Well that's tri-service flying training sorted. I wonder what's in store for single-service flying training and everything else that fell into the RAF flying training budget (AEF, UAS, Red Arrows, BBMF etc)?

Linton closing should not come as a surprise - the only way that Ascent could justify their low bid was by closing one of the training airfields. The only thing that's stopped this happening sooner is the Tucano's lack of clearance for an immersion suit. No goon bag = no seaside airfield. What should come as a surprise is that anyone thinks you can co-locate T6 & Hawks for flying training. Downwind speeds of 100 kts and 160+ kts will make for a sporty visual pattern. Airspace around Valley is already congested and this will only get worse as the RAF and RN try to recover aircrew manning post-SDSR 10. Impending European airspace directives are likely to exacerbate the problem. I just hope I'm not there to experience the chaos.

Bob Viking wrote: Why should we expect 'military guys' to try and make this ridiculous crock of $hit 'work'? That's the job of the PFI provider. A 'can do' attitude is all very well in the military world, but not so for sorting out some contractor's bolleaux so that their bottom line won't suffer.

Snake Oil Flying School know darn well that it's going to be difficult for them to attract QFIs of the right calibre - particularly if the only option for them is Valley.

I suspect for many, who might have thought about QFI-ing, that the airline world might now be of rather greater appeal.

But if they closed Valley, moved the Hawk T2s and remaining T1s to Leeming with T6NL....T-6Cs replacing the Tucanos at Linton.....:E

BV - I will happily admit it's over 2 years since I was last at Valley, and I will equally bow to your up to date knowledge of what is happening in that neck of the woods, and as such apologise for suggesting otherwise. I know the military (and ex military) guys and girls will ALWAYS do their best to make the system as put in place work.

But my main point is it has still taken an awful long time to get to the point of (presumably) ordering new aircraft and then getting the whole syllabus up and running.

Regardless of how good or bad the future UK Mil flying training will be - it's still going to be located at Valley. I accept some people like Holyhead and it surroundings but I've only ever met one in my significant number of RAF years service.

Good luck anyway.... :ooh:

Odd choice of types
 

Why the disparity of manufacturers (apart from EFT which continues to be given no choice but modified white plastic private pilot light aircraft with poor egress options now the EJ seats cannot be fitted).

If you're going to purchase BFT and multi engine trainers surely it is better to source them from the same firm. E.g Beechcraft T6 plus King Air or Embraer Super Tucano plus Phenom?

Back to EFT, the Flight "pocket rocket" article was written by someone employed by Grob who presents their TP sales video so naturally it was positive!

The tried and tested SF260TP has the same Alison 250, 15000h design life, can be painted any colour, has a much clearer canopy and lower coming design, and can carry hard points for fuel/ electronic training pods.

What did the Indian Air Force buy instead of the 120TP?


PC7m

greenedgejet, you missed the most obvious advantage of the SF260 - it is sooooooo sexy.

Fun and games
 

Interesting comments about line between BFT and EFT. Does MFTS need both platforms?

Royal Thai Air Force used Alison 250 engined German RFB Fantrainer for over 20 years as initial platform all the way to F5E fighter. Both Luftwaffe and USAF pilots rated it above beech turbine Mentor and PC7.

RAF also had history of starting with more capable types such as the JP.

Agree the SF260 always looked right - no unnecessary aero mods.

Is side by side essential? Not for Tigermoth, Harvard, Spitfire generation.

Interestingly, civi street are looking at more exposure to tandem cockpits in gliders and for upset recovery training (re: flight crew training conference held by Royal Aero Soc.).

Chaps,


To Perhaps add some calm.


I flew both the P21 and Texan II. They are both Very Good.


Advo

I think Peter Collins wrote the article for Flight before he had any formal role with Grob - he was/is a staff writer for flight, amongst other things. Maybe he got a job with Grob on the strength of his enthusiasm for the 120!

Looking at it, it seems a sensible progression - the cockpit avionics are common with the T6, and it can have its performance/features restricted to suit earlier students.

I am intrigued to know the future of the Tutor fleet. They are very cheap to operate for the perceived benefit. And, after all, the RAF ran the Chipmunk fleet for many years mainly for the AEF task - will they be retained just for this/UAS?

