File on 4 The UKs Military Training System.

[AndrewBarclay]

Radio's 4 File on 4 is on tonight at 8.0pm Tuesday the 5th, March, 2019.

The UK's military flying training system trains pilots on aircraft from fighter
planes to navy helicopters. It takes years for trainees to get their wings. but
delays in the system mean many pilots and crews are "on hold" waiting
months, often years, to take to the skies. Jane Deith investigates the reasons
for the holdups, asking what the impact is on the public purse and our
military capability. Repeated on Sunday at 5.0pm

[GreekSpy2001]

Also now available on the BBC Sounds app

Graham

[Harkins]

The article on the BBC News site says that currently "the number 'on hold' is now 350". It also quotes the MOD as saying "The MoD says there are enough trained air crew for current front-line needs".

I'm just wondering what we need with 350, plus however many are not on hold for. Have we even got 350 aircraft? Sounds like the problem is that the training is massively oversubscribed.

[POL]

I've never understood the logic behind "we should only ever have one pilot per aircraft".

Surely the very existence of aircraft that require TWO aircrew show that it's illogical? Even before you get to people needing time off.

[Harkins]

I've never understood the logic behind "we should only ever have one pilot per aircraft".

Surely the very existence of aircraft that require TWO aircrew show that it's illogical? Even before you get to people needing time off.

That’s fair enough, but when you factor in aircraft serviceability (or lack of), the fact that we are not short of pilots at present and that we’ve got a full training quota and 350 waiting to be trained, it’s sounds as if we’re aiming for about 12 pilots per serviceable aircraft. And it’s not like they all airborne at once. I’ve spent days at fences and you don’t get a lot of activity very often. Obviously I’m not privy to how all this works, so I’m just commenting from ‘the man in the streets’ perspective. Lots of pilots and very few aircraft and very little flying is the impression I get.

[Forestfan]

That 350 will comprise pilots, WSOs, and WSOps. Also factor in that it takes years to recruit and train a new pilot, so when one leaves their replacement needs to be well in the system already. Figure a certain percentage are expected to leave each year (natural wastage) and so you have to keep a steady stream going through the system to maintain front-line strength. Also figure that SDSR10 reduced the number of squadrons and MFTS output was calculated on those numbers (so low recruitment, company contracted for low numbers of training aircraft). SDSR15 undid that and boosted squadron numbers, so now you have to recruit loads more pilots - with low numbers of contracted training aircraft. You maybe see why there's a backlog now? Then add in the increased WSO and WSOp numbers (P-8, Reaper, extra Chinooks) and those 350 guys waiting training perhaps start making sense.

Just my 10p worth.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

That 350 will comprise pilots, WSOs, and WSOps. Also factor in that it takes years to recruit and train a new pilot, so when one leaves their replacement needs to be well in the system already. Figure a certain percentage are expected to leave each year (natural wastage) and so you have to keep a steady stream going through the system to maintain front-line strength. Also figure that SDSR10 reduced the number of squadrons and MFTS output was calculated on those numbers (so low recruitment, company contracted for low numbers of training aircraft). SDSR15 undid that and boosted squadron numbers, so now you have to recruit loads more pilots - with low numbers of contracted training aircraft. You maybe see why there's a backlog now? Then add in the increased WSO and WSOp numbers (P-8, Reaper, extra Chinooks) and those 350 guys waiting training perhaps start making sense.

Just my 10p worth.

And of course the new MFTS system was devised on the back of the National Audit Office report stating the inefficiencies of the military flying training system. Unfortunately we've gone from the well equipped system of bases and FTSs (albeit increasingly contractualised and reservist manned) to a system that was designed to output just enough students, just in time (with the added issues mentioned above). Of course, unlike an airline, you can't just surge (to increase output) by chartering in a few crews and aircraft to fill in the gaps; both the aircraft and instructors are fairly specialised. The mass training at civilian schools (such as the ME training contract at L3), although filling a gap, isn't necessarily ideal either.

I haven't listened myself, but from what I've heard from others it was rather centred on student gripes than being a balanced piece with input from across the system, and from the top downwards. Ultimately holds are a fact of life, sometimes they're short, sometimes they're long. At the moment there's a "perfect storm" making them longer than normal, but then again, back in the early 90s they were of similar length. If you want to fly something fast and pointy for a living, operate a big aircraft at low level etc etc, then it's a price you have to be willing to pay, and they are all able to walk away tomorrow if they wanted to. If they stick it out they'll be well paid and have a plethora of activities and opportunities available to them.

There are bigger problems to deal with.

[Agent K]

The article on the BBC News site says that currently "the number 'on hold' is now 350". It also quotes the MOD as saying "The MoD says there are enough trained air crew for current front-line needs".

I'm just wondering what we need with 350, plus however many are not on hold for. Have we even got 350 aircraft? Sounds like the problem is that the training is massively oversubscribed.

Not sure why you'd equate 350 aircrew to 350 aircraft. Fleet and personnel planning will always require more crew than aircraft, to cover for multiple crew types, long missions/hours, downtime, sickness, absence, leave etc. etc.

[Vulcanone]

Agreed Agent K.

I think after an 8+ hour combat mission I would require a break, leaving other Sqn members to do the next sorties

[Rich H]

I haven't listened myself, but from what I've heard from others it was rather centred on student gripes than being a balanced piece with input from across the system, and from the top downwards. Ultimately holds are a fact of life, sometimes they're short, sometimes they're long. At the moment there's a "perfect storm" making them longer than normal, but then again, back in the early 90s they were of similar length. If you want to fly something fast and pointy for a living, operate a big aircraft at low level etc etc, then it's a price you have to be willing to pay, and they are all able to walk away tomorrow if they wanted to. If they stick it out they'll be well paid and have a plethora of activities and opportunities available to them.

