|
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10240426)
Huzzah! The ‘RAF’ now has four! Still no news on how/what? |
Originally Posted by Big Eric
(Post 10241970)
not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose!
The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage. |
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer
(Post 10241993)
Even though it's a short transit you wouldn't normally do it gear down; we certainly never did on neither the Dominie nor the Jetstream.
The gear will be down, I would think, for one of two reasons: Either it won't retract or one wishes a slow, high drag, transit in the approach configuration because one has airframe damage. Maybe the crew just had doubts about the gear coming back down if they raised it. |
I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?
|
Originally Posted by Dominator2
(Post 10249288)
I'm fed up with all of this speculation concerning the incident and subsequent action. There must be someone who has seen some kind of statement from the RAF?
|
Do I have this right; there’s apparently been a collision. This “proves” (to the usual suspects) the training system is off to hell in a handcart and the Phenom is unsuited to its role? Presumably all the other types mentioned can be banged together without issue? As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down? |
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 10251751)
As for holding, I held for about four months before BFTS which was unremarkable then (mid 80’s). Why is any such period now seen as evidence of melt-down? |
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 10251804)
Even up to a year would be reasonable - Typhoondriver suggests a hold of up to three years, which seems extreme
last i I heard is up to 2 years pre-EFT - with significant further holds before both Linton and Valley. |
Firstly, I don't see why the Phenom should be deemed unsuitable for ME training, provided that the course itself is suitable. Which also means that the pre-ME EFT course needs to be suitable; from what I hear, at the moment that is doubtful with less than 3 hours PIC time for ab-initio pilots.
Wasn't MFTS supposed to be the cure-all which would put a stop to long holding times? |
Given this is a rumour website....
I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served. I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour. I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train. But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month....... |
Originally Posted by Big Eric
(Post 10241970)
It flew back to Cranwell with it's wheels down, not much point of retracting them for such a short flight I suppose! No other news yet.
There were 2 other Phenoms on the flight line at Cranwell that day, with contractors restricting flying activities there performing runway repairs. |
Originally Posted by Typhoondriver
(Post 10251910)
Given this is a rumour website....
I'm told that some guys are pitching up for their FJ OCU with 'in excess' of 5 years served. I'm also told that some guys are so exasperated with the state of affairs, that they are happy to leave the Service after only 1 frontline FJ tour. I'm also told that a current FJ OCU will have to cancel courses in early 2019, because they have no student output from Valley, who they can train. But it's all OK, because Bob Viking has a healthy logbook this month....... i know a chap who clocked 8 years service as he completed the Typhoon OCU and won’t be staying past his option point. Not alone in that situation either. The system is completely broken and the hierarchy simply do not care. ‘Make it work!’... |
P P ... that’s frightening! |
I recently met a JP on a Typhoon Sqn, he said it had taken him 8 years from IOT to a FJ Sqn. As many of the RAF’s pilot entrants are graduates that’s reaching a Sqn at circa 30 yo, so what long term career/ promotion prospects do they have? Plus they’re likely to have a wife/ kids in tow by that stage so they will be understandably less keen on overseas detachments etc. Lets not be too nostalgic about the ‘good old days’ though, holds between courses in the 90s were already getting long, I know of several people who completed Master’s degrees whilst waiting for the next stage of their training. However the current situation is far worse and the training system is well & truly broken at the moment. Whether Ascent can fix it properly & quickly will be the true test of the MFTS concept. |
Well Ascent are getting a new MD and he's ex RAF. It's bound to get better ;)
Ascent Managing Director, Dave Boden, has announced his intention to depart the organisation, starting his transition from the company on 29 October 2018. The Ascent Board is pleased to announce that Tim James will succeed Dave Boden as Ascent Managing Director on 10 November 2018, following the transition. Tim is currently the International Business Development Director for Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems and has been with the company since 2012. Prior to Lockheed Martin, Tim served in the Royal Air Force. During his 16-year military career, he flew Tornado F-3s and undertook two international exchange roles flying the F-16 aircraft with the US Air Force and the Royal Air Force of Oman. Tim spent a year working in Requirements Management for the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) programme. Tim holds a BA from Henley Business School. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Dave for his outstanding service and welcome Tim to his new role. |
