2 In examining these issues, we drew on a variety of evidence sources. In particular, we interviewed key individuals from the Department and Ascent Flight Training (Management) Limited, the industry training provider of the MFTS, in order to understand the performance of military flying training and how shortfalls in aircrew training are being addressed.
3 We also sought to undertake quantitative analysis to understand how well both the Phase 2, and the broader training process, were performing against their objectives. Our analysis was hindered by gaps and inconsistencies in the Department's data. In particular:
• Data on students in training: Since 2017, the Department has improved the data it has on students in Phase 2 training, but these data are incomplete and require significant manual manipulation. The Department does not hold data centrally on student training across the entire three-phase training process, with Navy and Army student data held within their respective commands. The Department had difficulty in providing the number of students completing training, the number of students waiting between courses, and how long training has taken. We have reviewed the figures provided, which are used by the Department for internal decision-making, but we cannot provide full assurance over these data.
• Cost of training: Given training costs sit across a number of different areas, the Department does not know how much flying training costs. It does not have data on the total cost from Phase 1 to Phase 3; how much it costs for it to meet its MFTS responsibilities, such as military instructors; or the full cost of training aircrew outside the MFTS. It told us the financial structures that the MFTS covers mean these figures are not easily accessible.