RAF multi-engine training at Kidlington?
 

Just heard on the vine that the latest multi course is getting sent to OAT at Kidlington? Any word?

......yes, it's my first post, ....yes, I've just registered, ....no I'm not a journalist. Be gentle.... (more dots?) :D

It's true...well partly.
Apparently it's not a full multi course but a FJ x-over with groundschool at Cranwell and then 40 hrs at Kidlington - I don't know on which aircraft though.
Makes sense if it eases the burden on the ageing Jetstream fleet though, as long as the instruction is up to RAF standards.
Oxford is a much better night out than Lincoln aswell so whoever goes should be laughing!

A good move for OATS as the airline training business cant be to good at the moment ,good for the tax payer as the PA34 has got to cost less to run than a jetstream ,as for training standards most of the management seem to be ex CFS so i dont see it as a problem.

Light twin single pilot IFR is a very chalenging enviroment so it might improve standards.

I doubt that A + C. The standards at METS are very high. The big issue is the Seneca Vs the Jetstream. The Jetstream has quite lot of relevance to military muti engine flying, wheras the Seneca with it's poor handling and dreadful power management system doesn't IMHO. The chaps at Kidlington will use a lot of capacity just coping with the Seneca, learning skills that are of little relevance to their future.

I have flown both, I know what I would prefer.

I seem to remember that when I did METS in the mid eighties we did low level and formation.

Will someone please enlighten me as to how this can be done at Kidlington? Or will we train them on the sqns which will cost an absolute packet.

Dan you have the advantage on me having flown the jetstream but i have flown two turboprop transport types and have to say that when an engine fails on a light twin it takes much more skill to fly as the performance is so marginal.

This course can only teach the basics of multi engine flying and the military flying would have to be on another type ,my comments on improving training standards are only based on the asumption that the more types that one has flown the deeper your knowlage and experience it was not ment as a slur on the RAF multi engine training system.

Is it just coincedence that an increasing number of Oxford aircraft seem to be using Brize for training ?

re formation and low level

By pre selecting only ME Re roles and MEXOs there is a presumption that the pilots would be competent and experienced at formation and low level.

I think.

mr ripley

The boys (and girl) will also be getting a 737 course to teach CRM which won't be covered on the Seneca. Seems to be another experiment to eek a few more pilots out of our creaking trg system! :rolleyes:

Ah yes CRM, I don't know how we managed in all those wars since 1918 without it, or those nice workmans dayglo jackets....more cotton wool please and remember to be nice to gays and transexuals!

Christ on a bike. Has RAF Flight Training come to this?!?

Pathetic.

I really can now see BAE Systems master plan of all MEFT to be done at Jerez.

Lets face it. The RAF have often had crap kit. But they made up for it with fantastic training and having the sharpest people.

How distressing to see the developing state of affairs.

WWW

WWW - sadly our military training has degenerated rapidly in recent years. The useless T67 and Grob, the clapped-out Jetstream, Tucanos and Hawks forever U/S......

ME trg using the PA-34 is not new; 6 students were put through BAeS at PWK a few years ago. They've all done pretty well, although the FIs were surprised at their poor theoretical knowledge of UK airspace regulations etc - and they worked much harder than their Jetstream colleagues did!

We also had a brief period of ME training on the Beech Baron at Hamble when the 'Pig' was going out of service and the lousy Jetstream was grounded - that seemed to work.

But your overall analysis is, regrettably, quite correct.

Firstly I admit to being a civvy in here.
Some information regarding Oxford..........
There is a fleet of 12/14 Senecas, a mix of 2 and 3 bladers. Average serviceability is around 6 aircraft online.
There are cases of averaging 1 flight per week.
Oxford train Algerian Airforce, BA, BM, Aer Lingus and self sponsored cadets. A priority is given to the BA courses (though this will be denied!) You can sit on the ground for a week due to lack of aircraft whilst BA cadets are given an aircraft and instructor.
The type of flying there is mainly procedural (a bit different to military styles!) Kidlington is equipped with NDB and DME facilities, so as for use of Brize, they are needed for ILS training. They are used along with many other airfields ie EGHH, EGBJ, EGTG, EGBB, it is just that they are closest therefore decreasing wasted time in transit.
The standards expected by the instructors there are high, it is a commercial training environment, but civilian handling skills and techniques are vastly different to the military's.
As with the rest of the industry Oxford as a company has been affected. But a new start may provide opportunities for restructuring and development of the courses and services provided. There have already been rumours of plans for a fleet upgrade for some time, hopefully shiny new toys will be forthcoming.
Watch this space.

