Back to news

July 23, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

Next-gen aircrew training

Rarely in the life of a large, complex military program do you get the opportunity to reshape it from the ground up. But with two pilot training contracts coming to an end in the mid-2020s, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is taking advantage of the moment to “reimagine how we are doing training,” said Col Pete Saunders, director of Air Simulation and Training.

RCAF pilots obtain their wings through two contracted training services, Contracted Flying Training and Support (CFTS) and NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC), delivered from two schools in Manitoba and Saskatchewan: 3 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (3 CFFTS) at the Southport Aerospace Centre in Portage la Prairie and 2 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (2 CFFTS) at 15 Wing Moose Jaw.

CFTS, delivered by Allied Wings and led by KF Aerospace, ends in 2027 while NFTC, provided by CAE Military Aviation Training, runs until December 2023, with the option for a one-year extension–the program was recently extended from 2021.

At same time, the RCAF would like to transition in-house training of its air combat systems officers (ACSO) and airborne electronic sensor operators (AESOp) to the same program as pilot training, a move partially driven by the end of service life of their primary training platform, the Dash-8 “Gonzo” in 2028.

“There are things we have done really well, things we probably wouldn't do that way again, so this is an opportunity to re-baseline everything,” said Saunders.

By concentrating all aircrew training under one program, the RCAF is requesting one of the more comprehensive and ambitious industry-managed programs worldwide, from courseware and training devices to aircraft and maintenance, instructors and facilities management.

The Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) program hasn't yet released an official price tag, but with NFTC worth about $3.8 billion over 25 years and CFTS valued at $1.8 billion over 22 years, the eventual contract could exceed $10 billion over 20 plus years.

More than 80 companies initially expressed interest in the program and five have been down-selected to offer bids when a request for proposals is released in early 2020: Airbus Defence and Space, Babcock Canada, Leonardo Canada, Lockheed Martin Canada, and SkyAlyne Canada, a joint venture between the two incumbents, CAE and KF Aerospace. A sixth qualified bidder, BAE Systems, withdrew in April.

What they will be asked to bid on boils down to a single word: Output. In presentations to industry over the past two years, Saunders has stressed, “it is not an aircraft acquisition program, it is a training service, [and] what we are contracting for is output. How a successful supplier gets there, I am not that fussed. What I care about is the output.”

And that is a straightforward demand: 120 pilots, 40 ACSOs and 36 AESOps, plus or minus 15 per cent, to a defined standard every year. The flexibility to ramp up or down is intended to deal with shortages–the RCAF is at about 82.6 per cent of manning or around 275 pilots short at the moment–the introduction of new fleets like remotely-piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), and the transition from legacy to new airframes when throughput may not be as high.

The numbers are based on demographic shifts and forecasted attrition rates, a “sweet spot” that acknowledges the fact the newer generations may be less likely to enroll for a 25-year career, he said.

The Air Force also wants a program adaptable to technological change as both training systems and teaching methodologies evolve. “Our existing programs are delivering exactly what we are asking for, but they don't have that flexibility baked into them, which then handcuffs the contractor who would love to do things slightly differently, but it comes at a certain cost,” said Saunders.


The current training system produces around 100 to 115 pilots each year for the RCAF's fleets of multi-engine, rotary wing and fighter aircraft. Though the schools delivered a record 116 pilots in 2016, the number has been scaled back to 107 for 2018 to manage a bottleneck developing at many of the operational training units (OTU).

The Air Force revised its selection process about five years ago, from a series of aptitude tests and hand-eye coordination simulators to a computer-based assessment purchased from the Royal Air Force, and has seen a significant drop in its overall attrition rate from about 15 per cent to six to eight per cent.

On average, 155 students from a pool of almost 1,200 are selected for the four-phase program that begins with primary flight training on the Grob 120-A in Portage la Prairie. About 130 advance to Phase II in Moose Jaw for basic flight training on the CT-156 Harvard II turboprop–an additional 10 often remain on the Grob if there is a capacity issue with the Harvard or they suffer from air sickness on the faster aircraft and are likely going to become helicopter pilots.