I've long believed that UAS/AEF/VGS should be attached to Service flying and gliding clubs. These could employ full-time/part-time instructors at ~£25ph to teach to solo or fly the air experience profile - the savings could be immense, with full cost of a Grob flying hour being between £200-£400ph (depending on 109 or 115) and a comparable aircraft hired for ~1/3rd of the cost. If the flying is done on a Govt airfield then they still get some military ethos and the airworthiness and the financial risk is shifted away from the Service.

Let's face it, not that many can join the Regulars as a pilot, so why invest so heavily in the expected 50,000 in the Air Cadet Expansion Program and the University Air Sqns? I believe that the Oxford University operate their gliding club at RAF Weston on the Green and the University College of London operate their gliding club at RAF Halton - why can't the UAS attach in a similar way?

The B Word

PS. The recruits at RAF Halton have been given AEFs with the microlight club in the past - see here:http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafhalton/news...0E9E613C515004. It kind of shows what could be done with the Senior Leadership Team's backing.

The B Word,

Correction - the Oxford University Gliding Club operates alongside the Windrushers Gliding Club at the Bicester Gliding Centre - no RAF connection at all!

Yes, I believe so.

My apologies - it's the Oxford Gliding Club at RAF Weston on the Green! :ugh:

I still think that attaching to Gliding Clubs on RAF Stations is a good idea though if UAS/AEF/VGS is unaffordable (which I believe it is!).

The B Word

"I still think that attaching to Gliding Clubs on RAF Stations is a good idea"
Not to mention the odd RN or Army site (they both have their own well supported gliding associations)
Just being pedantic - no offense intended

Rocket2

Yup, RN and Army would be great. Indeed, some VGS already operate from the sister Services' sites (Predannack, Abingdon, Upavon, Wethersfield and Chivenor).

The B Word

Ascent INTERVIEW
 

Hi there,is anyone has an interview experience with Ascent to give me an idea?:ok:

Just tell them you're cheap to employ - they will do the rest.

Ascent interview;
"Are you willing to go to Valley?"
"Yes"
"You're hired"

Hello can you be more specific with numbers?

Is valley so alfwul?

No, Valley isn't awful at all. The location has a lot going for it in terms of mountains, coastline and scenery. It's more a matter of proximity to other places: if you are used to being elsewhere, then just about everywhere 'else' will take some time to reach.

There is no metropolis, but for the right sort of person, that's exactly the point.

Valley is just like every other station you could find yourself at. Some people will love it, others will hate it.

The myth about the Welsh hating the English is as out of date as it is ridiculous. People like to trot out the same old rubbish that they have heard from others. The bottom line is that Anglesey has changed a lot in the last few years (there are still crap bits just like you'll find anywhere but overall it's a lovely place), it's a great place if you want to give it a chance and the Welsh are not as bad as people would have you believe.

https://whywelsh.wordpress.com/2013/...e-unwelcoming/

BV:rolleyes:

BV, I recall the words of one Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" (actually she didn't quite say it that way, but that's the normally accepted version, along with "Cor, Lord Astor, 'aven't you got a little willy!").

But commuting to Valley from Chester? Even on the vastly-improved roads of today, that's a 90 mile one-way trip.

Whether Ascent can attract enough people of the right quality to sustain their operation at Valley remains to be seen.....:hmm: As a student I did a year there; first the Gnat course, then holding, then a Hunter refresher. Apart from the often vile weather, I quite liked the place - but as it took nearly an hour to reach Bangor on the old A5 and Menai Bridge route, escape from Anglesey wasn't a particularly common event, so we made the most of it. Whereas now it's only about a 25 min journey and there's even a decent dual carriageway back to Engerland.

Of course there are lovers and haters but most of the feelings expressed here are from those who have done time at Valley within the Service with the commensurate removals, disturbance allowance, subsidised accommodation, HTD etc - and in the knowledge that it was just for 3 years. I can't see many of those who 'didn't actually mind' Valley wanting to go there for a permanent civilian job.

