AirPolice, where do you get your duff gen from? I’ve just checked my log book and found lots of student names in it over the past 12 months, continually flying them week on week. I don’t see a period of 3-6 months with no students.

As for all the experience leaving, again rubbish. Experience always leaves, this is called tour! At the end of your 3 years you move on like any other fast jet Sqn. At the same time the junior QFIs step up, prove themselves as A2s and are the new experienced guys. Ps there are also plenty of long term A2s who aren’t going anywhere for a long time!

godsavethequeen, are you saying that you don't know abut the 6 month gardening leave for QFI students?

If it takes 2 years to become a Hawk T2 QFI, how long will they be productive for before their next tour begins?

This shows how little you know about what’s really going on and how much rumour mill has expanded.
Non of the SQFIs went/are on 6 months gardening leave.

Do you really think a tour starts at the beginning of the training? If you go to any FL jet your tour doesn’t start until you complete the OCU, same here.

And as for 2 years to complete, you definetly have no idea. Not saying it’s done as quickly as humanly possible, no where near 2 years though!

Guess you will have to find some other rubbish to spread. Not here to argue just making sure you have th correct facts

Are you being ever so careful with your words?

Who did get sent home at the end of the year, and why?

Now that they are back, what are they doing, and how long were they away for?

When a freshly minted Pilot leaves Valley, to go to a Typhoon Squadron, what's the minimum total hours you would expect them to have, and over how many years would that have been accumulated?

Bob Viking

I think you may have missed my point. The civvies and Mil I know are most definately not full of glee at the prospect of MFTS failing. They are desperately sad, as they feel passionately about delivering the highest quality of training. The students will be the ones who suffer, nobody else.

We really care, perhaps too much.

EI
 

My point wasn’t directed at you.

I’ve been in the same situation you describe a few years back and I’m happy to say it sorted itself over time.

My ire is directed at those that throw spears despite no direct involvement.

BV

Bob, when the people involved have been muzzled, who is left to throw spears except those of us on the outside?

I'm only asking questions, as a taxpayer, who left Valley before the first Hawk arrived.

What is it, if not incompetence and greed, that Ascent have to hide?

So far I find only three people defending any part of the MFTS contracts, despite the large number of people in the know, and nobody from within has a bad word to post on here about it.

Why is the rumour mill going so hard? Why are people private messaging each other with tales of how bad it is, and reminders that they are not allowed to speak out?

Despite rules about keeping quiet, it seems that some of you are allowed to post, provided you toe the party line.

Is this dissent in the crewrooms all in my mind? Is it all great and on track? Are all of the people being trained all the time, or are they sitting around waiting for a slot to appear?

In short, could it be done better, and if so, why is it not?

Because it's winter and folk are bored.

BV - :ok:

perhaps bored with being drip-fed, positively spun information about just how well everything is going when, to the average person who is likely to deliver the new system, there is no actual evidence that it is all going to be OK.

Many ex-mil instructors are very aware that they cannot be as critical of their civilian masters as they could of their military ones - they want to keep their jobs so few will put their heads above the parapet and make public statements here or in the press.

As EE says, if everything is so rosy, why is there so much grumbling.

Without doubt much is due, on the RW side, to seeing a perfectly excellent system (DHFS) replaced for the sake of cost-saving with a new, unproven and very ambitious system that seems hell-bent on efficiency but with very little focus on the quality of the training that will be delivered.

Well, there are several feasible answers to this question.

But the outgoing system isn't perfectly excellent, is it? You have yourself pointed out the terrible shortcomings in the qualifications and experience of many of those in supervisory positions. Far less significant than your entirely accurate and insightful concerns are the long-standing problems with both the main aircraft types: the Squirrel, while still a lovely aircraft to fly, is woefully unrepresentative of any military helicopter which the students will go on to fly, while the Griffin has for years been crippled by both performance and reliability issues. This is not to say that the new empire (which will still be called DHFS - but you obviously knew that already) is the only way to solve these issues, and there are many many good things about the old system. Please bear in mind though that rose-tinted glasses, while deeply fashionable, are not essential PPE for a trip on the outrage bus.

So in what way are the 135 and 145 representative of the front-line types?

They are shiny and new (unlike much of the front-line) and very representative of what a pilot might fly in commercial ops but military??

Lots of bells and whistles on the aircraft (which I'm led to believe the students won't actually get to use) and pretty powerful (again unlike much of front-line ops where performance is often an issue) so what are you actually teaching them.

As for the qualifications for supervisors - with mainly the same people being employed under the new system, how is that going to be better than the outgoing one?

Multi engine, glass cockpit.

Plenty of available power (well, for one of our front line types anyway!)

I trust that if the EC*** crewmen’s crash seat is unfit for purpose; or worse still hazardous to health, that the ASIMs process is in overdrive. You cannot and should not sweep flight safety under the carpet. The Duty Holder would be foolish to play statistic roulette with aircrew necks, for sooner or later somebody will get hurt.

skids, fenestron, tiny cabin, a winch you have to stand on the skid to operate.....other than the fact it is a helicopter it is not representative of front line - they would have been better off with the Guimbal Cabri G2 and been able to operate hundreds of them.

Some don't believe there are enough aircraft in the bid - working all your fleet hard will cause problems with servicing, especially when C checks come around.

Spot 4 - this late in the process, a senior officer will be made to carry the risk, even if it is the crews who will 'wear' that risk every day. The ASIMS and MAA is paper-safety.

But not the duty holder. That's whole point of the thread about the MoD avoiding the blame for Flt. Lt. Cunningham's death.

