we never seemed to fully implement one plan before being told to move onto the next !
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../138/13806.htm
I totally agree with the "it all started to go wrong when we tried to run a military service as a business" school of thought. I saw this at first hand when the MOD AMSO organization was destroyed to form HQ LC and people started talking about the "Chief Executive", "Line Managers" and "Budget Managers".

Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 27th Jan 2019 at 15:00.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:47
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 958
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
EngO - I agree and we’re back to the ‘impossible staircase’ again!
The B Word is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:50
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
B Word and RAFEngo, I quite agree on the harm done by the misguided application of business thinking and processes to a military organisation. In my opinion more harm has been done by those in uniform pretending they are a business than by businesses providing a service that used to be in uniform!

Last edited by Timelord; 27th Jan 2019 at 15:53.
Timelord is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 23:25
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,397
Received 40 Likes on 22 Posts
Why cant the 28 Hawk T2s at Valley cover this requirement?
I understand there are fewer engines than airframes.
beardy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 16:31
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does the RAF need more than 6 pilots this year?

Perhaps they should just bin 4FTS and Ascent and let 100 Sqn do all the fast jet training?
Bigpants is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 23:48
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by beardy
I understand there are fewer engines than airframes.
No. More engines than airframes in the fleet, though how many are physically at Valley and available is a slightly different question, KPI and more.

Engines are not really the issue.

drustsonoferp is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2019, 20:16
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.

The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week.
2 Fly is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2019, 21:25
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2 Fly
The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.

The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week.
In that case, why do we, did we, ever need the T2 if the Typhoon OCU can take people from T1 training?

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2019, 22:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,262
Received 173 Likes on 102 Posts
Err, Typhoon was taking people well before we had T2? Doesn't mean T2 doesn't better prepare them (not in a position to comment on that) but T1 students have managed plenty well enough in the past!
pba_target 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.