At the end of Phase II, students are streamed into multi-engine, rotary wing and fast jet. Approximately 35 multi-engine and 60 helicopter candidates will return to Portage for Phase III advanced flight training on the Raytheon King Air C-90B or the Bell CH-139 Jet Ranger and Bell 412 while around 30 remain in Moose Jaw for advanced fighter training on the CT-155 Hawk, learning advanced aerobatics, instrument flying, and tactical formation flying.

With Wings proudly pinned to their uniforms, multi-engine and rotary-wing pilots are assigned to operational training units while fighter pilots move on to Phase IV, also known as Fighter Lead-In Training (FLIT), still on the Hawk but at 419 Tactical Fighter Training Squadron at 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alta.

The Air Force is also in the process of analyzing the options for a future FLIT program, but has opted to separate FAcT from the more specialized FLIT requirements.

One of the many objectives of FAcT will be to stream pilots earlier in the process, rather than waiting until the end of basic flight training after Phase II. In preparation for a new program, the RCAF has revised the qualification standards for all its aircrew trades, but especially for pilots to reflect the mission management component of flying more data-generating aircraft.

“There will be a basic flying training phase for all pilots. And then as early as possible, we want to stream them between rotary and fixed-wing,” said Saunders. “Then rotary folks will go off and do their basic rotary training and advanced training, be that on one aircraft or two aircraft. On the fixed wing stream, there will be [additional training] and then they will split again between fast jet and multi-engine.”

Whether that is delivered as four distinct phases has yet to be defined, he said, but the Air Force has been working with potential bidders through workshops to develop the training plan. “As long as they meet the standard we have laid out, how we get there will be unique to each one of these qualified suppliers.”

The Air Force recently adjusted its training plan to a block approach where student performance is measured by passing certain gates rather than following a linear progression. “The result has been very positive in that we've reduced our extra do-overs, our extra training by half,” said Col Denis O'Reilly, commander of 15 Wing Moose Jaw.

By allowing students to focus on areas where they know they need the work and giving them more input into their flights, “it has decreased attrition rates and increased student confidence,” he said. “That has allowed us to use these hours more wisely... [I]nstructors are more successful on every trip they take a student on.”

ACSOs and AESOps will remain in Winnipeg, but bringing them under the same training program is intended to capitalize on the fact that much of the basic courseware is common to both pilots and systems operators.

Specialized training for future RPAS pilots and weapon systems operators will be done at an OTU, but the initial skills will be to the same standard as other aircrew, said Saunders. “If we determine that the nature of the work is so different that it requires a change in the qualification standard or that we need to make a different stream, then we will have the ability to do that.”

The CFTS and NFTC programs are delivered with a mix of 12 Grobs, seven King Airs, 10 Jet Rangers, nine 412s, 22 Harvards and 17 Hawks, and all have an availability rate of over 90 per cent. And at 17,600 hours per year, no one flies Harvards more than Canadian pilot candidates.

However, Saunders has told industry not to assume access to any of the current training fleets. “The [18-year-old] Hawks and the Harvards have done a great job and we're pretty confident they will be fine to the end of the contracts,” he said. “But we put a lot of abuse on them. Let's just say pilot training is not kind to aircraft. So those aren't going to be available. Similar with the rotary wing aircraft. We are seeing a clean slate. I'm not telling [qualified bidders] which airplane ... as long as it achieves my training objectives.”


In 2015, the RCAF released a long-term simulation strategy intended to “transform [the] training system from one that relies on aircraft to one that exploits new technologies to train aviators in a simulation-focused system that creates, in effect, a ‘virtual battlespace'.” Leveraging the latest in technology is still an Air Force goal, but the RFP for FAcT will not prescribe percentages for live flying versus simulation training.

