RAAF Training at East Sale?

[oldpinger]

Dostum,
I assume you speak from a position of intimate knowledge of the suspension system of BFTS?

Your last para is offensive and belittles the professionalism of the instructors concerned.

[BombsGone]

Dostrum,
I also disagree with your assertions about the suspension system at BFTS. It is the same as the scheme used at 2FTS and on operational conversions through out the ADF. A bit more staff work and rigor is required than the old days but it is by and large as fair a scheme as possible. Students must still meet the standard set by the CO and the XO.

Back on the topic of Tamworth vs Sale there are pluses and minuses for both locations.

Tamworth:
- Fewer cloudy days.
- Established facilities and staff.
- Uncrowded airspace.

Sale
- Existing RAAF location.
- Multiple postings available to military staff in location (locational stability).
- Fewer thermally and turbulent days (read impossible to teach attitude flying).
- Relatively uncrowded airspace.

Neither location could be described as a place the average 18 year old joining the RAAF would aspire to live in. Not saying it’s all bad, once settled in location married staff don’t mind either.

[dostum]

I apologise if you find my thoughts on the 'old days' offensive. People out in the FEGs are wondering why the standard of graduate has dropped. People are failing conversions that they shouldn't be failing. I can say from experience that conducting IF remedial training in a level 5 sim is novel, but you shouldn't need to do it.

One reason is the hours on pilot course have been cut. The other reason is: less people are being suspended than should be the case; and the point I try to make is its harder to actually suspend someone you know will struggle, even though the interests of 'procedural fairness' have been served.

[DBTW]

Go on! Let's get parochial!

Bombsgone says

Fewer thermally and turbulent days (read impossible to teach attitude flying).

is a good feature for Sale.

Gundog1 said before

Sure the weather is worse and less "sun" days, but we are teaching people to fly an aircraft in war time, granted it is ab-initio, but if you have to pick your way through a cloud deck to complete aeros above than so be it...harden up the training...too many lemons getting through

is a good feature for Sale.

If weather is to be the deciding factor you can't have it both ways. The implication from the above quotes is that ADF sky gods should be taught to handle a bit of bad weather and cloud, but we must keep them clear of turbulence? Actually, they need to learn to fly in all weather, and the training system will cater for that regardless of location. The issue becomes how long the training takes. It seems we are all agreed Tamworth has the better weather for elementary training because it doesn't stop you from flying there as much as it does in Sale. From the other perspective, as the weather is worse at Sale, courses will take longer and will therefore be more expensive.

If city facilities are going to be the deciding factor and people want stability of service because Bombsgone says

- Multiple postings available to military staff in location (locational stability).

is an important factor, it sounds like Sale units should already be vying to move to Tamworth because it's a bigger city with more facilities!

Having said that, I can't imagine why young servicefolk would want to waste away their years in rear echelon jobs like those at Sale? If we are picking the right people, most should want to go back to their operational types and units.

Oh, one other thing. The BAE college has a big sign out the front saying it's the ADF BFTS, and for those who don't know, the ADF BFTS is run by the RAAF. That would mean Tamworth should have

- Existing RAAF location.

added to Bombsgone's list of positive points.

[gunshy67]

RAAF Tamworth

Ahh the joys of a “little bit of knowledge”.

The decision to base the Ansett/Bae College at Tamworth was based on many factors. How do I know….? I had a small part in it.

Final short list was Sale (due, I believe, to some old timer RAAF pressure); and Albury and Tamworth.

The NSW government provided funding of $7million for an upgrade for an ILS at TW and upgrade of Gunnedah for close-by, out-station training.

ILS was already in East Sale but that was not going to sway the vote due to weather and other logistic factors.

Albury was a close second due to similar advantages to Tamworth but the final decision was Tamworth.

I have spent many years flying at both East Sale and Tamworth and I have yet to see a Winjeel come to the hover in front of the CFS hut in the wind in Tamworth.

You don’t use a tough environment to introduce trainee pilots to learn to fly. You start in the best one you can get.

