UAS 's to close (Merged)

[iccarus]

Have just heard on the grapevine that due to financial constraints all flying activities on all UAS's are being recommended to cease. Apparently, two "SUPER" flying units would likely be formed- one at Wyton and the other likely to be at Leeming!!! It appears that UAS's would become only ground based clubs--well thats likely to attract the next generation !!
Can only mention my exasperation at a decision like this, particularly since we have just binned EFT!:mad:

[Flik Roll]

I know that they are discussing the future of the UAS's at the moment...and IIRC March is the announcement date of any changes that are going to be made.

2 Super UAS's...that's a bit absurd! Would Wyton and Leeming be able to support ALL the tutors? Chaos is the only word that springs to mind.
All I can say is that it's along way for the Scottish studes to travel!

[FJJP]

Knowing the yoof of today, I can't see many of them being ar*sed to travel any great distance to fly - everything has to be laid on a plate for them these days. I watch the outcome of the 'March announcement' with interest...

[Flik Roll]

Indeed - roll on march!

I imagine those that can't be a*sed to travel would drop out or be chopped for lack of attendence!

[onlyme]

Any rumours about what happens to the AEFs?

[DK338]

About time somebody reviewed the use and therefore the future of the UAS (and with it no doubt the AEF) system. I have believed for some time now that both are obsolete and should be withdrawn.

The argument that the UAS system is a valuable recruiting tool is specious to say the least; at no point do any of the armed forces need to actively recruit for aircrew. As you all are no doubt consumately aware, there is a seemingly endless queue of budding tyro's all eager for a stab at flying some military hardware. The UAS system does nothing but provide a cheap drinking club to students and a social life outside of the university campus at the expense of the tax payer. In my time I have encountered plenty of UAS Cadets both ex and current, and pretty much to a man they all agreed that the UAS was a damn good laugh but taught them nothing of the proper RAF and had no effect what so ever on their decision to join the Service. In fact most joined because they had to as it was part of their cadetship/Bursary Terms. Those that were not in the pay of Aunty Betty that wished to join, were already mad keen on the RAF and were looking to join eventually anyway.

Likewise the ACO have a no need to have access to expensive to operate aeroplanes to provide a 30 minute AEF to cadets. The VGS system already does this and what with the Grob 109 Vigilent, there is plenty of opportunity for powered flight, albeit in a benign regime. But then who said aero's should be part of an AEF profile? The ACO is a cracking organisationthat provides plenty of activities, flying being but just one element. From personal experience, I am amazed at actually how few cadets want to go flying and it would not be an untruth to say that I have seen occasions where ATC Sqns routinely fail to fill their flying/gliding quota.

The concept of the UAS as Trenchard saw it has long since been diluted to a shadow of it's former ideal and sadly in the context of a shrinking modern RAF and tighter budgets should be wound up forthwith.

I am aware that these views will be looked upon unfavourably by many, but then that's what I believe and I feel that if the RAF wishes to remain competitive then clearly a few sacred cows will have to be slaughtered.

What say you gentlemen?

Anyway, Battle bowler on and ducking below the parapit for cover.

[BEagle]

Just another sad example of the impoverished Rental Air Farce of today selling off the family silver.... Except that it can't even afford to own and operate its own plastic lightplanes these days.

And it's 'parapet', by the way.

God help the RAF once airline recruiting picks up and they're forced to compete for pilot applicants!

[tmmorris]

From the ACO point of view one sad consequence of the loss of AEF would be that cadets would almost never venture onto stations (except for annual camps). Perhaps the rest of you might think that was a good thing... but it is one of the main things that marks RAF cadets out from the Army/Navy cadets - the latter rarely encounter the 'real' forces at all (even watching helicopters at Benson from the safety of the AEF squiffers' room is better than never seeing them at all). We are lucky - we get 8 or so AEF slots per year and 6AEF is exceedingly helpful - and it's a major recruiting tool for us.

Tim
(VR(T), despised minority)

[hyd3failure]

makes you wonder though. If they can't be arsed to travel to Yorkshire from Jockland..... are they going to be arsed to put their lives on the line in Iraq?