“We haven't given them a specific ratio,” said Saunders. “We spoke with allies who have introduced programs over the last couple years, and looked at our own experience on the CH-148 Cyclone and the CH-147 Chinook, where we have more modern simulators, and said, ‘Is there a sweet spot?' I can't say there is a consensus out there.”

Rather, the Air Force has looked at its performance objectives and tried to determine how many can be completed in a simulator. “Our initial cut is probably more flying hours than we are currently getting,” he admitted.

Because the Air Force also wants to push more training down from the OTUs to the pre-Wings phase of a pilot's development–skills like VFR navigation, night vision systems, and formation flying operating with night vision goggles–Saunders also expects the number of simulator hours to increase. “I want to teach the whys and hows and get them comfortable trusting these things on a much less expensive aircraft,” he said.

At present, the majority of simulation flying is done during Phase III of rotary wing (42%) and multi-engine (59%) training. Peter Fedak, a former commanding officer of 3 CFFTS and the site manager for Allied Wings in Portage, said the “pendulum has swung back a bit” when it comes to simulation. The school recently acquired an advanced simulator for the Bell 206, but instead of replacing hours one-for-one, “we are trying to use the sim to the best of its ability and seeing how many things we can take out of the aircraft.” In fact, the changes added five days to the training curriculum.

However, the Air Force will be looking to industry for ideas and technologies to improve how students learn. O'Reilly noted training is expensive and industry is well ahead of the military on new methodologies. “I don't think we can be closed minded about it,” he said.

Added Saunders: “That is where I think we are going to see the largest differentiator between bidders, is in how they want to get somebody from point A to point B using some of these more advanced technologies. But it has to be cost-effective. I've been very clear that this is not a developmental program. Canada can't be the guinea pig in terms of new and unproven technology.”


All the improvements to the training system won't matter much if the operational training units are unable to absorb Winged pilots more quickly. At present, the Air Force has a bottleneck at most OTUs due to challenges retaining experienced pilots and an operational tempo that has pulled veteran instructors from most fleets for deployments.

That has resulted at times in lengthy delays for some young pilots, observed Fedak. “The gap is longer than we would like and we are seeing some fade and a lot of returns. Because of that wait, we have had to do refresher training for a lot of people who we would love to never see again, unless they come back as instructors.”

Saunders said the ideal wait is no more than six months to finish advanced training and then move, get settled, complete some ground school and begin flying at an OTU. “That is motivating and it's also efficient.”

As part of FAcT, the Air Force is open to more contracted flight instructors. While industry under both the CFTS and NFTC provides simulator-based instruction, live flying has remained the purview of the military, a commitment that requires around 130 instructors in both locations, said O'Reilly.

“The intent is to allow the OTUs to be better staffed from a uniform perspective, which is where I really need those instructor pilots,” said Saunders. As the former commander of 406 Maritime Operational Training Squadron in Shearwater, N.S., when the Cyclone was introduced, he relied on a dozen serving and contracted instructors to manage the conversion from the CH-124 Sea King to the Cyclone.

“Half of those are probably contracted flight instructors on any given day, and you would not be able to tell who is who,” he explained. “My focus at the time was to create that one team, one standard, one mission approach. There were things the contracted folks don't teach–tactics that are a classification level beyond what they hold–but they definitely teach everything up to that point, interspersed with our uniform flight instructors.”

Transitioning from a program managed by two companies to a single provider of what are now three distinct programs won't be straightforward, even if the winner is the joint venture of CAE and KF Aerospace. Though the two companies have been “very responsive” managing an inter-related program, ensuring the right number of aircraft are on the line each day, students transfer back and forth and “an issue with one creates a ripple effect with the other,” noted Saunders. “These are different companies under different contracts with different metrics, so just by the very nature of it, it creates a challenge.”

