Let me just wonder out loud...

How many pilots per year is this new system producing?

How many aircraft do the RAF have / intend to have in five years?

Is everyone leaving after 6 years service?

I'm thinking it looks more like a state funded training school than a career.

In my opinion outsourcing ME training to civil ATPL schools is the right way to go - no holding, good continuity for the studes & far cheaper for the RAF, plus they ought to be able to adjust numbers to meet demand. So a good outcome thanks to Ascent's inability to train the required numbers. Surely it's much more cost effective for the studes to learn basic asymmetric & NDB holding at a civvie school & leave 45 Sqn to do the formation, low level & other mil stuff?

The only snag I believe is that MOD is only paying for a 'lite' course so that the studes won't get a frozen ATPL out of it in the belief that this will be 'retention positive'. Far from it. Like pretty much all ME pilots they'll fork out for all the exams to complete their ATPLs after a couple of tours then think, 'now I've paid for it I'll jolly well use it' and leave at their earliest option point or PVR.

I've never understood how their Airships run so scared of giving people their licenses. The Germans, Belgians etc all get ATPLs during training & they have no retention problem, pilots stay to the end of their service & then leave to a guaranteed airline job, if they want it. The RAF builds as many obstacles as it can & the majority get out as early as they can. If the ATPL was held as a carrot at the end of your service most people would gladly go to the bar rather than studying for exams in their room, confident in the knowledge that they're sorted for the future.

Decades of 'stick' hasn't worked but they're still going to keep trying.

Ken - exactly the conversation I had with a current ME pilot today - too much stick and no carrot and their airships still can't understand why they have retention problems.

With the number of civilian aircraft we have on the books, is it so difficult to give them type ratings/IR/Licence in order to keep them until their 20-year point?

Perhaps you are both missing the point.

It would be better for the old air force, but retention is not going to generate profits for Ascent, is it?

The money go round needs folk to keep on leaving, so that a small fortune needs to be paid to a civvy company to train the next generation.

No, allowing Ascent to control the syllabus and paying them on the number of pilots finishing the course will give them all they need to make that profit!

Mil stds will be put under pressure to put bums on seats and allow graduation of students that might otherwise have been chopped or assessed as training risks.

A perfect recipe to drive down standards AND make money:ugh:

Let's look at the possibilities here.

Can it really be that people who have reach Air Officer rank, and Civil Servants who have got to the point where they can retire with a quarter of a million pounds as a gratuity and get an £85,000 a year pension are stupid? I don't see that as likely.

So, if they are not stupid, they must know exactly what they are doing, and therefore have a good reason for it.

On the other hand, they might well be stupid, but if they can reach their current rank despite that, what happened to you lot? If the opposition were dickheads, why are you sitting at a keyboard instead of living the good life?

The system needs us to believe that the very best of the RAF are promoted to the top. So either that's a lie (and you were brighter but didn't get promoted because ....?) or it's true and they are so smart, that they have manipulated the system to get us to where we are today.

Is the Taxi Driver taking you the long way round, stupid for not knowing, or clever because his meter is running?

I did once write to an Air Marshal pointing out he was factually incorrect in his contribution to a Government report mentioning my unit, and enquiring what he was planning to do to rectify the situation. He went bat**** crazy and ordered a Wg Cdr to bollock me senseless for my temerity. On arrival at said Wg Cdr's office he said "Consider yourself verbally flayed. However, as you were perfectly correct in your facts, may I buy you a pint?" Elevation to VSO is not a guarantee of sense or decency.

Air police,

Of course they're not stupid - they are clever enough to play the system. That's how they end up with big gratuities and pensions!

They don't give a sh*t about anyone but themselves - and being in the public sector - whether armed forces, police, civil service, NHS, social services etc, etc no-one is ever accountable for the f*ck ups.

Plus ca change ........!

The forfeiture of pension is a bit of a myth really. I have taken some for Court Martial, who have been sent down for significant criminal offences, and they have still kept their pension. Pension that you have earned is protected by UK Law and it is very hard to take that away from anyone.

You need to commit treason and go down for 10+ years to even be considered...

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...regs-clean.pdf

airpolice - some of those who get to the top are good guys (and girls) but many are career-focused, back stabbing climbers of the greasy pole.

The big problem is they spend so little time in each position of power and are moved onwards and upwards before their decisions impact the job they are leaving - a nasty game of pass the parcel where you don't want to be holding it when the music stops.

The MoD as a whole has always been under pressure to save money and, by moving items off the main balance sheet, they can be seen to do exactly that - witness the privatisation of SAR as a classic example.

Military flying training is just another victim of cost-cutting which doesn't really save money, reduces flexibility and drives down standards.

Airpolice: there has also been some correlation between VSOs negotiating contracts then retiring & taking up a directorship in said companies. Not stupid but perhaps a whiff of corruption?

