72 Sqn trouble
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Yes but airline planning works on CAT 3B weather minima mostly and 98.5% aircraft availability. Also a huge amount of statistical data to schedule. Planning training that way isn’t a job for too much IT
........yes, and in commercial aviation, proper airlines certainly, you get a fixed roster, ( mostly) you can plan your life and you get vastly better pay than the RAF.. A senior captain, earns more than the CAS, a line captain can easily earn more than an air rank officer, enabling a better standard of living for you, your family, gets a better pension and has FAR more control over his life. Add some very nice aircraft to fly, some very nice routes on longhaul and time to do your own thing, got my vote.
Yes, things are difficult at the moment due CV, but they WILL get better, back to normal.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
But retired, you don’t get to runaround in a respi...gas mask, while carrying a musket..
30 per cent of professional pilots throughout the world are unemployed with little to no chance of finding work in the medium term. 17 % of professional pilots are furloughed with little to no chance of significant numbers returning to work in the short to medium term. Those remaining at work are braced for further job losses and deep cuts to their terms and conditions of employment. While a 11 hour working day is a long duty period its not exceptional and 12 1/2 hours is a regular typical flying duty in the civilian sector. If your only flying 140 hours per annum you have it easy. 100 flying hours per 28 days is the summer target for the airlines and these hours are spread through deep nights, very early starts, late starts with time zone disturbances thrown in. You report 12 QFIs to 12 student QFIs and 22 students. That divides up to less than 3 students per instructor which seems very reasonable and manageable. If students are not flying often enough and your concerned about continuity and safety, then as the QFI you do not send them solo and if the course foot print over runs so be it. If your concerned about flight planning software and other dispatch issues deal with them your not flying much you have all the time in the world to resolve these problems. While the report highlights domestic problems within your Squadron these concerns should have been managed domestically in house using the established chain of command. This report should not have been published in an open forum and it borders on mutiny if it has been published by a military officer. It certainly brings the service into disrepute. Frequent shift changes not getting home when you expect to get home bluntly "thats life in a blue suit" please be thankful that your on salary right now, that your flying a wonderful aeroplane with a ready supply of talented highly motivated and aptitude selected students. Your the QFI you know what the problems are fix those that you can, recruit colleagues to fix those that you cant and when you have done all that you possibly put the kettle on have a cup of tea and chill out. Seriously enjoy being on salary.
We are all, military and civilian, aware that times are very hard for many. But the idea that we should 'just be happy to get a salary' is non-sensical, especially when the roots of this problem were established well before the pandemic. The current situation should not be used as an excuse to ignore, belittled, or ridicule individuals for speaking out.
I remember my time at Valley as a welcome reprieve from the frontline where 12 hour days were the norm. Although students were keen to get out of the island as quickly as possible, the instructors were mostly happy and the flying was plentiful if a little monotonous. I'm truly sorry to hear how things have turned out.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
The claims – in a bombshell document obtained by the Daily Mail
Something of an own goal as I see it.
I have no knowledge of how the RAF Truckie Fleet did it's scheduling - other than to observe that they never went U/S at Deci, Belize, PSAB or Mount Pleasant - but only at Bermuda, Nassau, Nice, Las Vegas etc etc. A challenge for the programmers.............perhaps a predictable challenge!
I have absolutely no idea (or interest) how Commercials do their programming.........
I have done a bit of fast-jet programming - and I do not believe there is a computer programme that could cope with the various demands required to run a successful flying schedule.
Happy to be proven wrong, but the variables - in no particular order - of jet availability/serviceability, aircraft fit, range availability, weather, pilot ability, required supervision, desired progress towards combat readiness requirements, necessary check rides, currency requirements for AAR, night flying, QWI/QFI/IRE checks etc etc - the list is almost endless........It requires someone with a flexible and understanding brain to cope. No matter how clever a computer can be programmed, I do not believe it could do better than an experienced and knowledgeable human.
If Valley has a problem - only those actively involved can resolve it. No external advice from Commercial or Truckie experts can do it. Or from has-beens.
To my old-fashioned way of thinking, this is a very strange way to highlight a problem, but if that is the way of the world, then so be it - I hope (feel sure?) that the modern hierarchy of the RAF is sufficiently familiar with this trendy way of doing things that they are aware and will resolve.