The RCAF, however, has experienced enough fleet transitions in recent years to “have learned what things work well,” he said. Through a series of workshops with industry on everything from training plans, to aircraft, to infrastructure that will extend into the fall, the Air Force hopes to present an RFP in early 2020 that is well understood and not subject to unexpected delays.

“I've said, ‘I know it isn't going to be a cheap program, but tell me if there is something we are asking for that is going to create a significant cost driver',” he said.

To date he has been getting that type of feedback. Potential bidders, for example, have raised questions about his contention flying hours may increase. “We have provided our rationale based on what we've learned from our allies, but we are not being prescriptive, we are saying this is what we see as a benchmark. And if you are telling me something different, tell me why.”

The Air Force created two documents, Concept of Training and Concept of Training Support, to guide prospective vendors through the current process, from weather and number of flying days in both locations to meals and accommodation. “I would argue by the time the RFP comes out, most people would have their bids in a 95 per cent completion state because we have been working with them all the way through,” he said.

Among other measures, the Air Force will stand up a Training Implementation Working Group led by 2 Canadian Air Division to monitor the process and assess the implications of various decisions once a contract is awarded in 2021.

“It will be very complicated,” but when you have that rare opportunity to makes changes, you need to seize it, he said.

On the same subject

  • Canada’s surface combatant costs might be taking on water

    November 19, 2020 | Local, Naval

    Canada’s surface combatant costs might be taking on water

    By DAVID PERRY NOVEMBER 18, 2020 It is unclear where exactly the project stands, as the government has said virtually nothing about the progress on the project since February 2019.

  • Sandbox CUAS Detect, Defeat Challenge is Now Live! | Le défi CUAS Détecter et Vaincre 2.0 d’Environnement protégé est maintenant en ligne!

    February 1, 2022 | Local, Aerospace, Security

    Sandbox CUAS Detect, Defeat Challenge is Now Live! | Le défi CUAS Détecter et Vaincre 2.0 d’Environnement protégé est maintenant en ligne!

    Sandbox CUAS Detect, Defeat Challenge is Now Live! It's time to start looking to the skies! After hosting a Sandbox in 2019 on Countering Unmanned Aerial Systems (CUAS), IDEaS is inviting innovators to bring their ‘A' game and demonstrate how their solution can detect and/or defeat our team of drones. IDEaS is looking for next-level CUAS prototypes that can solve the Sandbox challenge and be integrated into the broader military command and control system. Innovators invited to participate will receive: Up to 5 days of free personal full-time use of our fully equipped CUAS test range including targets. On-site one-on-one continual interaction with Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and RCMP end-users, and science experts. Opportunity to iteratively test, demonstrate, and improve your technology. Ability to customize and adjust your test plan with the CAF on the fly to optimize your range time. Exposure of your innovation to multiple Canadian & international defence and security trusted partners. Visit the CUAS 2022 Challenge page for all the details you need in order to apply. All application must be submitted prior to 2 PM EST on April 13, 2022. Eric Fournier sits down with Armasuisse Insights to talk all things innovation. Learn what the DG of IDEaS has to say about governmental defence innovation, it's ecosystem, as well as new and exciting opportunities made available to Canadian Innovators through the IDEaS program. Read the full interview here: Looking abroad – Innovation at the Canadian Department of National Defence ( Le défi CUAS Détecter et Vaincre 2.0 d'Environnement protégé est maintenant en ligne! Il est temps de se tourner vers le ciel! Après avoir tenu un Environnement protégé en 2019 portant sur la lutte contre les systèmes aériens sans pilote (CUAS), IDEeS invite les innovateurs à présenter leurs meilleures solutions afin de détecter et/ou vaincre notre équipe de drones. IDEeS recherche des prototypes CUAS de niveau supérieur capables de résoudre le défi de l'Environnement protégé et de s'intégrer dans le système militaire plus large de commandement et de contrôle. Les innovateurs invités à participer recevront : Jusqu'à cinq jours d'utilisation personnelle gratuite à temps plein de notre champ de tir pour CUAS entièrement équipée, y compris les cibles. Interaction continue et individuelle sur site avec nos utilisateurs militaires des FAC et nos experts scientifiques. Testez, démontrez et améliorez votre technologie de manière itérative. Personnalisez et ajustez votre plan d'essai avec les FAC sur le champ pour optimiser votre temps d'autonomie. Exhibez votre innovation devant de multiples partenaires canadiens et internationaux en matière de défense et de sécurité. Visitez la page du défi CUAS 2022 pour tous les détails dont vous avez besoin afin de postuler. Toutes les candidatures doivent être soumises avant 14 heures HNE le 13 avril 2022. Eric Fournier partage sa vision de l'innovation avec Armasuisse Insights. Découvrez ce que le DG d'IDEeS a à dire sur l'innovation en matière de défense gouvernementale, sur son écosystème ainsi que sur les nouvelles possibilités intéressantes offertes aux innovateurs canadiens par le biais du programme IDEeS. Lisez l'entrevue complète ici : Regard sur l'étranger – Innovation au ministère de la Défense nationale canadien (

