UKMFTS Failing to Deliver...again
Judging by what I read in this thread and others, something has gone wrong with the higher direction of the RAF, very sad personally for me, even without a dog in the fight.
Then competition for VSO positions and promoting those in their own image, ridiculously short tours to meet the ability to be MRAF before retiring - claimed to be 'broadening'.
Successive 'initiatives' to streamline flying training, usually from those who know little about it - what a mate of mine referred to as the 'Senior Officers Good Ideas Club'.
All the time reducing the number of front-line seats available. Overstretch with Ops taking assets from OCUs.
The list goes on and on.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,720
Received 2,720 Likes
on
1,156 Posts
The thing I cannot get my head around is a lot of them will have gone through the system, therefore why are they screwing around with what worked, my only assumption is so they can bolster their employment chances post RAF to the detriment of the Service.
I would like to see a ban on all senior officers holding posts in companies related to their dealings whilst in service for a period of say 5 years minimum to prevent a conflict of interests..
I would like to see a ban on all senior officers holding posts in companies related to their dealings whilst in service for a period of say 5 years minimum to prevent a conflict of interests..
Nutloose - fat chance!
Here’s just one example of why not.
I recall as part of an Contract Maintenance Audit team, I had cause to to issue a ‘Cat 2’ non compliance report on a well known civilian contractor at a flying training base somewhere oop norf.
suffice it to say the AP100b Engineering Orders (which, you may have been familiar with) was at best being deliberately misinterpreted to reduce staffing levels below what was in the contract, so that profit was being maximised.
Anyway…when my team leader (A Wg Cdr Engineer) took my report he said “That’s all very well, but I am not going to mention this……”. Should have formed part of the wash up and out brief to the Civilian Contract manager (O.C. Eng equiv) Fair enough? His prerogative as team leader, I guess. His signature.
The said Wg Cdr then left the service shortly after, and, allegedly, walked straight into a senior engineering job with…you’ve guessed it….the very same Maintenance Contractor.
same old same old….
Here’s just one example of why not.
I recall as part of an Contract Maintenance Audit team, I had cause to to issue a ‘Cat 2’ non compliance report on a well known civilian contractor at a flying training base somewhere oop norf.
suffice it to say the AP100b Engineering Orders (which, you may have been familiar with) was at best being deliberately misinterpreted to reduce staffing levels below what was in the contract, so that profit was being maximised.
Anyway…when my team leader (A Wg Cdr Engineer) took my report he said “That’s all very well, but I am not going to mention this……”. Should have formed part of the wash up and out brief to the Civilian Contract manager (O.C. Eng equiv) Fair enough? His prerogative as team leader, I guess. His signature.
The said Wg Cdr then left the service shortly after, and, allegedly, walked straight into a senior engineering job with…you’ve guessed it….the very same Maintenance Contractor.
same old same old….
Or was I kept out in the cold? Glad to walk away, but miffed not to be head-hunted!
What is needed is to take it all back in house as it was in my day. What was a cynical political measure to be able to say "We've reduced the size of the military and saved x billions of pounds" always failed to mention that these military jobs were now outsourced at an extra cost of x billions of pounds. Stop messing about with what should be purely a military organisation and make it fit for purpose again.
” you may find things have changed a bit,…remember though the gear change has changed sides as has the back brake pedal…and talking of brakes….they actually work. But it’s a just a bike..enjoy!”
The whole system is broken, and it's not just to do with MFTS. Ascent can't keep instructors, but when you see what they have to go through, you will understand why. An ex-colleague who worked for them for two years before quitting mentioned in the modern risk-averse RAF, it was easier to get a B747 with 400 passenger from London to Hong Kong that it is to get a Prefect airborne from Cranwell for an hour long instructional sortie.
Ah but Dan, you have to remember that (as I was once told), the level of bull$hit is inversely proportional to the importance of the aircraft!