I really do hope so.
As an aside, on my first operational squadron, we had an SAC Ops Clerk who could have very easily run the whole flying programme with due consideration to all of the above...........
I have absolutely no idea (or interest) how Commercials do their programming.........
I have done a bit of fast-jet programming - and I do not believe there is a computer programme that could cope with the various demands required to run a successful flying schedule.
Happy to be proven wrong, but the variables - in no particular order - of jet availability/serviceability, aircraft fit, range availability, weather, pilot ability, required supervision, desired progress towards combat readiness requirements, necessary check rides, currency requirements for AAR, night flying, QWI/QFI/IRE checks etc etc - the list is almost endless........It requires someone with a flexible and understanding brain to cope. No matter how clever a computer can be programmed, I do not believe it could do better than an experienced and knowledgeable human.
If Valley has a problem - only those actively involved can resolve it. No external advice from Commercial or Truckie experts can do it. Or from has-beens.
To my old-fashioned way of thinking, this is a very strange way to highlight a problem, but if that is the way of the world, then so be it - I hope (feel sure?) that the modern hierarchy of the RAF is sufficiently familiar with this trendy way of doing things that they are aware and will resolve.
I really do hope so.
As an aside, on my first operational squadron, we had an SAC Ops Clerk who could have very easily run the whole flying programme with due consideration to all of the above...........
MFTS has put the RAF Flying Training system into total disarray. The reason is the Senior Officers responsible for signing off on Contracts that are worthless. The only interest that Ascent has is to make a fast buck. Right from the outset the company never resourced enough assets to fulfil the REAL requirement. Not enough QFIs, not enough aircraft, not enough engineers, not enough Ops staff, not enough hours in the day!! How would they even expect 95% serviceability from their aircraft? How could they expect to run a Training Programme on flying for 16 hours a day with no factoring for weather.
It has been clear for quite some time that this contract will not deliver. Is not Ascent simply fulfilling its CONTRACTUAL obligations? I believe that the root cause of this debacle is with those who proposed and drew up the shambles of a contract and those who approved it, signed it off and then awarded it to the cheapest bidder.
Now we are here, what are the options? Without radical action, very few I imagine. Hence the frustration which will ripple down the pipeline for years. Because of the delays in the system the age of first tourists is increasing all the time, how many promotees will have had more than 2 tours? Senior officers will have had less and less front line experience compared to their predecessors. The age profile of each rank will increase. Which intake years will be able to provide a future CAS who has had the breadth and depth of experience required to be an effective leader of the RAF? I would imagine none of the last 5 years and none of the next 5 of the aircrew cadre.
Now we are here, what are the options? Without radical action, very few I imagine. Hence the frustration which will ripple down the pipeline for years. Because of the delays in the system the age of first tourists is increasing all the time, how many promotees will have had more than 2 tours? Senior officers will have had less and less front line experience compared to their predecessors. The age profile of each rank will increase. Which intake years will be able to provide a future CAS who has had the breadth and depth of experience required to be an effective leader of the RAF? I would imagine none of the last 5 years and none of the next 5 of the aircrew cadre.
...... leaving only the Hawk - which owes any success to being a sexed up version of the original!
Now where might they have sourced that document? Exactly why I stated at post #2 that Facebook & on here weren’t the forums to raise this. Washing our dirty laundry in public might make the author feel better and that ‘he didn’t have any other option as the senior officers wouldn’t listen’ but the DM has managed to roll this up with the totality unrelated Hawk crash at Culdrose to make a major safety point against the RAF (& the FAA but they probably don’t really see there’s a difference).
Something of an own goal as I see it.
Something of an own goal as I see it.
As for own goal... if it gets the flight safety processes and flying training pressures looked into and problems get solved then it is as good as any England penalty in a world cup against Germany. It says a lot about a situation and the desperation felt when the only way to get a response is via social media.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Behind the wire.
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hawk was in this situation until March 2020.....
🤦🏼 The Hawk was in this situation until March 2020..... that should read “The Hawk was in this situation from 2011 until 2020”. Whilst I feel for the guys on the Sqn and I’m sad the lessons don’t appear to have been learnt. There is no immediate fix to this - welcome to MFTS BFJT. You could always PVR like we all did. 👍
Ex-FJ
I must have been dreaming when I was U/S in MPA, Goose etc. Not only that but the times I have been U/S in Bermuda were down to the FJ serviceability states.