Later you train to cover all the other “stuff” like how to fly at 100 feet, at night at 500 kits and kill the naughty people.

Tamworth has accommodation for over 200 students. A 50+ aircraft fleet; superb accommodation; excellent lecture and theory facilities (including a wind tunnel)…………..so, as a tax payer why would I want to see my tax dollars funding and replicating a place that already does the job in a most cost effective manner?

The RAAF reactivate squadrons at various times. Why not reactivate the historic base of RAAF Base Tamworth. See Google for RAAF Tamworth wartime airfield

Happy Christmas to all whomever and wherever your are.

[DBTW]

gunshy67 has a point!

The RAAF reactivate squadrons at various times. Why not reactivate the historic base of RAAF Base Tamworth. See Google for RAAF Tamworth wartime airfield

Ah yes! Tamworth! A major historical home of RAAF CFS! Indeed it was the wartime home of CFS until 1948. So CFS will be going back to their roots when they close East Sale and head north to the nice weather!

[dostum]

Good point DBTW. It is unlikely that 5428 will be going to ESL, and here is why:

Defence needs to save 20 billion dollars over 10 years (a little thing called the SRP). You don't make those sorts of savings by spending hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading bases (which would be required for BFTS at Sale). You save billions by selling off bases.

The Australian reported that Sale and Richmond would be the prime candidates for base closure. It would be cheaper to consolidate all ADF flying training (including 2FTS, CFS and SAW) at a combination of Wagga/Oakey or Tamworth.

[Gundog01]

Dotsum, dont forget they recently spent several million $ moving OTS from point cook to flash new facilities at ESL. Besides where is the logic in moving 3 units (CFS, 32SQN, SAW) from ESL, when you could move just 1 unit (BFTS) from Tamworth to ESL and still have a majority of training (except 2FTS) at a single location.

Sell off richmond as a second SYD airport and use the funds to consolidate training down in Sale....let the fun begin.

[john_tullamarine]

so, as a tax payer why would I want to see my tax dollars funding and replicating a place

.. and the basis for your presuming that such might occur is ? The world is now one of cold reality and fixed price contracts in the military scenario.

[DeeJayEss]

@flypast9999 --> I'd be fairly confident is suggesting that the changeover would be timed on completion of a given course, just as any major syllabus change should (loathe to say would, because you just never know the circumstances).

[DBTW]

Fixed price?

Much comment about fixed pricing! Not sure why anyone would imagine BFTS could be a fixed price contract? In military flying training, where considerable flexibility of throughput is required, fixed pricing would seriously limit the ADF's options.

Similarly, not sure why people would think spending money on air base facilities precludes that air base from closure? Building new facilities is usually a very good indicator that some bureaucrat will see an opportunity to make some money out of a Sale!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

More likely is a fixed price for a minimum of X number of hours per month/year over a set period, and then if a surge is required a provision for additional charges would be built into the contract.

Oh, and ESL is VERY MUCH on the RAAF's radar screen as the future location for BFTS and probably 2FTS, or whatever their eventual structure is! There is a strong desire to centralise all RAAF officer training.

[DBTW]

One central training base for RAAF and aircrew officers?

Not particularly meaning to be too melodramatic or alarmist, but who is coming up with the centrally based training idea?

What we need is some fairly clear military thinking, and not some classic, strategically naive concept that only someone stuck too long in a pure training environment could concoct. It is simply not good enough to justify a centralisation of training capability based on the desires of a few serving and ex CFS/SAN folk living around East Sale. Only a potential enemy wanting their attack options simplified benefits from centralised training, especially when the suitable training bases already exist in better places elsewhere in the country?

In the interests of cost effectiveness and value for the Defence dollar, maybe the idea of a remote CFS has run its course?

Using similar justification to the centralisation advocates, why don't we get rid of the unit which is remote from the main training bases? What we call basic and advanced flying training really don't mix that well "on airport," nor does Nav/Obs training mix with either. Even with 5428 rationalisation, it would be better and more cost effective to have individual aircraft fleet locations separate, with embedded training cells on location. The truth is this situation already exists, so CFS is already an expensive duplication of effort and an inefficient utility of scarce assets.