Beags - Chester to Valley is only :rolleyes: about 80 miles, so I can see somewhere in the Chester area being about 70, and pretty much dual carriageway door-to-door. Again, for a last tour with HTD, that isn't so bad - but for a permanent commute, potentially at one's own expense, not so attractive.

As for,

Not sure what the citizenship requirements are but it looks like he's got the language hacked! ;)

70 miles is still way too far for a daily commute, surely? But now that there's a decent road, possibly do-able.

After my Hawk refresher, it took me around 8 hours to drive to Chivenor on the old A5 to M5 route to Taunton and then the Black Cat café route. And I certainly do recall how glad I was to see the 'Croesoe I Gymru' sign in my rear view mirror!

It did amuse me when Ascent was advertising some post based in Bristol, which required 'regular' visits to Valley - I could imagine people beating a path to their door. Not!

Deliverance
 

All I'm saying is stop and think about it. Was the hatred you felt any different from that which could be experienced anywhere else? You know what us pilot types are like. Turning up in an area with our flash cars and bottomless wallets (I wish) and stealing all the local girls. I know of more people getting beaten up in the Sleaford/Lincoln area for this kind of behaviour than I have ever heard of at Valley.

There are usually two sides to every story. I'm English through and through but have probably gone native more than most. My wife is from N Wales. Two of our kids were born here. My wife's family and friends have always been very welcoming and I have never felt any angst from anyone. I believed all the crap when I arrived at Valley in 2002 but once I opened my eyes a little I found it was all untrue.

Too many people believe the lies and also base their views on what it was like before the dual carriageway was built. If you haven't been here for a while then trust me. It's changed. I for one wouldn't choose anywhere else to be based in the UK. Each to their own.

BEagle. The matter of getting civilians to work here though is clearly another matter. Thankfully it's not my problem.

BV

Well quite, BV. I didn't really understand why so many FJ pilots hated the idea of a tour at 4FTS after the dual carriageway had been built! Cars and roads have improved enormously since the days of my Gnat course some 40 years ago :eek: ; even minor embuggerances such as all the Welsh on TV are now a thing of the past. So Valley isn't really as isolated as it used to be.

Just over an hour to Chester! There's lovely - the North Wales Expressway must have made such a difference to life.

It used to take 45 minutes to get off the island! And why do you think Ascent is based in Bristol rather than Valley!

Not saying I'd love it, but as a LTD, from the future retirement pad in Chester I could see it working. Probably less time on the road than a 20 mile commute into London (but not for me either).

I enjoyed my student time there. There was loads of flying, great continuity, my dick wasn't leading me to N Yorkshire every weekend - and I did relatively well on the course. For those who couldn't wait for the Friday afternoon getaway, or who had a hard time on the course I can see it not being in their bag of favourite paces.

I enjoyed my (first) instructional time there too. The area is spectacular, the flying was great, the kids were young enough not to worry about a 3-year hiccup in their secondary education.

I just can't see them attracting the right calibre of folk - unless they pay LARGE amounts of cash, much like they do in other well known 'less desirable' flying training locations.

We were ok in our Penrhyn Close OMQ, but the poor Aussie exchange dude was up on Windy Ridge. Great flying and Hunters beach, but one stint there was enough for us.

Are you sure about all of that?

I wonder how much detail of the day to day issues and overall productivity of Ascent at Valley might filter through the glossy sales pitch given to other countries, backed up by people on site who might have been briefed to smile and nod. "4 Sqn continues to deliver in accordance with the agreed schedule" might be a good soundbite for the people in charge to consider using, but would only impress people who didn't look too closely (or weren't allowed to). At least 208 aren't there any more to provide a comparison :{

Pure conjecture, of course :oh:

Chaps, there's lots of posts here about Devil's Island but what about the Rotary MFTS bit. Does anyone know whats happening with Shawbury? I thought the contract was supposed to be announced early this year!

Torque of the devil,

Are you sure about 208? They've just publicly unveiled a Hawk in a centenary scheme to celebrate their anniversary.