The famous revolving door used by many VSOs as part of Operation Feather Nest.

Do I hear that Affinity's civil instructors don't hold Type Ratings for the Phenom 100 on which they're training the RAF's ME students....:\

If not, why not?

Affinity...Ascent or whatever.

The Phenom 100 is not an Annex II aircraft, it is a complex SP-HPA type requiring specific OSD as part of the EMB-550 TR training. That's the requirement for any civil pilot flying the Phenom 100.

Why should the markings exempt the pilot from such a requirement? What legitimate excuse can there possibly be for a pilot licensed under Part-FCL to be exempt from holding a valid TR for the aircraft....or is it just to save money :hmm: ??

Art 145 of the ANO only applies to members of HM Forces:

So unless these civilians are also Sponsored Reservists, that article of the ANO does not apply to them.

Ken

The average RAF students won’t have 150hrs TT to start the modular CPL/IR course, nor the EASA PPL(A), nor the EASA Theoretical Knowledge. They are not de facto Qualified Service Pilots to enjoy the exemption on the PPL to start CPL or ATPL groundschool. Having completed EFT and a multi engine lead in on the Tutor/Prefect they will be lucky if they have 60hrs and much of that will be dual not solo time.

So it really isn’t an option to give them CPLs in the time and money allowed.

I agree about the carrot and stick, but we would have to completely change the multi engine syllabus. I believe we are locked into the MFTS contract for 25 years and so we will all be very old when/if we changed it!

LJ

European Law lays down the requirements for civilians flying EASA aircraft; neither the CAA nor MAA have any overriding influence.

Historically, ANO Art.145 and its antecessor provided such alleviation. For example, for military TPs assessing a civil aeroplane. For a fully-licensed civil pilot, adding an HP-SPA TR to their licence is fairly simple - but who should pay? The employer or the pilot? Wasn't that made clear when employment was advertised?

Nowadays, the RAF is a very much a minority airspace user. Much that I hate that, it's the truth. So in the 21st century, why shouldn't the MFTS snake oil salesmen be required to licence their civil pilots in exactly the same way as any another ATO / TRTO?

LJ, these days EFT provides absolutely pitiful levels of PIC solo consolidation for prospective ME pilots. A recent case with which I dealt involved a QMP(H) whose FW experience was around 70 hrs, of which less than 5 was as PIC.... Now I hear that 'they' want to reduce that even further.

Whatever happened to the high standards once provided by proper RAF flying training?

Beags

I agree, CPL/ATPL FIs should have a type rating if flying the Phenom. It would be a huge oversight and a matter for the CAA Enforcement Team if they didn’t!

LJ

LJ: why couldn't the ME students do the whole cse, including single engine stuff, & get the CPL along with the rest of their fellow (civil) students? It would cost relatively peanuts & they could be bonded for their ATPL, rather than give them a bespoke half course.

Ken

I agree but we are on contract for the provision of EFT, groundschool, multi engine lead in (MELIN) and multi engine pilot training. We also stream off of the back of the EFT performance and aptitude scores. So to do the full integrated frozen ATPL instead would mean writing that off completely by streaming early and skipping training that is paid for under contract. I agree it makes sense and then to top up the military flying bit before OCU, but we didn’t take that option 10 years or so ago when we opted for UK MFTS. If we offer it to the few extra expected to go to outsourced training then it would be unfair to those going the MFTS route. Also, if we give them EFT and MELIN first then with the fATPL integrated course then their training pipeline would be longer than MFTS - a luxury we cannot afford.

Don’t forget we are in this situation because of SDSR15 where we need to train many more aircrew than planned for in SDSR10 when the MFTS contract was let. If I was in charge at the time, which I obviously wasn’t, I would never have signed up to the inflexibility of a PFI flying training contract. But we are where we are (I hate that saying, even more so when it’s true!). All we can do is make the best out of decisions made many years ago - some shiny new aircraft are coming for training and the front line, so there is at least some good news!

LJ

And we'll continue to haemorrhage trained people early who might otherwise have been retained. As you say, we are where we are!

Ken

I fully agree on the carrot and stick approach. I think what we need is an aircrew professional managed pathway - for all types of aircrew. The use of Enhanced Learning Credits, Standard Learning Credits, accredited learning, preferred suppliers with military discount, the use of Service flying clubs and the removal of the stigma of doing civilian licences will definately help. Also, growing some of our own rear-crew into pilots that will bring with them plenty of experience into the front seat. It won’t fix things over night, but the development of such a pathway will help people manage their own expectations, allow them to be up front with the Service about their aspirations, improve their professional knowledge for the efficiency of the Service and mean that they don’t feel the need to rush off as soon as the get a CPL/fATPL/ATPL.