Whilst I understand our "non-streamed training to Wings standard" has bestowed a certain aura upon CFS in Australia, and the organisation does deserve some respect, it is, at the end of the day, just a unit flying what everyone else on earth categorises as a basic training aircraft! Remember only we call the PC9 an advanced trainer, and most other air forces consider flight training to be a bit of a back water, respecting the central bodies considerably less that what we seem to do. (Not meaning offence, just telling it how it is.)

NB: I have already had my turn in uniform so the final decision won't have immediate affect on me as much as it may on some, so I am relatively easy either way. But the safety of my country is important to me. For that reason I ask whether we really want the ADF exposed to attack by putting all our training eggs in one basket?

And with or without a central training base, what military mission does CFS perform that couldn't be more efficiently peformed by the individual training units? If we really want to save some money, let's pay off a few non-core military missions, especially those which are duplicated...like CFS.

[Freebags]

I don't believe the perceived risk of centralising your basic and advanced pilot training would be high on the list for any potential foe to target. Perhaps getting past the other more significant "centres of gravity" first would be a higher priority.

Secondly, CFS conduct a very important job for the wider ADF. I believe the RAAF in many areas conducts business in a better way than many of the worlds other air forces. Without drifting too far off thread, I'll just say that having a unit such as CFS that's external to the squadrons, checking each squadron's flying standards, is just another valuble layer in maintaining those standards not to mention safer flying operations.

No I've never worked at CFS.

As for consolidating initial pilot training to one base - sounds like common sense. Did I say "common sense"?

[DBTW]

Common sense

An interesting view from Freebags, although I do not believe the traditional military threat is what we are talking about with bases anymore. Decentralisation increases the survivability of separated schools against more modern threats.

Whilst there may be some benefits with centralised basing, consider the accepted view in the fighter force where they believe it is important to have the 2 Hawk squadrons separated in order to avoid saturation in the training airspaces of both Pearce and Williamtown. In that conversation you are talking about an additional 3000 hours (or so) by bringing the squadrons together!

Bringing the two flying training schools together in one new location will add something like 40,000 flying hours to that base. To be frank, with what already happens at Sale there is simply not enough airspace, clement weather or runway facilities to entertain such an increase.

I believe the RAAF in many areas conducts business in a better way than many of the worlds other air forces.

is a nice, comfortable "my team needs my support" kind of thing to say. But it is a very subjective view with no factual basis. I am absolutely certain all air forces feel the same way about their own capabilities. Most first world air forces have comparable safety standards to the RAAF/ADF, whilst few adopt such a high profile "CFS style" foot print. Even those that do, do not allow it the same levels of power and influence as ours enjoys.

Remember initial pilot training is already consolidated in one place, as is advanced flying training. My suggestion would be to add the small CFS element to each base and consolidate use of the aircraft fleets more efficiently. That would be common sense. Did I say "common sense"?

[Arm out the window]

As we all know, CFS doesn't just check instructors, it trains them (amongst other roles).
Having a common initial training standard for QFIs enhances standardisation, lets you post people between units more easily and helps ensure undergraduate students get consistency between the two schools.

Not sure about this 'high profile CFS style footprint' you're talking about, DBTW - not everyone has a fun time on their cat check, I guess, but having an external agency as a kind of auditor is a good idea, in my view. If the individual flying schools absorb the instructor training and checking roles, it all gets too incestuous.

[DBTW]

Incestuous

You have a point Arm out the window. There are some issues that need addressing in a full and educated review. I am not necessarily saying I have all the answers. I am saying that rather than just accepting some areas and positions as inviolate, we need to ask hard questions and get some properly considered answers.

My straight question is that with all the pressures on equipping and manning front line units, do we need a totally independent flying unit such as CFS to maintain the honesty and integrity of our training processes, let alone the performance of the operational units?