Ascent UK MFTS
 

One has to remember that 4 Sqn is a success despite Ascent, not because of them. In the TW role, Ascent were (and still are) completely out of their depth. Not wanting to pay a wage that will induce SQEP aircrew to join their ranks, Ascent cannot deliver a 'world class training system', at least at this highly tactical level. All the syllabus and courseware was designed by the RAF as Ascent did not know the front end of a missile from its back end, let alone how to employ it. It is still managed and updated by the RAF! At 4 Sqn, Ascent like to think they run the show but the success of the training is wholly dependant on the calibre and expertise of the (military) instructors, as it always has been. It does beg the question 'what exactly are we paying Ascent for?'. It is in this context you can understand why so many are frustrated with working on 4 as you are beholden to 2 different masters.

However, despite Ascent, 4 Sqn are turning out front line aircrew who are much better prepared for the front line. They are the product of an aircraft (T2) and (RAF designed) syllabus that has brought TW training bang up to date.

Double Hush.

I don't know who you are and I don't know if you have actually worked on IV but trust me when I say your comments are not welcome (and not entirely accurate). There are people in black flying suits who are working every bit as hard as their green suited brethren to make a success of the programme. Comments like yours will not help anyone, least of all those on IV Sqn.

So congratulations are in order for successfully managing to p1ss off a whole bunch of people. If that was your aim then bravo and I hope you're happy.

BV

Double Hush may not be polite, but the fact that you say "not entirely accurate" is quite revealing.

Sh1t stirring again Tourist?

You can read what you like into it. I was just trying to show more politeness than he demonstrated.

BV

Your post was in no way polite.
If he is factually incorrect then say so.

Tourist.

My beef is not with you so let's let it lie.

BV

This is garbage, DoubleHush. I'm sorry, I don't normally post here, and I'm not keen on changing a system that has worked well for years, but you've pointed your finger at the wrong people, and it's simply not right.

"Not wanting to pay a wage that will induce SQEP aircrew to join their ranks, Ascent cannot deliver a 'world class training system', at least at this highly tactical level."

Whatever they pay, it must be enough because they QWIs that work there are certainly SQEP, with more instructional hours and flying experience in their small group than all of the RAF instructors combined.


"All the syllabus and courseware was designed by the RAF as Ascent did not know the front end of a missile from its back end, let alone how to employ it."

Many of those QIs have fired those very same missiles and dropped those bombs they talk about in their Phase Briefs. The courseware taught was generated collaboratively between the RAF and Ascent-employed SMEs.

"It is still managed and updated by the RAF!"

Both the RAF and the QIs contribute to the courseware. New QFIs come back from the front line. They have the gouge, the older instructors have the teaching experience. Working together works well. The management could be better - Ascent's courseware update process is unwieldy compared to when it was managed by the RAF. That's not the fault of anyone working on IV Sqn though.


"At 4 Sqn, Ascent like to think they run the show but the success of the training is wholly dependant on the calibre and expertise of the (military) instructors, as it always has been."

Again, it's collaborative. The success is dependent on the expertise of both parties. If the students technical knowledge and emergency handling is good, it is not down the the RAF instructors, as over 90% of that is delivered solely by Ascent. Thanks to Ascent QIs, the students arrive at the aircraft better prepared for each sortie than I have seen in any other training system.

"It does beg the question 'what exactly are we paying Ascent for?'. It is in this context you can understand why so many are frustrated with working on 4 as you are beholden to 2 different masters."

This is true. I would agree that we do not need Ascent. Simply bolster the numbers of the RAF from 34k back up to 60k+ and we wouldn't need Ascent.

Of course, those very same QIs would stil be doing the teaching, just wearing green suits and getting paid PAS. Would that be OK? So what's your point?

You're waving your finger at the wrong people.

We have partnered with Ascent due to the 2011 NAO report and the SDSR shrinking of the service. How we shrunk the regular service to the size where we needed to employ ex-military rather than keeping them as existing military is worthy of debate.

Now we are here though, we have partnered to bolster the ranks. Thankfully, the individuals selected to work alongside the RAF instructors are an extremely experienced group of individuals.

"However, despite Ascent, 4 Sqn are turning out front line aircrew who are much better prepared for the front line. They are the product of an aircraft (T2) and (RAF designed) syllabus that has brought TW training bang up to date."

What is your evidence for this statement?