Interesting to note that the Royal Navy website states, (correctly) that they are currently NOT recruiting pilots.
On the other hand, the RAF website states that they are recruiting pilots. This despite it 'not being a priority branch' and them not offering OASC boards to pilot candidates!

If those trained pilots are under 26, can pass the CBAT, interviews, medicals and leadership tests then I’m sure the RAF would be delighted to offer them a job. :hmm:

I hear you crab! Piece of advice given the role you do - be sure to look VERY carefully at the C of G for the H145 in a typical rearcrew training configuration. Put a Pilot in the RHS, 2 rearcrew in the rhs door (winch-op qhci and student) and 2 rearcrew on the winch (qhci plus student). MFTS found it puts the aircraft miles outside the CofG envelope - a huge part of the reason for the abysmal delay in winching training (which is still not happening!)

A lot of H145’s have the winch on the left for a reason.

That said, it is a lovely aircraft to fly.

Thanks Baldeep - I'm pretty sure our CP looked carefully at the C of G issue knowing that's about how we would load it for training and the TP showed him it was OK but I'll ask him anyway.

Presumably it was a lateral C of G issue not fore and aft.

Yes, lateral CofG, further exacerbated by the need to stand on the skid. The CofG was not just outside the envelope, it was across the room, through the door and down the hall. The OEM said that as long as the aircraft was in CofG prior to winching, then going outside whilst winching was ok...however...
There was a belief from some in the process that an allowance could be made for winching because they thought we flew for 20 mins to get to a casualty, winched out/in, then flew to a hospital ie. like an Alpine SAR unit. I was at a mtg when it was explained that a 1hr rearcrew sortie could easily involve 40 minutes of winching...cue a stunned silence followed by a lot of quiet.

Don't you just love it when important decisions are made by people without any detailed knowledge of the actual task?:ugh:

Reminds me of the early S92 days. Two large fuel tanks in the side sponsons each with a gravity fuel cap and a pressure refueling connection on the left sponson, with a cross connection, but no electric pumps - all pressure head. If using pressure refueling a large imbalance (hundreds of pounds) developed which had to be corrected by gravity fueling the right tank to balance it out. We asked to Sikorsky to fit a panel in the cockpit to allow us to activate the high level cut off switches in the left tank, so that the right tank would then continue filling and a balanced total achieved. The conversations went along the lines of:

"Why is the imbalance a problem - you will never go outside the lateral CoG?" - we explained the concept of fuel planning and landing close to reserves/MLA
"Why is topping up the right tank an issue?" - we explained gravity fueling not always available and operationally inefficient

They proposed the switches are to be placed above RHS on his overhead panel....

"Why is that a problem?" - they thought all refueling is done 'cold' and a technician would be operating the switches. When explained that we did 'hot' refuels...
"So, why is it a problem for the RHS to operate the switches?" - we explained that maybe the RHS would be outside the aircraft and the LHS pilot could not reach the switches
"But why would the RHS pilot be outside the aircraft when it's running?"

We got the panel installed in the middle of the centre console...……

Plenty of similar examples on other types.

L
 

212man - the situation you describe is destined to be repeated ad-infinitum.

The reason, in my view, is this...

Aircrew and Instructors know what we need. We understand training and operational requirements. Over the years, we have managed to get our fleets (I am talking from military-only experience) modded, and procedures developed, to achieve the task in the best way available within the current resources.
Now, along comes the accountant (the NAO in the case of MFTS) and he says ‘your training costs too much- we will go to industry for a cheaper solution’.
The vultures...sorry ‘contractors’ circle. They have one goal - win the contract. The reason the military are outsourcing is cost, nothing else. The contractors understand this. Their bids will be evaluated with a HUGE weighting on cost.
They know what they have to promise. They understand what they need to say their solution can do.
But above all they have only one goal- win the contract.
This is why Ascent ignored so much advice - it was an inconvenient truth. They must have known their proposal was smoke and mirrors, but they did not care -they had to win the bid.

And once they did, it’s job done.

Multi Pilots being trained at Bournmouth. Texan just started training years late. Hawks with no engines. Maritime and winching training still not being provided. Prefects grounded, Phenoms completely unsuitable for the task...but they don’t care. They have the contract.

The MOD has sadly sold its soul, and arguably the best flying training system in the world, to save money.

And here’s the kicker...MFTS, having destroyed any semblance of excellence in training, is more expensive than the system it replaced.

The old system was run to a standard, MFTS is run for a profit, and my goodness it shows.

It is a bloody sorry state of affairs Baldeep, but I don't suppose any of that has been acknowledged by either the contractors or the RAF/MoD - too many promotions/bonuses at stake in the upper levels to admit such an ocean-going cock-up.

More people should think more often about C of G other than fore-and-aft. The importance of lateral is well described above, but we should not forget vertical C of G. ISTR one of the contributing factors on the SK that fell over at St Mawgan about (?) 20 years ago was an unusually high vertical C of G - empty cabin, low fuel, two small-ish pilots.......

Teetering head - the vertical C of G of the Sea King was a contributory factor only in as much as it reduced the margin of safety for dynamic rollover.

Once the modelling was done it was belatedly understood that many 'wobbly' take offs in the Sea King over many years had been very close to rollover.

Other aggravating factors are crosswind, sloping ground (either nose down or lateral) and not having the AP engaged

Just be aware, the RAF have not stopped pilot recruitment, although it may be targeted groups

Jayteeto - correct, my son has an application in at the moment - it's just progressing very slowly.

Crab.
Sometimes you just have to let them find out by making the mistakes for themselves, I take it you have offered your advice?
Mind you with the current debacle we will have moved on to a total fleet of UAVs and the most difficult emergency will be cleaning the keyboard after spilling his coffee!

Isn't that a classic case of trying to do what you did with a completely different aircraft without any respect to the aircraft you now have? I dont see any stories of Herc crews trying to do Beverly Ops. Typically, other 117 operators changed their training/operating routines and schedules to match the new aircraft's envelope - and not try to break the aircraft into a new operating envelope...surely that's asking for trouble? - and in a training role?

I'm not actually sure if the Winch is cleared to operate for that amount of time...

trouble is they have been making mistakes like this for years but get promoted out of the way to let a new guy make the same old mistakes.

Plenty of people far cleverer than me advised against the Ascent plan but nobody listened to them and here we are.

Seems Ascent's boss at Cranwell has them on track :ugh:

It is with great pleasure that we congratulate Darren Arch, the newly appointed General Manager at RAFC Cranwell, on the award of his Commendation in the 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours List. This was achieved for his performance in his previously challenging and high profile role as Senior Training Manager responsible for all aspects of Elementary Flying Training (EFT), Multi-Engine Pilot Training (MEPT) and Fixed Wing Rear Crew (RC) Training within UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) which has been truly outstanding.

Embracing the Whole Force ethos and recognising the high demands placed on UKMFTS, he readily sacrificed significant personal time to support the needs of Ascent and 3FTS, and is thoroughly deserving of his AOC 22 Gp’s Commendation.

AOC 22 isn't what I would call the brightest bulb on the tree.

Good reads; Losing Small Wars, and Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs. Both cover many of the issues we had to work with throughout our time in the services compensating for poor equipment and leadership.
Enjoy - if you haven't already.

Thanks for the steer re Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - an excellent read.

They officially stopped accepting new applications on Monday.

Only option for wannabe military flyers is now the Army!