The B Word,
All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?" |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10371264)
The B Word,
All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?" As for the T1 I believe they are going to use the slots for creamies, skimmies and GR4 WSOs on crossovers to pilot. If that is correct, then again it is the right thing to do. Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful. |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 10371381)
there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful. OAP |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 10371381)
Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful. Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds? Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard? |
Typhoondriver Sounds like fake news, or half-truth, to me within a variety of your questions. For instance I know there are changes to the T2 syllabus upcoming that the FL asked for...:cool: Look, I’m not saying MFTS is sweetness and light, but it is what it is and it is unlikely to change - so we can either all carp about “the good old days” (which in my experience had some big plus points but some significant negatives as well), or we can just move along and get it working. Don’t forget that MFTS was designed around 2006ish and then there was SDSR2010 that axed a load of capability and aircrew trg requirement (MRA4, Harrier, some Tornados, early draw downs of other types as well), then, for the first time in my lengthy time in the service a growth under SDSR2015 plus also Typhoon/Hawk sales with training requirements thrown into the mix. Here is SDSR2015 in brief: Typhoon. We will create two additional front-line squadrons from our existing fleet and extend Typhoon in service to 2040. F-35 Lightning. We will buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme. We will buy some of these aircraft more quickly than previously planned, creating an additional front-line squadron by 2023. ISTAR. More than doubling the number of armed remotely piloted air systems and increasing the number of crews under the Protector programme to replace Reaper. Investing in a fleet of nine Boeing P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with an overland surveillance capability. Extending Sentinel in service until 2021. Upgrading E-3D Sentry, extending it in service until 2035, and increasing the number of crews. Expanding the Shadow fleet, with a corresponding uplift in the number of crews, and extending it in service until at least 2030. Extending Rivet Joint in service until 2035 and increasing the number of crews. Air Mobility. Completing the introduction to service of 22 A400M Atlas tactical and heavy lift aircraft and 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelling and transport aircraft. Upgrading 14 C-130J Hercules aircraft and extending them in service. Upgrading the Chinook battlefield helicopter. Military Flying Training. We will expand the capacity of the Military Flying Training System to meet the demands of the increased training demand. As ever, everything needs to be looked at with a little less myopia and “Daily Mail” outrage then the challenges, issues and ways-ahead make a bit more sense! |
Zero Loaded course indeed!
Originally Posted by Typhoondriver
(Post 10371418)
Is it fake news that the system at Valley have introduced a process which has colloquially become known as 'zero'ing'? My understanding is that 'zero'ing' allows MFTS to continue to graduate courses on time, in order to get paid. The fact that these courses, I am told, have 'zero' students on them, yet the company still gets paid, is quite frankly astonishing.
Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds? Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard? How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe? Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making. How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have? Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway. |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10371263)
Warren Peace,
Whilst in no way wishing to defend the bag 'o ****e that MFTS has clearly turned out to be, I think your rather hysterical rant is rather deflated by the fact that 75% of the instructors at 4 FTS RAF Valley ARE real, serving, blue suited current people.... You seem to be in the know, what is the ratio of instructors who are going somewhere : instructors who will never do operational flying again? |
Originally Posted by Warren Peace
(Post 10371784)
I would add to that list of questions:
How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe? Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making. How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have? Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway. The Valley output is, as I understand it, about what was planned for SDSR2010 - as I said above, the SDSR2015 increase in capacity is still to deliver. However, you are right that the numbers going to Typhoon and Lightning is not enough, but you need to go and have a look at how many RAF pilots there are on the average course size of 8 pilots - I’ll give you a clue, it’s normally less than half! Lots of other colours of uniform in the photos. Is that a fault of the RAF or its commercial partners - I would suggest it is not? :cool: The fact that not enough are going to Typhoon and Lightning for the SDSR2015 increase in squadron numbers is exactly why measures like using the 100 Sqn T1 for more experienced pilots is being undertaken and the other measures like ENJJPT. Don’t get me wrong, the output from IV and 25 Sqns are not delivering 100% to plan (because real life is never perfect) but they are not far off from the statement of requirement demanded from SDSR2010 that is now working towards the requirement of SDSR2015 - being a pessimist myself they probably just about make that output for SDSR2020! :hmm: Again, why the delay in getting spun up for a new output requirement? So let’s look at SDSR2015: SDSR 2015 - released in Nov 15 Budget plan for any SDSR cannot start in the Financial Year (FY) so that means... SDSR15 Budget - releases budget lines earliest Apr 16 However, the manpower requirements need to be worked out and recruited for as well so you start recruiting/ training... SDSR15 Manpower Plan - releases in FY16/17. If you start recruiting against SDSR 2015 the earliest you will see output from IOT (a 6 month course) against that requirement set in say mid-2016 is the first quarter of 2017. You then need to start them on Flying Training - but hang on, 2017 is the year of the big MFTS changeover. So you can’t manage to train everyone because of early ‘teething troubles’. Delays, holds and backlogs start in the system as the system is not configured to deliver the numbers needed. So you have to adjust your recruiting numbers in 2018 as the backlog has built up and the previous year’s training plan has not delivered 100%. You don’t want to cease recruiting like you did in 2011 as that leaves demographic issues and also making “on/off/on” decisions in recruiting is bad for any organisation. Now you are in 2019, the extra equipment that you have ordered in 2017 is starting to be delivered (things like spare engines, etc...) and the early issues are ironed out then the system starts to give you a better output. However, the new aircraft needed are still some way off as they aren’t sitting around ‘on the shelf’, so these don’t come for a couple of years yet. New solutions needed to assist - Outsourced training, use of other in-service assets and spare capacity with our Allies all help. Then SDSR2020 changes the requirement all over again...:ugh: Oh, and then BREXIT delivers ‘Global Britain’ requirements in the middle of this and we start selling Typhoons/Hawks to people that want training places to go with it. That further adds complexity and takes training places. To me, this is the problem - the OODA loop of Defence Reviews, Procurement Cycles, Budget Cycles, Recruiting Timescales, Training Pipelines, Outflow Rates (end of engagement, medical and voluntary) and Political Shenanigans are so horribly mismatched that this becomes a classic ‘Penrose Staircase’: https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cfd08a960.jpeg Then your Lords and Masters give you 31,750 people to manage all of this and more doing a similar amount of tasking and other stuff that you used to do with 40,000-odd. Then we wonder why things aren’t perfect! |
I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are. I worked for a company providing a PFI service and I can honestly say that everyone that I worked with had the best interests of the RAF, not the company, at heart. Can that be said of MFTS? |
The B word,
No need to apologise. If we are being suckered in with fake doom and gloom then it is good to have the other side explained. Thanks for update on numbers. |
Originally Posted by Timelord
(Post 10372331)
I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are.
Gosh, that’s a bit bleak for a Sunday afternoon! |
There were also the Defence Cost Studies "Mini-Reviews" of 1993-1996 which made sweeping changes in an ill-considered manner. Serving in MOD / HQ LC / HQ STC throughout that period, we never seemed to fully implement one plan before being told to move onto the next !
https://publications.parliament.uk/p.../138/13806.htm I totally agree with the "it all started to go wrong when we tried to run a military service as a business" school of thought. I saw this at first hand when the MOD AMSO organization was destroyed to form HQ LC and people started talking about the "Chief Executive", "Line Managers" and "Budget Managers". |
EngO - I agree and we’re back to the ‘impossible staircase’ again! |
B Word and RAFEngo, I quite agree on the harm done by the misguided application of business thinking and processes to a military organisation. In my opinion more harm has been done by those in uniform pretending they are a business than by businesses providing a service that used to be in uniform! |
Why cant the 28 Hawk T2s at Valley cover this requirement? |
Does the RAF need more than 6 pilots this year?
Perhaps they should just bin 4FTS and Ascent and let 100 Sqn do all the fast jet training? |
Originally Posted by beardy
(Post 10372926)
I understand there are fewer engines than airframes.
Engines are not really the issue. |
The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.
The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week. |
Originally Posted by 2 Fly
(Post 10377692)
The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.
The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week. |
Err, Typhoon was taking people well before we had T2? Doesn't mean T2 doesn't better prepare them (not in a position to comment on that) but T1 students have managed plenty well enough in the past!
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.