I am not sure anybody is really stepping up into being responsible for flight safety. Take the Phenom, you have Instructors writing course materials who have never flown the aircraft.

An ongoing argument about what ratings are actually required for civilians to fly and teach on the aircraft.

A curriculum that will have students with around 80hrs total time as pilots being handed the keys to a biz jet and being told to go off an fly together. Instructors that will have virtually no time on type before being expected to take command and teach on type.

In the civil world this would have an ATO shut down for negligence and the Head of Training dealt with accordingly. There is no such position in Ascent, just a bunch of self professed ex RAF "experts" who don't know a thing about civil regulation attempting to bluster there way through.

What will be interesting to see is the first board of inquiry.........

What will be inevitable to see is the first board of enquiry.

Sadly, I have to agree.

bose-x - what exactly is your job please. I'm trying to decide if you actually know what you are nay-saying about or if you are have just relieved the driver on the prune outrage bus

JAJ
 

Once again we appear to be in violent agreement.

Does anyone really believe that any QFI worth his/her salt is going to send a student solo on type (and authorise the sortie) unless he/she is confident in their ability to conduct themselves safely?

I find myself repeating myself (you see what I did there?) when I say this but maybe trust that the guys and gals in the hot seats are going to get the job done.

If you’re not in a position to affect things then maybe just stop finding reasons to get annoyed about stuff that hasn’t happened yet and that, frankly, have nothing to do with you.

This whole predicting an accident thing is a little morbid IMHO.

Besides I was sent solo in a Jaguar with 2:50 on type. Hell, students are going solo on Typhoon on their first airborne sortie. I think a couple of students can probably crack a Phenom once they have been trained.

Remember I’m not a multis guy but I do trust that the people at Cranwell will make it all work safely. I’m not sure they need the approval of the assembled Pprune massive before they start though.

Of course, should I be proven wrong in the fullness of time you are more than welcome to come on here and ask me to eat my words. However, if you were to gloat it would say a lot more about you than me.

Trying to let his thread die, but I keep dragging myself back.

BV

Bob Viking - :ok:

Use any influence you have as a party advocate to get the Ascent contract cancelled outright as an intolerable mess, and leave DHFS & the Tucano fleet to plod on until a realistic business model can be introduced.

Rather than the ping pong messages we have on this thread in which some career protective folks are refusing to take their head out of the ground v those who are passionate about creating/maintaining an effective and realistic aircrew training pipeline, we need the MAA to man up and execute the positive Flight Safety mantra that they were established for. ALARP does not mean fingers crossed until I am posted. Anticipating an accident/incident may well be morbid, but I can recall times when aircraft fell out of the skies on an almost weekly basis, and nothing justifies the slightest threat of returning to the bad old days, especially not civilian shareholders dividends.
I am a big fan of "Any doubt = No doubt" and quite clearly all is not right on a multitude of levels.

Time for a letter to my MP & the Defence Minister I think.

Spot 4 :ok:

Someone right on the coalface of the organisation and thus a recipient of the emails threatening staff with not posting anything on social media with dismissal. A direct witness to the stuff I have previously mentioned. Other posters on this thread will verify that if you really need it... So no I have not joined the outrage buss for a ride, I was already on it. ;)

It actually has the opportunity to be something amazing, but while they are cutting corners on essential stuff like proper staff training and experience building and having the wrong people develop training materials when Lockheed are being paid a fortune to do the job I will be a detractor. The attitude that people should just do it because its the RAF way does not wash in a civilian company where there is no liability cover. Promises that if it goes wrong the company will protect you are just bull****, we all know who will get thrown under the bus to protect the senior management.
:ok:

So you work for Ascent or Affinity in MFTS?

Who are you, Al Shinner? These are anonymous forums you know!!! ;)

Just trying to tie you down as "right on the coalface" doesn't actually make it clear.

I am sure you are. However respect my right to anonymity please.

Not trying to get you into trouble, just whether or not you talk from a knowledgeable position or not.

I think he makes it very clear above if he has had gagging emails.
I must say however, most civilian companies have social media gagging orders. Anything that can damage the company, true or not, usually is a sackable offence. I can understand that. The questions on what he does definitely look like a manager trying to “out” an employee 😎 even if that isn’t the reason for asking.

Don’t tell him Pike!

I'm a Regular QFI, not trying to "out" anyone. :p

well in that case you could just use the pm method instead of trying to get him to tell you publicly where he works.

The Phenom T1 may well be a biz-jet, but it's about as simple to operate as any twin engine aircraft. Fuel, Hyd, elect and pressurisation systems that look after themselves. Straightforward autopilot and flight displays. Engines operated via just a thrust lever. No mixture, prop, condition, feather bits to worry about!

I'd much rather send a pair of studes up on a mutual solo in a Phenom than a King Air or a Jetstream or a Varsity!

So.... we should all accept that you are a QFI because you say so, but everyone else needs to show their papers?

The irony of demanding anonymity whilst naming an individual.

Buffoon.

Erm, he is the COO of Ascent, not exactly a secret identity....... Now if he he posting here under an anonymous identity and I knew that I would not try to out him as he is entitled to the same right. But otherwise I don’t see your problem?

The Queen is Elizabeth........

I know who he is and obviously that information is publicly available.

My issue is your demand for anonymity whilst unnecessarily naming an individual on a public forum.

I named a public individual, I did not out him...... ;)

What you are achieving is to ‘out yourself’ as someone who applies different standards to themselves than others.

Nice