[Tourist]

DK

The RN very definately does need to recruit more than it is currently getting. The more you get applying, the more you can pick and choose the cream. It was explained to me that, whilst there has been lowering of the pass mark recently, nowadays they have to accept the pass mark, rather than select from the vast pool who are well above the mark as in previous times. You will still get your stars, but you will get some dross too.

[AllTrimDoubt]

A "super-UAS?"...oh that'll be the RAF version of JEFTS then. Oops. silly me; the daft bu**ers have already got shot of that!!

(Round and round went the bl**dy great wheel, etc...)

[MLS-12D]

The argument that the UAS system is a valuable recruiting tool is specious to say the least; at no point do any of the armed forces need to actively recruit for aircrew. As you all are no doubt consumately aware, there is a seemingly endless queue of budding tyros all eager for a stab at flying some military hardware.It is impossible to dispute the accuracy of this comment. And indeed, the same argument could be made that the Red Arrows and similar military precision aerobatic teams perform an unnecessary recruiting mission, and should be abolished.

The more you get applying, the more you can pick and choose the cream.Fair enough, but there is no evidence that the pool of willing applicants is so small or defective that there is any serious reason to worry about quality.

Scaling back or eliminating active recruiting efforts may mean that a few high-calibre people never apply, but that is certainly much preferable to the consequences of other cost-cutting measures that could be adopted instead. Defence cuts are a reality and have to be managed rather than ignored; to my mind, that means putting the remaining money at the sharp end, above all else.

[soddim]

A big advantage of removing the opportunity to fly from the doorsteps of UAS students is that one will then be able to see who is motivated enough to travel to the flying venue.

During my time I have seen many ex-UAS who drifted into the RAF without the right motivation, stayed for the minimum time and then left. During their time they gave little and cost the earth.

Having spent some time teaching air cadets to glide I could have picked much better aircrew prospects than those UAS wasters.

[Tourist]

Its all very well harping on about how we all used to be more motivated, but perhaps that's because there was a lot more motivating aimed at youngsters being done by the military and others, eg airshows (not the tedious safe margarine versions we get today) war films, comic books, plus a far more glamorous image all round. Plus, it simply was a far better deal in the past. In todays paperwork pushing military, is it any surprise that people are not so interestedand have to be coaxed a little more.

[the_cyclone]

soddim

Guess I'm one of those UAS wasters. Would never have thought about joining the RAF had I not strolled over to the UAS recruiting stand at freshers week. Been flying FJ ever since and absolutely loving it.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

How many airlines get a chance to look at the candidates for three years, and then pick the best for full time recruitment?

Anyway, I met loads of dead-fit totty through the UAS.

[jayteeto]

Who said the ATC was used to recruit people into the services? Take the blinkers off and look what it does along with the army, navy, police, scouts etc etc. Kids are not hanging around street corners getting into bother. They are taught a little bit of discipline and self pride. At Cosford where I fly AEF, the kids ARE enthusiastic. I still get a buzz when a flight is over and the kids are delighted. Do not underestimate the value of youth organisations, I flew in a chipmunk in 1976 at Leeming and decided there and then that the RAF was for me!! 7 years as a technician and 17 years as a pilot sees me deciding to give the same opportunities to the kids from similar backgrounds.
The loss of AEF could be another small nail hammered into the coffin of our society if it stops ATC recruiting, thousands more yobbos on the streets..... Great!!:(

[onlyme]

I'm with jayteeo on this. The cadets who I am privilidged to share a cockpit with are enthusiastic and very appreciative. Most of them will do anything to get airborne. Can't see the AEFs going, without them the ATC would descend into a youth club and the push from the big wheels is quite the opposite.

[MLS-12D]

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that current or former UAS students are in any way bad people, or that the UAS system is a complete waste of time and money.

I myself was a sea cadet, and most likely would never have joined the navy except for that experience. And although the great majority of my fellow cadets never signed up, they probably got a lot out of the program, which presumably contributed to their development as productive citizens.