One way to overcome incestuousness within a unit is to have an embedded cell tasked with the locally relevant CFS mission answerable to an external entity higher than the unit CO, thus giving them a degree of local autonomy. In effect, CFS could be an experienced Wing Commander sitting in an office at a central location rather than having a fully established flying unit with several different aircraft types based away from the main schools.

Remember the RAAF lost the sole right to flying training with the emergence of civilian aeroclubs and flying training institutions in the post WW2 era. The uniformed position was next eroded by the use of contractors to run the BFTS and to support 2FTS, and that happened more than a decade ago. Indeed, many of the contractors employed have several magnitudes more military experience than those left in uniform! In line with the movement at the schools, it can also be said that instructor training is no longer the sole domain of CFS. If a school is about syllabus and ethos, then there are other ways to achieve it without having to waste expense on a remote and separate facility.

I suppose one of those ways is to bring all the training to one location, including the CFS. I have tried to address that in my earlier post.

The method I am advocating takes away the systemic incestuousness that has allowed CFS to become a self perpetuating myth. What makes our CFS military? In Australia, many people involved with flying instruction have become career instructors on a revolving roster of jobs in and around East Sale. Their front line experience, if they have any, has faded to the point of being non-existent, and their military contribution to the ADF is seriously degraded to the point where I wonder whether they should wear a uniform. Many air forces agree this kind of person is needed, but in most other air forces, these people have limited career prospects in that promotion is stopped around the FLt Lt/Sqn Ldr equivalent level. Similarly, many services contract the training mission to civilian companies. Australia is quite unique in allowing a full pyramid of career structure to someone who may never have served on a real operational aircraft!

Although I did say it earlier, the answer might not be to get rid of CFS. I am saying that we should review and rationalise it rather than just accepting its right to life. My next conversation starter is what I have said above. For leadership of the CFS mission, I would place the onus with the ADF safety folk. Such a command could also designate agents in the various operational types to ensure proper monitoring of their training performance.

[Roller Merlin]

DBTW
you are spot on regarding the CFS role and the career instructors there, some of whom may be increasingly out of the loop with current operations. My view is that rationalisation is needed in our flying training system across the board. It is increasingly outdated, and proposed reforms to bring it up to date have been intercepted by well meaning but stupid senior defence personnel over the years. However the defence reforms that put big wheels in motion gloss over such minor issues in the conquest to save huge $$ out of big contracts and pushing Defence units onto cheaper ground and airspace.

IBFT and the now basketcase of Air5428 is such a quest and invariably will be decided (late) on "value for money" -ie when all factors are put in the pot and stirred to a Labor tune, the cheapest jackpot will be the winner, regardless of pilot opinions on weather, aircraft choice and suchlike. Old boy politics will be played behind closed doors to gain contract traction and gather intel on competitors. Ministers will have to be pleased, or decisions will be delayed during a possible election year 2010. I reckon this one will go down to the wire as there are so many interested parties, and companies with deep pockets wanting feet in the door. The sad thing is that after it all, more money to be squeezed from the ADF and our training systems may not get much better at all.

[Captain Sand Dune]

The most significant factor (in my opinion, anyway) that hasn't been clearly stated so far is local political interests.
The local member for New England (assisted by BAe) is lobbying mightily to keep the IBFT contract in Tamworth. This is reported on reasonably frequently in the local press and on the local TV news.
A brief look at the internet reveals that the member for Gippsland (assisted by Boeing and Thales) is similarly lobbying for the IBFT contract to move down there.
The award of the IBFT to a particular company will not in any way infer that that particular company will be the preferred bidder for 5428. Given that, I personally I can't see why another contractor would risk the huge capital outlay for what is only an interim contract.
However that's only my opinion, and I get the feeling that in the end the outcome will be in favour of which electorate succeeds in their lobbying efforts - not want the ADF wants.
To the best of my knowledge the announcement will be in March/April 2010. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out between now and then.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Poor darlings being paid by the taxpayer to learn to fly and then being forced to live in Sale while they do there training!

Next the RAAF may want them to go off to a war zone, hope it is somewhere nice and warm and not to noisy or frightening!