UK MFTS on or off the rails?
 

Considering the number of holding aircrew there appears to be around all 3 Services at the moment then I took a read of the National Audit Offices’ report on UK MFTS in 2015...shocking reading. However, I then found the following link to a televised grilling of MOD PS Jon Thompson, Head of Ascent and AM Sir Baz North by the Public Accounts Committee.

Some pretty explosive remarks contained within like “not value for money”, “its come off the rails”, “you could run the student phasing on a simple spreadsheet!” and “what the hell were you thinking?”; well worth the whole first 54 minutes if, like me, you have never seen it before:

Parliamentlive.tv - Public Accounts Committee

Transcript here: https://www.parliament.uk/business/c.../publications/

Don’t forget this is TWO YEARS old and that SDSR15 was about to be released with extra aircrew requirements. However, are we any further forward? I don’t believe we are...
Of the NAO, I am heartened to see at least one competent public sector department!! Here is their report:
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/military-flying-training/

The B Word

Patently obvious to anyone who has been in the training world that it would be an utter waste of money....I went for an interview in 2011 for an aircraft that still isn't in service....and now they can't even fill the roles with the terms and conditions offered. Note their website for jobs that get advertised and readvertised and readvertised

I thought I was reading the script for the next episode of "Yes Minister".

As someone who was due to teach at cranwell it is looking pretty interesting...

Sir Baz North retired in May 2016

Jon Thompson moved to HMRC in April 2016

Lockheed Martin appointed Paul Livingston as its new Vice President for its Integrated Systems line of business in the UK in November 2016. His new responsibilities do not appear to include pilot training.

Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off.

"Frequent changes in management is a recurrent issue in these contracts Those involved know that whatever decisions are made they will not be around if the wheels fall off."

....and, ta-da, one of the single biggest reasons for inefficiency in the whole acquisition system is neatly summed up. Add in the "revolving door" of gifted amateurs at Desk Officer level, chronic lack of ability to train and retain SQEP and pernicious in-year salami-slicing and the failure model is complete. Never mind, we can just "re-baseline" to expunge the sins of our predecessors (who, more often than not are now our superiors and writing our OJARs) and provided we all reach promotional MSD everyone wins. Well, apart from the poor souls trying to make it work on the shop floor.....

Whilst I'm not going to step up to the plate and defend MFTS (some of the stated goals are ridiculous - no holds is an impossible thing to achieve unless your frontline requirement is static or your training pipeline is shorter than your recruiting timeline!) But also in my memory is the review of the carrier catapult by NAO and their total inability to understand that the reason the proposed carrier fit cost twice as much as the cost of an emals was that we were buying two of them per carrier. Came across like they were always on a witch hunt and a bit 'out for the glory of the kill, regardless of the facts'.

It came accross to me as finally some public sector officials being vaguely held to account with their underperforming “whole force”partner. Yes, there is lots of waste in all Govt Depts but you have to start somewhere. The most entertaining bit was when Ascent announced that they had changed all of their leadership team and then for Jon Thomson to shuffle about uncomfortably mumbling that the civil servants were still in place and unlikely to be held to account. Even his “re-attack” minutes later was unconvincing. Finally, as Sir Baz was the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) how much real accountability is taken by the military? I know that he was just ‘on watch’ when the report came out, but there have been several AMPs during the contract period - 2 of which became 4-stars!

For me it made very sad and uncomfortable watching but thanks for sharing.

Actually it's a bit more W1A

We (civilians) happened to be watching old re runs of "Yes Prime Minister" when a VVSO came into the crew room. "Is that what it's like operating at that level" someone asked. "No" he said, " It's like In the thick of it"

yes, the MOD working out what they do best and then doing less of it, better..........................wasting taxpayers money by the look of it.

A bit like when the SofS requested latest recruitment figures from me and the following week came to visit and told the HQ that things were improving; quite who he was trying to convince is beyond me.

Timelord,

Being in the colonies, I had never heard of "In the Thick of It".

Something to look forward to, once I've found it on the Internet.

Thanks!

I hope you are not easily offended by bad language!
TL

Or be shocked the foulest-mouthed one on there became the new Dr Who......

This is what you are getting into, be prepared.
 