All I meant to say is that so long as there is a shrinking defence budgets, cuts will have to be made. And I would rather take steps like closing down the UAS than eliminating operational squadrons, disbanding regiments, or paying off warships. It's simply a matter of (reluctantly) choosing the least of many possible evils. :(

[Flik Roll]

The Corps is constantly complaining that they never get enough flying, yet as many have pointed out they rarely full their slots. Makes you wonder...
Having been on a VGS for a number of years as a cadet instructor, I was often amazed at the number of adult staff complaining that their cadets don't get enough flying, yet the slots they bought along were as i said were often short one or two bods.
Also, for a while I have been wondering actually how much use an AEF is... the number of cadets I flew who when asked about flying experience "oh I've done 10AEF's" yet the cadets had rarely covered anything other than aeros. Yes there are some AEF pilots who do insist on teaching the standard how to fly, but so many cadets it appear just want to go upside down (why not go to Thorpe park for the weekend....).
VGS's seem to be more useful in teaching cadets to fly and even take the successful ones on further. Also, the CCF sections (vast majoritory) seem to be flying a lot more than the ACO, have met many a 13 year old CCF cadet with 15 AEFs or thereabouts under their belts!

As with venturing onto bases, many VGS's are still on active and in some cases frontline bases, so cadets wouldn't be missing out on that aspect.
I'm all for binning the AEF element, and having more VGS's to do AEF etc. (there are apparently a large number of viking airframes unused at syerston..so why not put them into use and get rid of those dam Van Gelder money eating winches!)

I'm not sure entirely what should be done about the UAS's however...I'm in it for the RAF not the social club.

[tmmorris]

I have to say that in my day job (as a teacher at a 'leading independent school') the clever boys would never in a million years contemplate joining the forces - they can see which way the future is going, and in any case they can earn far more money doing something safe like law or accountancy. Only the enterprising few go into the Army or RAF (insignificant numbers into the Navy) and very few are officer material. One boy did have the sense to go into the Navy in the ranks when he failed selection as an officer, but most of them wouldn't consider it.

Of course, you could always blame the end of the Cold War - rightly or wrongly, that did make the forces more glamorous.

Flik Roll - it has to be said, there is precious little of a syllabus for AEF. There is no structure, no building on previous lessons, &c. In that respect the gliding syllabus is much, much better. Oh, and of course most of the AEF pilots only do it for the aeros themselves - when I fly with them they are always disappointed when I say I'd rather learn to fly the Tutor properly rather than chuck it around and throw up.


Tim

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

If we are looking at an overall cost issue, then surely it is a good thing if all EFT pilots are paid - NOTHING!!!

How much does it cost us to have JO's hold for years to undergo EFT. Do it on a UAS for free.

[Flik Roll]

Tmmorris, definately agree about the AEF situation!

[blagger]

One big difference between the AEFs and VGSs that is often completely forgotten is that the AEFs have considerably more funded, full-time support. On a VGS all the staff are complete volunteers and give up many, many hours to do all the admin, h&s, engineering, cleaning, flying, training etc........ On an AEF they have a full-time paid Flt Cdr, 100% engineering and ground support provision and so on... That is not to critiscise the AEFs people in any way, I feel they are a crucial component of the ACO flying ethos, but please don't think that the VGSs can just take on the AEF task and do it as well. Many VGSs are already really struggling for staff due to the commitments required... and I can say that as a current A2 on a Vigilant VGS.

At the end of the day, the money spent on VGSs and AEFs is not big bucks in the grand scheme of things - just look at the average balance sheet for Fast Jet logs support - it makes me so sad to think that we good lose things like UASs and AEFs due to across the board budget salami slicing. It seems to me that 2005 could be a sad year for many aspects of the RAF.

[Flik Roll]

I reckon it could, with some juggling. There would be plenty of ex-AEF pilots who could work on VGS's as full time staff? This would mean the ability to run more week long courses, for example all throughout the summer holidays, rather than struggling to pull together staff/borrow staff from other shcools or an A2* for solo checks even.

Again, I think we will just have to wait until March instead of speculating!

[Wholigan]

OK – I’ll bite. There is at least one AEF where the OC gives a full and detailed briefing to the cadets before they see the video. When the video is finished, the cadets are individually briefed (well OK – in groups of 3 or 4) by the pilot with whom they will fly. This briefing ascertains what they have done before and, having discovered that, covers what they are about to do in the trip to come, and how it will be achieved.