Anyone know how many slots are going to be made available and how many are going to be trained?
Also, are they all NCO aircrew/ navigators on cross-over training who are to undergo training at Kidlington or 'kids-off-the-streets'?
My experience of OATS is that the majority of their instructors are ex-mob with a good handle on what the RAF wants and, because they've left,what the RAF needs.
Formation flying and low-level nav could be learnt on the Sqn, as it is presently done or as at METS prior to the 'tyros'release to the OCU, sorry I mean 'End User Training Provider'.

Don't remember much about the METS course except for all the bl**dy procedural work!

And as for doing the formation and low level on the OCUs, for the cost of two hours remedial formation on a VC10 you can have 50 hours of Jetstream flying. I have always maintained that cutting hours at the cheaper end of the spectrum is a false economy.

Quick update,
Have been reliably informed a Jetstream carrying 4 official looking growbags arrived at Kidlington today for meetings with 'de management'!
An indication of things to come???

I am an ex-jetstream QFI and have also flown the seneca during the ATPL thing. The Jetstream is a much more demanding aircraft to fly in terms of basic handling and also systems handling/knowledge and when i was there it was a logical progression from the Tucano for most students. By comparison the Seneca is a 'Ford Escort with wings' but i guess that since most students will be coming from a non-turboprop/jet background then it is a logical and more manageable step which seems to work for the airlines. Although formation and low level flying were included in the course syllabus, these trips were frequently dropped to allow extra procedural training in the hours available.

As a Jetstream trained, ex-VC10 pilot now training ATPL students on Jet/MCC course I can not see how we (I mean us as Flight Training Organisations) could provide training that matches the standards of METS when I went through late 85, early 86.

The Seneca is inappropriate, the ATPL syllabus ditto and few if any of the instructors will have the military background required to understand what the "customer" needs.

Won't stop some suit at MoD doing it because it will save 200 quid on his budget during his last year in post (and sod the effect it will have on other budgets!).

Maybe I'm glad to be out of the RAF now.........I remember when there were enough pilots and planes for the task (just). Sad seeing it from the outside.

But those days were when we could afford high quality training. Nowadays, the students coming to the VC10 haven't even flown at BFTS - they've just flown the woefully inadequate 'MELIN' course on light ac and then the Jetstream. Hence the standard of ab-initio entrant has dropped further and further........

The 6 who did the 'experimental' BAeS Seneca course at Prestwick also did a lot of jet simulator training - and they have done very well. But they were a hand-picked group, not just an arbitrary selection, and they were trained by some very experienced ex-RAF pilots.

BAeS at Jerez-de-la-frontera would have very little difficulty in providing our ME OCUs with a far better product than the MELIN-lemons, but what we really need is a proper pre-AFT BFTS course for all RAF trainee pilots, not just those earmarked for the FJ world. Some non-streamed hours at UAS/EFTS followed by a core wings course on the Tucano followed by AFT. Rather like we did back in the 70s???

But of course there'll be the usual whine "We can't afford it.........." from the bean counters.

BEagle - thanks for the complement about our standards at Jerez. As you may know, we train pilots for a number of airlines (including BA) and the Jet sim course we do gets them up to speed on the faster aeroplane and jet handling - but it is quite a step up.

By the time BA cadet ahs done 44 hours (including the FHT) nearly all of which ahs been hand flown, he is up to speed on their SOP, procedural flying (good for situational awareness) and handling emergencies (engine failures at all phases of flight, fires, pressurisation failures, diversione etc.).

I am almost always astounded by the standard these chaps (and chapesses) achieve in such a short time -- if we had more groundschool time than the current week we could really do some good work.

BA reckon that the course we do saves them £1.5 million per year in reduced training at type conversion and line training level, and they reduced the B737 course from 64 to 48 hours sim time as a direct result of what we do.

I was not aware of how badly the standard had got at METS - but as always, tinkering with one budget at the expense of others does keep the bean counters happpy.