The AT/AAR world tries to chose it's (sic) routings to maximize payload /minimize hours etc-a point totally lost on a certain SLOPs at Goose who knew f all about the rules we worked under.
I must have been dreaming when I was U/S in MPA, Goose etc. Not only that but the times I have been U/S in Bermuda were down to the FJ serviceability states.
The AT/AAR world tries to chose it's (sic) routings to maximize payload /minimize hours etc-a point totally lost on a certain SLOPs at Goose who knew f all about the rules we worked under.
Whilst not making light of the problems mentioned above and there definitely appears to be one of fatigue amongst others. Yes it's soul destroying for the students to get so little flying and the programme slipping behind for lack of airframes etc. But just maybe they should look at 72's not to distant past. 84 Pilots, 38 Crewman, 26 Wessex, 3 Pumas & the occasional Chinook. 365 days a year tasking for 33 years (1969-2002). Crews scheduled for 21 days then 7 days off, exceeding the 28 day total hours in the 21 day period and having to go to SMO for an extension. SH Ops, SAR and training all programmed on 3 large chinagraphed boards. Different problems admittedly but nobody complained they just got on with it!
I was a very young Ops Clerk on 72 in 1979, the crews would come in and tell you what they wanted to do the next day and I wrote it on the board behind the Ops desk, the operational stuff came in separately. It was a big squadron.
I have done a bit of fast-jet programming - and I do not believe there is a computer programme that could cope with the various demands required to run a successful flying schedule.
Happy to be proven wrong, but the variables - in no particular order - of jet availability/serviceability, aircraft fit, range availability, weather, pilot ability, required supervision, desired progress towards combat readiness requirements, necessary check rides, currency requirements for AAR, night flying, QWI/QFI/IRE checks etc etc - the list is almost endless........It requires someone with a flexible and understanding brain to cope. No matter how clever a computer can be programmed, I do not believe it could do better than an experienced and knowledgeable human.
Whilst a computer might be able to produce an initial basic & efficient flying programme,
I do not think that it could ever replace the myriad of more subtle inputs that an experienced programmer can provide.
There is an awful lot more to consider than just "bums on seats".
lsh
I do not think that it could ever replace the myriad of more subtle inputs that an experienced programmer can provide.
There is an awful lot more to consider than just "bums on seats".
lsh
I find posts telling those trying to cope with the course and hopefully graduate under this total shambles of a system to man up and stop moaning to be in very poor taste. If I had had it inflicted upon me I doubt if I would ever have made the grade. This is an utter mess and those who have created it need to be shown the door. I have every sympathy with those who have spelled out the reality on the social networks. A once proud Service has been reduced to near impotence. At least in the 20s and 30s it scratched out an existence whereby the essential centres of excellence were maintained even if numbers and equipment were slashed. Now we seem to have the very lifeblood draining away before our eyes, even while the bottomless bucket is supposedly being continually topped up. The words root and branch come to mind....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Call me old fashioned and not experienced in anyway shape or form in negotiating contracts, but why wasn’t there some form of contractual clause inserted to financially hit the company until they rectified the situation to the satisfaction of the RAF and met pre contractual levels in delivering 123 number of students in xyz timeframes, whilst ensuring adequate staffing and aircraft fit for purpose to deliver those aims. And if there is such a clause why isn’t it being I acted upon.
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Under a cloud
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutloose,
How many "once only resets" did 4 Sqn have to have? These had to be introduced as the MFTS contract paid Ascent for aircrew graduating to the front line, not for training instructors.
On a separate note, if the problem on 72 is so dire, where is the input to 25/4 coming from? Are they living off "fat' built up during the Tucano days? Or are there other streams feeding into the T2?
How many "once only resets" did 4 Sqn have to have? These had to be introduced as the MFTS contract paid Ascent for aircrew graduating to the front line, not for training instructors.
On a separate note, if the problem on 72 is so dire, where is the input to 25/4 coming from? Are they living off "fat' built up during the Tucano days? Or are there other streams feeding into the T2?