Quite a few cadets just want to fly around and sight-see, or fly to “see their school”, or learn a bit about navigating and have no interest in going upside down in aerobatics. None of these kids are subjected to anything they do not wish to do. Lots of cadets want to do nothing but aerobatics. All cadets get to have their wish (whether it be sightseeing or navigating or aerobatics) when they have gone some way to mastering the basics of flying the aircraft. They are “taught” (in as much as you can “teach” them in the short and infrequent trips they do) straight and level, climbing and descending, turning, the use and effects of the throttle and the rudder, and trimming the aircraft. The OC invariably talks to the kids afterwards to find out how it went, what they did etc.

The individual briefings and the insistence on the basics to start with pay dividends later, and many (in fact pretty much all who wish to) learn to fly some aerobatics themselves. They won’t win any competitions, but they sure as hell come down with a great feeling about themselves.

The vast majority of the cadets we see are keen as mustard and can’t wait to fly again. We rarely (if ever) have “no shows” and – in fact – most units tend to bring one or two “spares” just in case there is the capacity to fly extras. It is incredibly satisfying, particularly when you take a – quite frankly – almost terrified youngster airborne for the first time and manage to have him/her smiling and chatting and obviously thoroughly enjoying the experience within a few minutes and to see him/her showing their mates, by dextrous use of the well-known “fighter pilots’ hands in the bar”, what they have been doing when they get down.

I’m not sure what the statistics are now, but it used to be that a very large majority of officers and airmen in the RAF were ex-ATC/CCF. You can – of course – argue that the reason they joined the ATC/CCF was because they already had an interest in the RAF and so they would have joined anyway. You COULD argue that yes, but from my experience of the cadets I have spoken to (and that is now a very large number), most of the kids of 13/14/15 when you ask them what they would like to do in the future say “no idea yet” before you fly them. When you ask them why they joined the ATC/CCF, they often say "because my mate is in it". Those same kids 20 minutes later say “I want to be a pilot”. Naturally, in reality a lot of these will not either have the real aptitude to achieve their wish, or attain the requisite educational qualifications. In fact it rapidly becomes quite obvious that some of them will never achieve their ambition to become a pilot as long as they have a hole in their a$$. Nevertheless, an abiding interest in aviation has been instilled in their young minds. I know we are told we are NOT primarily a “recruiting tool” ----- but of COURSE we are, and a very effective one at that!

None of this matters of course if you are merely interested in bean-counting because – as has been said – there will never be a real shortage of people wanting to join the RAF. Even now it has a certain “glamour” appeal. However, it can do no harm to have instilled this keen interest in aviation at a young age as it has – whatever you may say to the contrary – a knock-on effect into their later lives no matter what they go on to do as a career (even if the only effect is that they do not figure in the numbers of low flying complaints the RAF receives). This effect is unquantifiable and so will never have any consideration given to it by the bean-counters in their calculations of cost-effectiveness and what must go to make savings.

Not that I have ever been on a UAS proper, but the same unquantifiable effects must occur in the people who have been members of a UAS, many of whom will go on to be “movers and shakers” in some sphere or another. It never hurts to have friends in high places when you are fighting the civil servants for your budget.

Sorry to “preach” but I feel quite strongly about this.

[Big Cat Handler]

A big advantage of removing the opportunity to fly from the doorsteps of UAS students is that one will then be able to see who is motivated enough to travel to the flying venue.
It will also conveniently get rid of those students on hours intensive degrees (maths, sciences, engineering etc) - having regularly done the two-hour drive from Coventry to Cosford on my one afternoon off per week, I'd say that the current system is bad enough! Weekend flying would solve that problem, but then you have QFIs with nothing to do Monday-Friday, and not enough of them at weekends.
If we are looking at an overall cost issue, then surely it is a good thing if all EFT pilots are paid - NOTHING!!!
Direct Entry EFT takes 6 months, during which a non-graduate would expect to earn around £10k before tax. The UAS course, to make up for the lack of continuity, has an extra 30 hours in it above JEFTS (or did when I went through). Not sure on hourly cost of the Tutor but by the time you've added pay for the student (if that's still going - OC rates on the days they fly) then the cost may well be similar.