After I finished the CFS course, a Bulldog had to be collected/swapped with another at (I think) Topcliffe. All the instructors were busy, so I said I'd be happy to do the trips. There then followed much sucking of teeth - I was no longer a CFS student, so they couldn't find a rule which would allow me to do that simple trip. So no-one would authorise it! "In which case I might as well bug ger off home", I said..... So I did!
6 months earlier, I'd been pre-authorised to fly a VC10K3 to Hawaii and back. Yet in Learning Command no-one would authorise a basic landaway from Lincolnshire to Yorkshire and back.....
After I finished the CFS course, a Bulldog had to be collected/swapped with another at (I think) Topcliffe. All the instructors were busy, so I said I'd be happy to do the trips. There then followed much sucking of teeth - I was no longer a CFS student, so they couldn't find a rule which would allow me to do that simple trip. So no-one would authorise it! "In which case I might as well bug ger off home", I said..... So I did!
6 months earlier, I'd been pre-authorised to fly a VC10K3 to Hawaii and back. Yet in Learning Command no-one would authorise a basic landaway from Lincolnshire to Yorkshire and back.....
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Aug 2022 at 19:57.
About the "pause": there are two ways of getting rid of a queue. either you increase the rate of people leaving it, or you reduce the rate of people joining it.
Mathematically, if the rate joining is greater than the rate leaving, the queue grows at a rate given by the ratio between the two. (E.g. if one person is processed an hour, and two people arrive every hour, the queue grows by one person per hour.) If the rate joining is less, it shrinks. If they are equal the queue remains at its current size. If a queue exists and isn't growing or shrinking, this tells us that the rates are currently equal but a backlog developed at some point in the past. To get rid of it you have to process people (or whatever) faster than they arrive, so that you're both dealing with the arrivals and working through the backlog.
Seeing as close to half the total capacity is being used to refresh people stuck in the queue, it makes a lot of sense to turn the tap off until the queue can be cleared, and it's something that can be done much quicker than adding more capacity. In fact, given how fast a queue can grow and the fact that adding more capacity takes time, it may even be *impossible* to get rid of it by adding capacity. (If the queue growth during the time it takes to get more capacity in place is more than the increment of new capacity....)
Obviously this is a mess and says terrible things about ASCENT, the MFTS, and everyone involved...which is why, perhaps, putting the boot into Wigston about culture war issues might serve an unattributable briefer's interests...
Mathematically, if the rate joining is greater than the rate leaving, the queue grows at a rate given by the ratio between the two. (E.g. if one person is processed an hour, and two people arrive every hour, the queue grows by one person per hour.) If the rate joining is less, it shrinks. If they are equal the queue remains at its current size. If a queue exists and isn't growing or shrinking, this tells us that the rates are currently equal but a backlog developed at some point in the past. To get rid of it you have to process people (or whatever) faster than they arrive, so that you're both dealing with the arrivals and working through the backlog.
Seeing as close to half the total capacity is being used to refresh people stuck in the queue, it makes a lot of sense to turn the tap off until the queue can be cleared, and it's something that can be done much quicker than adding more capacity. In fact, given how fast a queue can grow and the fact that adding more capacity takes time, it may even be *impossible* to get rid of it by adding capacity. (If the queue growth during the time it takes to get more capacity in place is more than the increment of new capacity....)
Obviously this is a mess and says terrible things about ASCENT, the MFTS, and everyone involved...which is why, perhaps, putting the boot into Wigston about culture war issues might serve an unattributable briefer's interests...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Sycamore
I’m afraid that, due to commercial sensitivities, I am not at liberty to say anything on here. It’s also worth pointing out that my days as the resident Hawk hero are numbered. As of 20 Sep I’ll be a civilian and no longer flying Hawks. 3011 hours on type (T1/T2/115/165/166) is enough for anyone!
BV
BV
Linky to video - look around 0:40 secs in
What is needed is to take it all back in house as it was in my day. What was a cynical political measure to be able to say "We've reduced the size of the military and saved x billions of pounds" always failed to mention that these military jobs were now outsourced at an extra cost of x billions of pounds. Stop messing about with what should be purely a military organisation and make it fit for purpose again.