  • After The Shock: Implications For M&A In The Aerospace & Defense Market

    June 29, 2020 | Local, Aerospace

    After The Shock: Implications For M&A In The Aerospace & Defense Market

    By Adil Khan, Jim Adams and Steve Beckey Forbes; KPMG Contributor Jun 23, 2020 The current economic disruption—coming on the heels of the 737MAX suspension—has varying impact across A&D segments. The impact on commercial aerospace has been immediate and extensive, while the defense sector has largely remained unscathed. However, it is hard to see how it will remain so, given the extensive fiscal measures being taken. What will this mean for M&A in A&D? Some trends are beginning to emerge that will affect the entire deal life-cycle (from deal strategy through integration and value creation). Yet, as in other times of economic disruption, new opportunities will emerge, which leads us to believe that the slowdown of M&A activity will be short-lived. As we enter this next phase, deal makers who adapt quickly to the realities of the new industry landscape could be well positioned to maximize value. Pre COVID-19 environment Not too long ago, commercial aerospace was booming, with year-over-year ramp ups in build rates and record backlogs. There were expectations of another golden decade — further extending the unprecedented 14-year “super up-cycle”, defying the long-standing cyclicality of the sector. However, in 2019, the historic correlation between GDP, air-traffic growth, carrier profitability, orders and build rates was suddenly disrupted. GDP and airline profitability levels remained relatively healthy, but new orders and build rates dropped as the industry grappled with the 737MAX shock, as well as a slowdown in the twin-aisle segment. Other undercurrents also emerged — slowdowns in world trade from escalating tariff tensions, weakness in high-growth geographic markets such as China and India, and declining consumer confidence. In contrast, U.S. defense spending was on the rise, averaging 4 percent1 annual growth over the past 5 fiscal years; the $738 billion FY2020 defense bill2 ensured this momentum would continue. The government services sector was also set to benefit from continued funding increases to modernize IT infrastructure and address evolving national security challenges. With general confidence in the long-term fundamentals of the sector and a favorable budgetary environment, players in certain A&D segments pursued M&A to build scale. Others “re-realized” that content matters and initiated vertical and horizontal integration strategies to capture more value and drive cost competitiveness, or acquired targeted niche capabilities and emerging technologies. We also saw the emergence of Super Tier I's through scale-driving consolidation aimed at broadening capabilities and potentially exerting greater influence on OEMs. Deal volume in the A&D sector reached record levels — almost doubling over the last 5 years and outpacing the broader M&A market by 40 percent.3 Valuations remained elevated on the strength of high bidder interest, limited supply of attractive assets, high A&D stock valuations (which outperformed the S&P 500 by 8 percent),4 as well as healthy balance sheets and strong cash positions. TEV/EBITDA multiples for A&D transactions averaged 11x,5 outpacing increases in the overall M&A market. Although, deal volumes moderated in the second half of 2019, amid elevated uncertainty about defense spending heading into a presidential election year, the overall outlook remained optimistic. COVID-19 impact COVID-19 caused a precipitous collapse in air traffic. With travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders, carriers around the globe made unprecedented cuts to capacity, idled fleets, and began deferring or canceling new aircraft deliveries. Also, the MRO (maintenance, repair, and overhaul) and aftermarket segments, which had benefited from the prolonged 737MAX grounding and high fleet utilization, suddenly faced stiff headwinds. Thus far, the defense industrial base has not experienced a COVID-19 