[BEagle]

I reckon that the whole idea is to discourage pilot entrants from attending university. So that the RAF can recruit them when they are younger - and thus pay them less.

Flying Scholarships - gone
Flight Cadet system - gone
University Cadetships - gone
Bursaries - rare and worth next to nothing


Without even the relatively mild levels of discipline experienced at a UAS, how many of today's yoof will even give the RAF a first look after University? Very few, if any, I would expect.

Trenchard must be up to several thousand RPM in his grave by now......

But when ba starts sponsored training again - as assuredly it's going to have to - competition between the RAF and the airlines will be direct. And on current showing, the RAF is going to have to find something pretty substantial to offer....

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

'Tis true that the economic cycle is going to see some pretty motivated recruiting by the airlines going on in three or four years time. I recall in my UAS days in the early/mid 90's we had many a crew room dicsussion about whether we'd each rather have; a BA Cadetship or a GDP Cadetship (magic wand permitting).

It was about two thirds in favour of the civilian offering. We were all aware that our likely stream would not be fast jet. When weighed up against getting into BA at 21 the whole life equation seemed to most of us to favour big new shiny jets full of smartly dressed young women.

Nevertheless the RAF had captured us all, was having a damn good look at us and to be honest if they really wanted any of us we were there for the asking for a full commission at the drop of a hat.

If the UAS system goes. Well, there is a long time between being a keen ATC cadet and a university graduate. If during that time the airlines have been actively targetting the right stuff people then the RAF is going to be a distant teenage memory and there is nothing the Service can do about it.

We all know there will never be a shortage wanting to be fighter pilots.

But in a tightening labour market, with airlines shouting for cadets, with a contracted Military not really fitting with modern work/life aspirations and the dawning reality that you are most likely going to be driving helicopters and transports in the future. Well. Who the hell would sign up for 16 years of that?

WWW

ps I note in today Times:

BRITISH AIRWAYS shrugged off a strengthening oil price to hit a six-month high as a leading stockbroker raised its profit forecasts for the flag carrier by 30 per cent.

Following last month’s passenger numbers, which showed BA’s premium traffic volumes reaching their highest level for nearly three years, UBS is increasingly confident that an expected price war on North Atlantic routes is avoidable.

Further, the broker thinks restrained capacity growth and a recovery in corporate travel budgets could leave current-year revenue forecasts looking too low.

With UBS noting that a 1 per cent rise in revenue forecasts increases profit estimates by 30 per cent, it now expects 19.95p of earnings in 2005 and has raised its target from 300p to 330p. British Airways put on 5½p to 252½p.

[santiago15]

All I meant to say is that so long as there is a shrinking defence budgets, cuts will have to be made. And I would rather take steps like closing down the UAS than eliminating operational squadrons, disbanding regiments, or paying off warships. It's simply a matter of (reluctantly) choosing the least of many possible evils

Genuine question here: Is the UAS budget not a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of running an operational squadron?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Santiago

I understand that the entire UAS (14 units) annual budget would keep one (large) operational station running for a year, NOT including the cost of running the operational squadrons based there.

Iccarus

Where do you get your info? I can understand Wyton, lots of "free" airspace and no other users of the airfield, but Leeming! I don't think so! There is no spare accommodation and the airfield is v busy with sharp pointy darts. If the rumours are true then Leeming may become SH Central so it is unlikely that a "super UAS" would be based there.

Just to bring everybody else up-to-date:

Cadetships all but gone except for Medics.
Bursaries still available to pretty much all branches and worth, I think, £1K per term (or is that per academic year)
EFT - both for direct entrant, graduate direct entrant and UAS students is 60-ish hours +/- flex. UAS students should try to do 20 hrs per year.
UAS students joining as GDE but have not completed the syllabus will finish the syllabus after IOT with a UAS (which was why the RAF did not need JEFTS. Why pay for something you are already doing elsewhere?!?!)