However, you are not alone, the awful influence of the bean counter is everywhere in commercial aviation and training - so we know how you feel.

It's all true, only this week I saw two light blue jobs being shown around OAT.

Oi, BEagle, what's wrong wiv the 'useless' Firefly then? They seem OK to me. Somebody not telling me something?

As the Training Command desk officer who was "instructed" to introduce civvy ME training in 1975 and mothball the then new Jetstream fleet, I seem to see my past life passing before me (again).!!!!!!

DB6 - as a Basic Flying Training aeroplane, the T67 is inadequate. As an Elementary Flying Training aeroplane, it has a dismal roll rate!

Now this may be provocative, but if we have to give up any flying training in the military then surely METS would be the least harmful option? I only say this as there are more elements of ME flying that are non-military than in the FJ or RW world. I accept that low level and formation are skills used in some aspects of the ME world, but (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't flying your VC10/Tristar/E3D/BAe 146 have a lot of similarity with the way civvy a/c are flown?

As for using OATS - they are a company in decline, with a p**s poor management run by accountants (sound familiar). I think it extremely unlikely that there will be any new a/c to solve the servicability problems they currently have.

...said my bit, now diving for cover...!

Oxford Aviation College(Nee CSE, who still exist but with Signature and... oh forget it!) are planning to do a lot of flt.trg. in the USA now!, maybe thats to make space for RAF multi trg, but don't think so!... but the good news is... Kidlington has the superb Ovisher Tandoori, nowhere as good as that in Lincs, or Lyn or BZN, I can assure you! :p

Wouldn't surprise me if this was the start of the end for METS. On paper it would look cheaper for MOD to lease a fleet of turbo-twins to be operated by Kidlington - who could use spare capacity on the ac for civi instruction. Then when no-one is looking, the specialist requirement (Herc tac LL/formation, maritime LL, etc) would be added to the OCU syllabus. No one would think to compare the total cost (Oxford + extra OCU time) with the nett savings in civilianising MET.

We have habit of changing the way we do business in this country, all in the name of the worship of the God MONEY. More often than not, insufficient thought is given to the long term consequences - short term savings look good and enhance careers. In about 15-20 years time it will change again and we will be back to the PFS-BFTS-AFT of the late 60s/early 70s.

In the meantime, we will have lost a complete generation whose training is not a patch on the tried and tested system which was once the envy of the world. Just like education, health,....

:confused: :( :mad:

As I see it this is just a stop gap solution until the introduction of MFTS (did I just say that, ha, ha). The current training system for ME pilots is woefully inadequate. At best they get 100hrs single piston (Firefly), broken down to JEFTS and MELIN. At worst 100hrs Bulldog spread over 4 University years and a 30hr MELIN top-up. They then step from that to the Jetstream which a considerable number find quite a challenge.

The Jetstream is falling to pieces, poor serviceability and recurring snags are commonplace. The Oxford plan is just a cheap unstudied method of squeezing a few extra pilots through for OCU places.

We are supposed to be Investors In People (Ha), are we investing in our young pilots by given them such minimal or slap dash training, I think not.

I remember when we trained for excellence, now perhaps we train for competence (or maybe even mediocrity.)

Now that’s off my chest where’s those 2 pencils - Wibble.

Absolutely right mate. The current system of expecting UASs to stream candidates before IOT (or, if they've got any sense, as DEPs after IOT) might be OK for the chosen few who still get a half-decent BFT course (albeit on the Tincan), but the MELIN-lemons are given very pi$$-poor training. Neither flying nor theoretical training are anywhere near adequate - and not a patch on the old JP/Pig or Wetdream route of the early 70s (before the dreaded 'Systems approach to training').

And I agree with the statement you made at RIAT, Wg Cdr-from-PTC-you-know-who-you-are, MFTS is indeed the 'crock of $hit' you referred to it as!

The Brit Bretheren may be interested to know that a similar exercise has been played out with the RAAF and BAe (Aust) in basic training over the last four years, with joint civil Fis and QFIs. Before this, school standards were (as you could imagine) debatable with accountants presiding over what could only be described as a commercial facade, however the resulting painful process saw the school in question now pushed into one exclusively for mil trainees, and the overall product is sound. Ex mil QFIs are sought as civil staff, but the pay is not very competitive, and commercial pressures still keep niggling away. A little birdy whispered to me that RAAF/BAe had done a deal before the whole experiment started……….......…sound familiar?