There are bigger problems to deal with.

So, you haven't listened to the programme and claim it's not 'a balanced piece'. It is somewhat ironic that if you had listened to it you might have written something more balanced yourself! As a example you talk about no 'input from across the system, and from the top downwards'. If you bothered listening you would find what you have written is nonsense (IMHO).

[Rich H]

A link to the radio prog /podcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006th ... /downloads

[Agent K]

I haven't listened myself, but from what I've heard from others it was rather centred on student gripes than being a balanced piece with input from across the system, and from the top downwards. Ultimately holds are a fact of life, sometimes they're short, sometimes they're long. At the moment there's a "perfect storm" making them longer than normal, but then again, back in the early 90s they were of similar length. If you want to fly something fast and pointy for a living, operate a big aircraft at low level etc etc, then it's a price you have to be willing to pay, and they are all able to walk away tomorrow if they wanted to. If they stick it out they'll be well paid and have a plethora of activities and opportunities available to them.

There are bigger problems to deal with.

I'd certainly suggest you listen yourself, it's more balanced than your hearsay suggests.

Not sure of your background, and how you'd feel in these circumstances, but if you're a driven, motivated, graduate etc. etc. achiever, then to be placed on hold for maybe 2 years or so at the end of GCSE's, A Levels, degree IOT etc. when you've been continually and relentlessly striding forwards, and in addition lose maybe 10% time of your chosen career duration then yes it is something of a problem and would have many considering their career choice.

[Doughnut]

The MOD signed the new training deal to provide xx number students. Obviously more students have to join the system to account for 'wash outs' and those that leave for other reasons. If the delay is on the part of the training Contractor then there is a legal case to answer. Does the RAF still send students to USA or Canada for pilot training, or is this 'not allowed' under the new Contractor agreements ?

Interesting that somebody mentioned Reaper Squardons.
I can understand why existing pilots, from example Tornado, being posted to UAV squadrons, but is there a requirement to have fully qualified pilot trained personal operate UAV ? in UK or USAF ?

[Blackcat1]

Nah just a good few hours on the PlayStation should be sufficient surely?

[ColintheCaterpillar]

A link to the radio prog /podcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006th ... /downloads

I haven’t listened to it but was referring to the views of colleagues, whose opinion I trust as we had discussed it at length. Essentially a chance to make a good programme but it could have been better...

[edit: now “bothered” to listen to it. More “Daily Mail/Sun” than “Telegraph” in the depth of analysis. Valid points made by the RUSI contributor reference 2015 SDSR. Two ex-Navy studes had chips on their shoulders so big you could have written “McCain” on them in size 72 font. Knee injuries can be fairly terminal to a military career anyway, depending on severity (some are also a barrier to service entry).

The rest rather missed the mark (yes, the average time to frontline OCU might be 6-7 years, but most recently skewed a little by the 2011-2013 holdees - post SDR10 and “the cull” - who also suffered at the grounding of the Grob Tutor in summer 2012 and spring/summer 2013); a bit whingy and quite what the link to the Boscombe Down crash and “holdovers” (never heard “holding” referred to as that) is beyond me.

The excerpt from the “famous” course video is maybe a reflection on the modern recruit and their social media heavy environment growing up.

Input from 22 Group, Ascent, Instructors etc all would have added valuable balance and credibility. Instead you got 2 FAA studes, a non-subject matter expert MP and the analyst from RUSI, who actually made the most valuable points]

[ColintheCaterpillar]

I'd certainly suggest you listen yourself, it's more balanced than your hearsay suggests.

Not sure of your background, and how you'd feel in these circumstances, but if you're a driven, motivated, graduate etc. etc. achiever, then to be placed on hold for maybe 2 years or so at the end of GCSE's, A Levels, degree IOT etc. when you've been continually and relentlessly striding forwards, and in addition lose maybe 10% time of your chosen career duration then yes it is something of a problem and would have many considering their career choice.

Again, no one forces them to stay. They can effectively walk away up until they graduate an OCU. The prize is not a particularly lucrative one, but is an exclusive one. You can’t be and F-35 or Typhoon jockey anywhere else.

As for my background: military pilot, flying training delivery. And a couple of years holding at the start of my career too.

It’s all cyclical, and holding (for all but a very lucky few) has always been a part of the journey. Uplift in civilian pilot demands, SDSR15 and MFTS have created a mini “perfect storm” to make it particularly severe now. Back “in my day” there were far fewer channels with which the disgruntled could air their grievances.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Interesting that somebody mentioned Reaper Squardons.
I can understand why existing pilots, from example Tornado, being posted to UAV squadrons, but is there a requirement to have fully qualified pilot trained personal operate UAV ? in UK or USAF ?

In short, yes. There is now a specific RPAS Pilot branch to allow “non traditional” aircrew to fly Reaper to reduce manning demand on the traditional aircrew branches.

[Agent K]

Thanks for sharing your insight Colinthecaterpillar and informed point of view, there are indeed several different and equally valued views.

[ColintheCaterpillar]

Thanks for sharing your insight Colinthecaterpillar and informed point of view, there are indeed several different and equally valued views.

I hope to inform - it’s why I post.

It’s never black and white, it’s generally happened before (we never learn - or do we?), and when you’re suffering it things always will seem worse. In 10 years time many will look back and realise it was worth the wait. As I mentioned, MFTS is just ironic as the military were told to outsource, so did!

As will all things, the grass always seems to be greener on the other side.