There’s a lot of harking back to the holding generation of the mid-to-late 1990s to (sort of) excuse the parlous state of MFTS. However a much less flattering comparison is with the state of the pipeline from about 1999 pretty much until the fateful SDSR in 2010, which is essentially what MFTS was meant to replace. It was not unknown to go from IOT graduation parade to the FJ front line in under 3 years around the turn of the millennium. Granted, EFT could be done while at UAS, but (unlike BEagle) I think that was a good system that bought back ~12 months of the ‘age penalty’ incurred by university. I say ‘age penalty’ not because of career or promotion issues - clearly illegal these days - but because of the very real issue that outlook, lifestyle and commitments generally (deliberate emphasis!) change as the thirties are reached. By that point I’d done enough - two full tours and a ‘postgrad’ qualification - to understand what a future in the Service had in store for me and could commit myself to it. By comparison, someone facing those life choices as a first tourist has much less to go on; it’s small wonder that fewer seem to have the confidence in their future progression to stick around. The long holds at the moment - even for EFT, for Chrissake’s! - are a waste of precious years of youth that should be spent deploying left, right and centre and gaining the experience that we so badly need. Frankly, the decision to recruit with no prospect of timely training was absurd to the point of negligence. The seniors responsible have left their successors with no good options: replacing all the holdies with fresh young recruits is probably illegal, while keeping them will make the front line into even more of a flat, we’re-slightly-too-old-to-be-enthusiastic place than it has already become. Thanks a million! [By the way, I think the idea of getting more people out into civilian life before large pension and allowance liabilities are incurred is a reasonable one. But, you need to get your pound of flesh first... which we’re abjectly failing to] |
As I’ve recently been on e-mail with an old friend from 20 Sqn in Singapore, in the context of a Reunion, the potential attendance list was amazing! And ... the aircrew back then (late 60s) had a high proportion of early 20s on their first squadron tour. How did we achieve that back then, without sophisticated simulators, if we can’t do it now? My aircrew mates had probably been in for 3 years or so, and there they were on Front Line sqns whacking Hunters, Canberras and Lightnings around the tropic skies. Aplogies for old bloke input :( |
T-6 Texan II
Originally Posted by airpolice
(Post 10222848)
For the benefit of those who doubt the opinions expressed above:
I understand that with this being an anonymous forum, so data can be hard to verify, but for those who know people... ask around. Which units are getting anything like enough hours in the air to be even half competent? Reds: Probably. Front line Typhoon and Tornado, including QRA: nothing like it. Phenom: Who knows, given the shortage of airframes, and the flying needed to get their QFIs (the ones who haven't yet left) to the standard, what the long term picture is? Transport & Tanking: Apparently some, but some of them are civvies, the rest of them are run into the ground on ops. The A400 pilots were struggling to achieve 200hours/annum. Not sure if this is still the case? Hawk T2: No, advanced high tech sims are not the same thing. Great for as well as, but not instead of. I hear the convex for QFIs is taking well in excess of 12 months, at a very slow rate. Output rate, albeit with some overseas customers to satisfy, is blocking up a 2 year plus hold for baby pilots with no likely refresher. 'Downloading' training needlessly from Typhoon, and pilots lacking basic fast jet handling skills. Hawk T1: No idea, but they seem busy enough. ISTAR: No idea, but imagine RJ and E3D crews must be struggling, due to high unserviceability rates. Rotary: Training; Students are flying, and Instructors are doing an awful lot fewer (P1) hours in the air than they used to. Ops; Previously flown to exhaustion, which is as bad as not flying enough. Now showing large reductions. Prefect: Too early to say, but probably not. Have they resolved the over torque issues yet? That's not exactly care free handling. Texan: Ask me in 2019, when it just might have permission to fly in the UK. Air Cadets: Don't make me laugh. If standards haven't dropped, why is it that Air Command now say that "flight training is now to be to an acceptable minimum standard at the cheapest contractual price"? The previously used term "excellence" has been dropped. That looks to me, as if even 22 Group have decide to settle for less. Whats the skinny on the T-6 having permission to operate in UK airspace? I must have missed out on that one...however this is probably not related, but there was a recent accident with USAF T-6? Both pilot and student are ok. And also this came up on my news feed: Cheers USAF Calls T-6 Physiological Events ?Extreme Outliers? | Defense content from Aviation Week |
Well the UAS and AEF are flying their asses off at my local airfields. Which brings into question other 'facts'.
|
Perhaps doing a year as a AEF pilot might be a decent hold?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.