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

Seven and a half years

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.

Seven and a half years

Old 6th Mar 2019, 08:45
  #21 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 72
Posts: 3,512
Whilst PPRuNers don't want to think kindly of VSOs, this mega running goat of MFTS will have an enormous impact on future VSOs, some of whom will be currently "in the hold".

If we are looking for a future CAS to be a four star in - at the latest - their (gender neutral pronoun) early fifties, working back from that you inexorably finish up with about a 30 year old sqn leader. Given that the majority of officer entrants are now graduates - thanks to Bliar's nonsense of 50% going to Uni - and coupled with this appalling 7+ year hold, guys (gender neutral noun) will have scarcely finished their first tour by 30.

Or (dons flak vest) does this mean that a future chief may not be a member of the Master Race????
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 08:46
  #22 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,114
Reading the many, and varied, threads and posts re flying training, just be thankful that engineer training was spared, albeit it was very close, the same fate of privatisation around 2008 -2010 in the form of "Metrix "......I hate clichés, but, allied to the fiasco being discussed, this would have produced the "perfect storm " as the plans were for Tri-Service training and a significantly diluted course content .
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 09:13
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 216
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
No-one listened to those at the coal face - one of the chief problems with the MFTS farce being a sustainable supply of instructors. Back when training ramped up for the Tornado, the front line was raided to supply ex-QFIs to the UAS / BFTS, allowing their ex-FJ QFIs to return to the front line. There was enough flex in the system to cope in those days.

But now? Not enough QFIs, training aerodromes or training aeroplanes. So much has been cut and so many aerodromes closed (or ear marked for closure) that it would be virtually impossible to ramp up pilot supply if there was an urgent need.

Just as well the TWUs have been shut down, then. Manning them would have been impossible and the training time would run to ten years. Tongue out of cheek: rather than nick T1s from 100 Sqn and others, should Valley graduates not be sent to the Ton for 'operational use' and there assessed for their front line tours? The RAAF use their FLIT Hawks for fleet support, Hornet/F-35A DACT, FAC and so on and the 'students' continue to be trained and evaluated as useful members of society before being eased out to the OCUs. I guess that's what Fighter Lead-in Training means.
Minnie Burner is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 09:42
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,710
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Reading the many, and varied, threads and posts re flying training, just be thankful that engineer training was spared, albeit it was very close, the same fate of privatisation around 2008 -2010 in the form of "Metrix "......I hate clichés, but, allied to the fiasco being discussed, this would have produced the "perfect storm " as the plans were for Tri-Service training and a significantly diluted course content .

Has it been saved from dilution?, the dual trade course now for A/F Engines is now shorter than the single trade course I did, and the skill set of those leaving the RAF for industry I have found is poor in comparison. Indeed the ex RAF once the main source to industry is now a trickle due to low numbers and lack of skills, most companies now preferring in house training or sourced from civilian schools. It appears that gone are the days where you would do postings on different types and build up a broad knowlege base, these days it appears to be a single type for your career.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 10:24
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 263
I agree with Nutloose. The abolition of the JT rank was a huge mistake, expecting SAC dual (or more) trade mechanics to self improve to the standard of a single trade JT at the end of a 15 month fitters course is just impossible.
k3k3 is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 11:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,187
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
No-one listened to those at the coal face - one of the chief problems with the MFTS farce being a sustainable supply of instructors. Back when training ramped up for the Tornado, the front line was raided to supply ex-QFIs to the UAS / BFTS, allowing their ex-FJ QFIs to return to the front line. There was enough flex in the system to cope in those days.

But now? Not enough QFIs, training aerodromes or training aeroplanes. So much has been cut and so many aerodromes closed (or ear marked for closure) that it would be virtually impossible to ramp up pilot supply if there was an urgent need.
Is there a shortage of flying instructors?
beardy is online now  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 11:39
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 19,710
Originally Posted by k3k3 View Post
I agree with Nutloose. The abolition of the JT rank was a huge mistake, expecting SAC dual (or more) trade mechanics to self improve to the standard of a single trade JT at the end of a 15 month fitters course is just impossible.
Totally agree,
NutLoose is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 19:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,074
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
B word - that means that more than 5 senior officers have presided over the MFTS situation since 2005, maybe more, and each appears to have passed the parcel to the next, glad to rid themselves of the poisoned chalice before the dose became fatal. Which of them did anything to prevent this situation?

It was always apparent to those in instructional roles that the plans were flawed but senior careers were being made on the back of them so no-one listened and here we are.
Not wanting to steal B Word’s chips, but the last two 1-stars have been compulsory retired at the end of their spell as Programme Director (2013-2015 and 2015-2018). At 1-star you are only good for your next job by selection. Neither work for the contractor as far as I’m aware either!

So let’s give this one a chance as he still has at least another year to turn it around - let’s face it, it can’t get much worse!
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 20:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
When it is considered necessary to offer commercial rates of pay for retirees (without docking the pension) with the requisite experience to provide a safe and quality output, we may start to get there.

I would love to know how a civilian service provider has been able to get away with relying upon Military training expertise to develop courses. Isn’t that what we are paying for? Let me guess, promised the world for the cheapest (best value!?) price and have delivered C0ck all.
VinRouge is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2019, 21:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,875
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Is there a shortage of flying instructors?
Oh yes! At every stage of training.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2019, 09:19
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here and there
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Roland Pulfrew View Post


Oh yes! At every stage of training.
And a large number of those instructors want to leave/move on elsewhere due to the horrendously low flying rates on the front line, especially in the Rotary world.
ditchvisitor is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 03:15
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Sunny
Posts: 1,579
Meanwhile, the previous AOC 22 Gp who waxed lyrically over the system in briefings I attended in 2017 and assured VSOs that the problems had been sorted- will soon be a 3*. Is there absolutely no accountability in the RAF or MOD?

Last edited by Whenurhappy; 8th Mar 2019 at 08:32.
Whenurhappy is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 06:37
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Good question and it illuminates a misconception in previous posts.

AM Baz North followed by AM Sean Reynolds who, in sequence, were appointed to be DCOM Cap were the Senior Responsible Owners for MFTS.

As we all know - only SROs are Accountable. Suggest we elevate the cross hairs from Edwards’ centre of body mass and aim instead at those charged with delivering the programme to a Performance, Time and Cost envelope - and indeed Accountable to Parliament for doing so.

I’m sure that it hasn’t escaped our learned readership that Edwards is the 1 star charged with delivering the Air Mobility lane for Air - if ‘RAF Senior Appointments’ is to be believed. Odd that MFTS should fall to him. Almost as if the SRO wedged into the nearest 1* portfolio for convenience. Seems to me to be case of blaming the player when the game’s at fault.

Then again - he’s a big boy and probably doesn’t care what I think.
orca is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2019, 08:38
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Sunny
Posts: 1,579
Good post. I think another issue is the rapidity of postings/high turnover rate. Not only does it take time for the office holder to get up to speed, they will want to conduct a strategic review of the programme and then implement changes - and then move on to their next job - which makes it doubly hard to pin down individual accountability.

I can can think of a number of other programmes out with the Air Environment where process dominates output and that SCS 2s are signing off absurdly expensive projects because they won’t challnge grossly inefficient processes.
Whenurhappy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.