Well if you don't like it, you can just **** Off, and when you've finished ******* Off, **** Off some more!

As we enter the third week I find Mr. Tickell’s attention seeking tent based twattery even more annoying than weeks one and two

"Who was it that did your media training, Myra Hindley? It's terrible! All these hands all over the place. You were like a sweaty octopus trying to unhook a bra. It was like watching John Leslie at work."

"Terri, when I want your advice, I’ll give you the special signal. Which is me being sectioned under the Mental Health Act."

What the **** is this? Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, ****?

"The guy is an epic f*ck-up. He’s so dense that light bends around him."

"No, he's useless. He's absolutely useless. He's as useless as a marzipan dildo."

Great series - I regularly use ****ety-bye and **** you very much.

You tried one? ;)

NL - that has still got me chuckling

Well if you think 'W1A' and 'The Thick Of It' are good, I heartily recommend watching 'Jonathon Pie' sketches on You Tube. A fictitious news reporter who in between takes to camera presents his own views on the politics and situations of the day.

He doesn't so much as address the elephant in the room, the elephant generally ends up shot, stuffed and mounted all in the space of 2-3 excoriating minutes. It's very cathartic!

And here he ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyVBIVCB1Cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMz_SHidVfk he does give a no-holds barred view of the shoddy state of UK politics :ok:

All very well, but what actually is the state of UK MFTS?

Do I hear that the King Air contract hasn't been renewed due to cost - and that until the Phenom arrives, ME pilots will have to be trained at Kidlington or similar? Assuming, of course, that they actually meet the input standard....

I thought that the Phenoms are arriving now and some have already arrived?

Not sure, Comrade.

This from the snake oil people's website seems a bit odd:

Beagle,

You heard right (definitely a current plan for studes to Oxford).

Not necessarily Oxford by the way. But defo some outsource even after MFTS starts. The issue is that MFTS was put on contract before we bought shiney new P8s and other shiney bits of kit in SDSR15. :ok:

PS. i hear there are nice commercial flying schools at other airfields from many other providers, if you get my drift?

I'm sure the output standard will be fine, but presentationally not great with RAF 100 looming. How on earth you can claim to be a world leading Air Force when you can't even train your own pilots in house, I have no idea.

When you only put on contract 23x light aircraft, 10x turbo-prop jet lead ins, 5x multi-engine trainers and 28x Hawks then what do you expect? They are wringing every last bit of capacity out of those poor frames and so if an SDSR delivers more shiney toys as planned then the only choice is to go to market or leave your students to wait even longer waiting for someone to build more aircraft. Nothing new really, we impressed aircraft and outsourced at the start of WW1 and WW2 to get our aircrew numbers up in quick order...I just hope we aren’t looking at the start of WW3!

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_info_L.jpg

Oh, and the rotary stream has a similarly low number of assets to deliver for all 3 Services!

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ing_System.png

Glad you mentioned the rotary side, that is looking more and more like a bag of sh*te every day.

Got to say that I am genuinely concerned by the levels of outsourcing and contractorisation right the way across the Forces. Whilst I guess there will always be niche areas, contractorisation should IMHO be left to those niche areas and not viewed as a silver bullet or doing routine business on the cheap. It's neither. And I suspect thoughts of copying the US miss the point that for all their own issues, the US retains a sizeable uniformed force.

Contract things out and we suddenly find don't own the assets or expertise (wasn't it the Jag that we owned outright and could do whatever we needed cheaply and in short order?), getting timely support in the middle of a conflict zone is difficult if not eye wateringly expensive and when you go so far as to contract core elements of routine business, guess what, people (especially those past pension points) will invariably be attracted by life out of uniform thus perpetuating the retention issues. Like outsourcing your thinking to management consultants, wholesale contractorisation is illusory and frankly requires contract monitors not senior leaders potentially putting the notion of command at risk.

Melchett, you are of course, spot on.

However, your thinking seems based on the premise that the decision making is in the interests of the service, or indeed, of the defence of the realm.

Clearly, but not clear enough for some on here who used to bang on about how much we couldn't not have LRMPA, the driving force behind things nowadays is money. Not of course, the saving of it, but the spend in the right places. Buying capacity to do the job well is not as important as lining the pockets of the few, one way or another.

Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?

If the idea had been to provide excellent housing at affordable costs, then the MOD would have retained and improved the quarters, and had somewhere for the troops to live. But when the plan was to sell off the housing stock for next to nothing ,so that a mate could buy it up and make a killing, then obviously some work needs to be done before the sale.


Once you accept that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, you can see how it all makes perfect sense.

Agree with Melchett01

The contractorsiation of people, process and capability has now reached such a scale that it is 'normal' to spend the majority of the daily interaction engaging with civilians doing, what were 5-10 years ago, military roles.

Example:

I arrive at the Stn and FP is provided by a 'rotund' contractor in a high-viz ill fitting jacket, who is stood with his hands in his pocket (next to a sign that says verbal will not be tolerated). I then speak with my 'HR department' not PSF!, and engage with a jobsworth D grade CS, who has her own interpretation of the JSP for claims. I then need to get my PME, so I wonder off to the Med Ctre and have a contracted Doc give me the once over (If only). It's now lunchtime and I fancy something to eat, the civilian on the Mess reception checks my i.d. and 'tells' me that lunch is a restricted menu due to staffing challenges. The hotplate is then filled with pretty average food, metered out by a less than interested individual. In the afternoon, I decide to visit stores to obtain some pre-det kit and exchange some other stuff - sucking of teeth not sure we can issue that says another 'rotund' contractor. And it goes on......

So when you analyse the functions that have been contractorised and, more importantly, the secondary and tertiary roles that these trades once provided in an operational environment - FOB FP/ HNS Engagement/ MERT/ Field Kitchen/ COLPRO etc etc it is a good job that we live in a stable and non-expeditionary world - or B.

WRT MFTS, and having had a trg role in the 'old' system, all that was really needed (and I simplify) was a strategy that managed the trg ac fleets and bases appropriately - not a PFI that has systematically destroyed one of the world's finest aircrew trg systems. I also wonder, much like Brexit, if the decision to go with MFTS was reviewed, which way the vote would go? However, unlike Brexit, I think it is pretty certain that those individuals that made the original decision will not have to suffer the consequences.

Saturday morning rant complete - enjoy the weekend!

An excellent rant though cbtl - :ok:

Guys, I think I can see a plan in this...:8 . Maybe the new training schemes are actually well designed to produce exactly what will be needed for the UK Armed Forces in 2020! :uhoh:

OAP

airpolice,

You say;

Never mind if it's the best aircraft for the job, how many votes are tied to the jobs in the area where it is built?


Er, seeing as our training aircraft are built in Germany, Brazil, France and the USA how on earth do you work that one out?

As to the rest of your post, now nice to see that you are a Socialist, congratulations!

Pr00ne, I was referring to the purchases from Warton, where the big money is spent.

For those that may have not watched the video link in the initial post - do!!

The male panel member is on the ball and does not give any qtr to the 3 'witnesses'. More importantly, the spin coming from Ascent's rep, and the selective use of data from both the NAO report and the company is incredible. Good job that individual has been promoted and moved on into the LM hierarchy.....

Also, an interesting quote whereby the rep identifies the 'great work that Ascent has undertaken to generate some 6000 course streams' (lessons in normal parlance), which is interesting when the large majority were in fact 'cut and pasted' from extant CFS approved courseware - certainly for rear-crew. He then goes on to discuss IPR, which in the context of the grilling he was under at the time was laughable. Has the RAF/AAC or Navy (correction) Fleet Air Arm been used as a guinea pig to sell the process elsewhere? The panel member asks? - What has just been demonstrated is, the Ascent contract, by taking ownership (oh the irony) of the courseware, now has the ability to sell 'their' product to a 3rd party. Outstanding commercial practice on their part!

Second rant for the day.... Yes, I need to get out more.

airpolice,

Ah, I see, sorry.

But to be fair there is no real alternative to Warton/Samlesbury is there?

The whole system is broken. How can it take "the service" to put a pilot in the RH seat of the Sentinel 6 years (who holds a frozen ATPL/IR) , in civil world it could be done in 14 months from scratch.
Its time we wake up and get a commercial head on......