demand shock. There is no noticeable disruption in appropriations or major delays and cancellation of military programs. However, as in the commercial sector, defense contractors are actively monitoring their supply base and taking steps to preserve liquidity, minimize supply chain disruption, and taking measures to comply with CDC and local government guidelines. The range of scenarios for defense spending is bookended by two scenarios: an elevated national security threat that would preserve or accelerate funding, or a reordering of budget priorities to fund social and other mandatory programs, resulting in sequestration-type measures, similar to 2011. With these developments, volatility in the financial markets, lack of access to financing, alternative more pressing liquidity needs by corporates and most importantly, uncertainty in the marketplace, deal flow in A&D has come to an immediate standstill. Several “in-flight” processes have been halted, new deals in the pipeline have been deferred, and even some announced transactions terminated. Access to the new public offering market is effectively closed. The gap in expected valuations between buyers and sellers has widened considerably, due to disparate perceptions of the extent of economic disruption caused by COVID-19; contrasting views on reopening of the economy and the pace of return to normal; and diverse perspectives on what the post-COVID-19 new reality looks like. This has rendered financial forecasts and pre-COVID-19 market perspectives obsolete. Further, the extent and nature of unusual and non-recurring events6 impacting financials, present considerable challenges for deal makers to form a credible view of normalized earnings and cash flows. With the lack of reliable projections, it is nearly impossible to form a credible view on valuations let alone bridge this gap. Additionally, although M&A teams have attempted to navigate through practical challenges with offsite due diligence, virtual facility tours, video conferences, etc., adapting to a virtual M&A environment, especially for cross-border deals, has been challenging. Developments to watch as economies reopen Given the health concerns, changes in social behaviors (some of which may be slow to reverse) and anticipated lead-time to an effective vaccine, a V-shape recovery in air traffic appears increasingly unlikely. As governments move from combating coronavirus to reopening economies, the pace and extent of the economic recovery is expected to vary significantly around the world. Further, some long-lasting or permanent developments may trigger some dramatic shifts in the sector: KPMG Implications for M&A trends and outlook KPMG Although we probably do not expect to see M&A activity return to the pre-crisis levels immediately, we expect M&A activity to drive realignment of the industry landscape in the post COVID-19 environment. Implications for M&A Capabilities As we enter the next phase, deal makers will need to adapt to the realities that impact how deals get done. Examples include: KPMG While the challenges are intimidating, the opportunities will be vast, and those who move quickly and decisively are likely to be rewarded for years to come. Those who take this unique opportunity to prepare and are ready to act will stand ready to reshape the A&D industry. 1. 2019 DoD Comptroller Data (Green Book) 2. Department of Defense 3. CapIQ, Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions, and Alliances 4. Year return, S&P A&D index vs S&P 500 5. Trailing 12-month average to June 2019 and avg. 16x for deals >$500M in value; CapIQ, Dacis Company reports and Press releases 6 Worker furloughs, facility shut-downs, loss of business or order cancellation, idled or underutilized facilities, CARES Act funding, changes to performance-based compensation structures or payouts, health and sanitization related measures, IT infrastructure investments to adapt to remote working environment, deferral of payroll taxes, carryback of NOLs, increased interest expense tax deduction, etc KPMG Contributor

All news