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]

[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: Roller Merlin ]

Bit off the subject but I'd have to quibble about the Firefly, BEags old fruit. An EFT aircraft is all it pretends to be in its present role and, while it doesn't have the roll rate of an Extra 300 it's good enough for basic aeros. And what other machine can fly a full procedural ILS (in IMC), overshoot and climb to FL100 in less than 10 mins (while keeping your tootsies warm with its cockpit heater), spin down, fly an intermediate aerobatic sequence including outside loop and still be home in time for tea and kippers? And it's British built to boot. I've seen worse.

Oh dear its all going horribly wrong...I was a QFI on METS and enjoyed the experience. Also taught on the grey 4 jet just up the road from Cranwell. Alas getting gas requires formation teaching...the powers at be seem to be in the straw clutching business again!

Whether Teutor or Firefly, neither is an adequate aircraft for teaching the range of skills needed pre-Wetdream. A sucession of MELIN-lemons have proved what a cr@p idea that is......

OK - As a Chipmunk replacement, the T67M260 is probably fine. As a replacement for teaching half of a Jet Provost course, it certainly isn't!

Beagle...
Don't be such a plonker! Which single-engine aircraft ever was a suitable lead into Jetstream? Skills can be assessed easily on Tutor or Firefly and recommendations made as to the likelyhood of success downstream. Seems to me you make quite a few rash comments on these pages!

P.S. This is intended as friendly banter :D

Which SE aircraft was ever a suitable lead-in to the wretched Wetdream? The Jet Provost. Or Tucano. The JP even graduated 3 pilots to a non-AFT multi course on the Andover in 1974 - and hundreds of pilots onto the Pig (Varsity for youngsters) in earlier years.

By the way - does that Slingsby motor glider which we now have to use for 21st century military flying training really have fabric-covered ailerons? Or do they just look like that??

Certainly does, BEagle, just like the earlier Spitfires I believe. And what's more the rest of them is made of.....PLASTIC! The horror....the horror.

BEagle,

The T67M's a pretty good piece of kit, you'll find, with good performance, and massively strong airframe. It's only down-side is its roll-rate, but that doesn't matter if you're doing all your procedural stuff, pre-METS.
As for completing a BFT cse prior to METS, thats absolute pants. Sure you've got some more hours in, and better hands, but you aint training good hands on the wet-dream.
Formation can be covered at EFT/MELIN, and the stude can pick it up again on the OCU, if it's relevant.
The current METS course is pretty comprehensive, and if the venerable Jetstream has to go, as is surely must by now, then a 'Basic' METS package on the Seneca would be fine, followed by a package on the Dominie, for all the chaps going MEJet.
You complain about the falling standards on the Skoda now, but that's because you're no longer grtting the 'Cream' of graduates, since you stepped out of the 'Captain-must-be-a-Sqn Ldr-Days'. As far as waste of money goes, what is it about your jet that warrants it the longest OCU in the RAF. Surely it's not more demanding than a GR7?
Farfrom... :cool:

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: Farfrompuken ]

Going back to one of the original questions; is it a FJ x-over?

3 guinea pigs for new course.
1 from hawk (don't know 208 or 19), 1 from Puma OCF, 1 from mid Tincan cse.

Shortened ground school at Cranwell then to Oxford.

Wait out. :cool:

Farfrompuken - the T67M260 is a nice little light aeroplane apart from the woeful roll rate. And that's about it.

We do need people with good pairs of hands to fly things like the '10, TriStar, 130J and C-17 as, apart from the C-17, they require old-fashioned stick-and-rudder skills. We do need people with acceptable formation skills as it's ridiculous to train people up at several thousands of pounds an hour rather than a few hundred on the Tucano.

The '10 conversion is now longer because all courses are done concurrently. It's no longer than the old '10 course, plus the VC10C > K course, plus the AAR Role conversion course added together - which is what it now is.

Best solution - use UASs purely for air experience, send all pilots to do a 60 hr EFTS then send all the ME streamed pilots to do all their training in the US on the Texan II and Jayhawk.

PS - Forgot to add. We stepped out of the 'captain-must-be-a-sqn-ldr' days in 1983!

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]