By the way, for those dreaming of an easy life with the airlines then perhaps they should go with their eyes wide open? This is a good read from BALPA http://blog.balpa.org/Blog/October-2...alance-Pilot-A

LJ

Those articles refer to the operation of military aircraft, not to the licensing of civil pilots.

Methinks thou doth protest too much....:hmm:

Nope, when the nonsense of MFTS fails, as ultimately it surely must, I suspect that there will be a strong sense of Schadenfreude amongst those to whom officialdom failed to listen all those years ago.

Banggearo

Have a look at RA2101 - Aircrew Qualifications https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...01_Issue_3.pdf

It states in para 2 and 2d that a civilian pilot must hold an appropriate civil licence to fly a military registered aircraft. If it’s civil registered its the same. Surely an “appropriate civil licence” requires a suitable rating to fly the aircraft? If the aircraft had no civilian aircraft equivalence then a military CQT would be appropriate, but in the Phenom’s case this is not correct as it has a civil type rating.

I might be wrong, but I hope you are right with your viewpoint.

I do agree, making MFTS work is the only way ahead for us all. :ok:

LJ

Banggearo

I would suggest that it is not clear, is it not worth checking with the CAA to esnure that PART-FCL and the ANO is not going to be broken? Or has that already occurred? I would suggest that just denying it is not a defence because you thought it was alright!

Sorry to be a pain, but to me the ANO and the RA make your position unclear to me. A quick email or phone call to the SARG would clarify. As I say, I hope someone has already checked!

LJ

Whether or not the nonsense of MFTS ultimately fails is one thing, expecting the snake oil companies' civil-licensed pilots to hold the requisite Part-FCL certificates and ratings for the aircraft they fly is quite another.

Banggearo, what legitimate excuse is there for a civil-licensed pilot flying the Phenom 100 not to hold a valid TR?

If the aircraft are military registered (or dual mil/civ) then this should applyif your civilian instructors are ex-military

A bit like a fitness test run
 

MFTS will start lumbering like a fat oaf until it gets underway and start to work.

I maintain serious misgivings about the level of prep for its delivery (rotary side) and I think with everything else going on around defence the goodwill of the experienced will be eroded. So they will start to leave if economic conditions allow.

I don't think it will be anywhere near PFA level - might be lucky to manage the Rockport walk or the grip test with assistance:E

Just give it a fabloned biff-chit now and get it over with:ok:

Paul Livingston moved onto and remains on the board of Ascent to ensure continuity of knowledge - try checking for your facts.

One gathers that 'appropriate civil licence' will indeed now mean a Part-FCL professional licence, Class 1 medical certificate and Class / Type Rating for the aircraft in question. Hence an EMB-550 TR for the Phenom 100, for example.

Then there's the Ford Prefect. That will require civil pilots to hold an SET Class Rating, rather than the SEP Class Rating required to fly Das Teutor....

But I'm sure that the MFTS snake oil salesmen factored this into their business plan....

Only applies if they are still current or reserve and flying for the military not a civilian company as a civilian Instructor.

Does anyone have any more information on where the multi engine outsourcing is likely to go? I’ve heard that there is likely to be a gap between the cease of king air flying and the beginning of Phenom student training?

Read elsewhere the Phenoms are still civil registered because they have not yet had the MoD airworthiness/fit for purpose dhobi mark. And when is that likely. Does anyone else use the Phenom for training?

I think Pakistan has some but for VIP transport not training

Shawbury has it's own issues....
 

Apparently the new helicopters at Shawbury as so small that 90% of crewmen are unable to 'fit' into the cabin safely, which means airworthiness is a huge issue due to crash protection...

Perhaps I think in an unusual way, but surely someone asked a crewman at some point to have a look at the aircraft before they bought an entire fleet of them?!? :ugh:

Or you specify something like “airframe provided must be suitable for 5-95 percentile male/female aircrew”, and “must provide crash worthy seating for all aircrew”...

Bump:

Anything happening, or not happening?

The Pakistan Air Force operate 4 Phenoms for (VIP)? transport. They are not trainers. For the record they are serialled V-4101 to V-4104 and were delivered in 2009.

FYI Airbus Helicopters only supplies crashworthy seating for all of its civil and mil versions..If the seats are removed preventing occupants from using them in flight....?

Many questions still to be answered about who will 'hold the risk' if the aircraft are used yet have been deemed to be unsuitable/unsafe for rearcrew operations.

There still isn't a syllabus for anyone to look at and very few instructors know if they will have a job yet post contract change.

The mil/civ balance has been been constantly assured yet the mil don't look like they have enough QHIs to fill their slots - and since so few are A2s anyway, all the experience will still be in the civ cohort.

The belief is that the contract was significantly underbid so what will be the plan B if it falls over commercially?????

Slow motion train-crash anyone?