[Flik Roll]

It is pretty much 60 hours for UAS studes as Roland said, with a little extra given for Es-ex's/currency. I think you are expected to do more hours in your first and second year on a UAS. IIRC 10 rings a bell for the third year.
Bursaries are per term (1kish)

[BEagle]

10 hours wouldn't even keep a PPL SEP Class Rating valid in the second 12 month period......

If these rumours are true - and I hope that they are NOT - heads should roll over this.

[Anticlockwise]

I think it's aleady started with the amalgamation of the two UASs at Leuchars! The UGSAS operation at GLA, is too "expensive" but no feasible place to relocate them (Why not PIK?). They can't be moved to Leuchars, it's nearly full since the Firebirds arrived :p

Another moneysaving idea, brought to you by the Organised Fraudsters, sorry, Politicians, our elected representatives :E

Unless the powers that be, still requiring to tighten the purse-strings, change the system so that only those signed up for service get flying with the UAS? But I can't see that working, though it's probably the only way the bean counters would get "value for money"! Problems with QFI currency, only 2 students signed up, the other students all ground members...Banter warning[I/] It would turn into a drinking club!!;)

As for the AEF/VGS. [I]IF the UAS/AEF's were to close, I'm sure most VGS would be able to cope with providing AEF; however, some are already at max capacity. The flying offered by the AEF/VGS is, I suppose, different and the operation between each AEF/VGS will have differences, syllabus differences etc. Also, the experience for the cadets being at an AEF/VGS on an active station, seeing other RAF aircraft operating is, I feel, valuable.

I cannot understand why in some cases the AEF/VGS slots are not filled and why, for example, the OC the ATC Sqn, does not offer any unfilled places to other Sqns. As someone posted earlier, flying is what differentiates the ATC from the ACF/SSC. Unfortunately, some adult staff are either only in it for themselves or are not interested in flying :hmm: I think the balance is wrong with regards to ATC and CCF AEF. The CCF seem to get more AEF slots than ATC. Given that CCF tend to go flying mid-week.

Flik Roll I think the old "H&S" caused the MVG winch to become a money eater. There was nowt wrong with the one I drive, although it was a few years back!? As for the unused airframes at SYS- there may be more as a result of the DART report. I can see them on eBay or some other auction shortly... ;)

I can't see it, it'll be a bad day if it happens. Investor in people and all that and I'm sure Jock said the ATC was a core activity for the RAF, surely the UAS must be too?

The usual waiting game and rumour control begins. Ho-hum


:ok:

[Blacksheep]

Mil Pilots who believe the airlines will ever again spend money on cadetships or any other form of ab-initio training had better get their head out of the clouds. We need to cut costs to the bone and we don't need officer material, bus drivers will do. There are loads more recruits in the pipeline than the forecast vacancies, despite the growth in air transport and don't forget much of that growth is in low-cost operations...

Most airline recruits start with a self funded PPL/CPL then learn their trade during years of under-paid bush piloting or air-taxi jobs. Many new airline F/O's accumulate debts of tens of thousands of pounds on their way to the right hand seat of a commercial airliner, yet they count themselves fortunate. There's no end to the stream of hopefuls, so there's no need for us airlines to go soft and start paying for ab-initio training as far as I can see into the future...

[bad livin']

tmmmorris...your comments RE naval studes experiencing little of their parent service in the URNU are incorrect. i'd argue in fact that transiting the bay of biscay in a P2000 in a reasonable sea state over the period of a week or two gives a rather more realistic insight into a service than an hour a week in a piston engined aircraft with a service who's exposure to other ranks is relatively limited until senior rank is attained.

the UAS, seemed to work well for nearly all those I started out in the RAF with but their attitude at IOT was generally arrogant, aloof and rather irritating. they openly admitted it was more of a cheap drinking club than anything else.

[BEagle]

It might have offered cheaper drinks than outside in my days both as a student and later as a QFI (it also reduced the drink/drive risk), but in those days the UAS was staffed with regular RAF officers who kept the little beggars in check - and behaviour in the Mess was firmly controlled. Not sure if it's the same now with ancient FTRS and other pseudo-civilians filling many of the QFI posts?

Another sound reason for the UASs is that they can provide good instructional experience for inexperienced QFIs - or rather could do if the slots aren't taken by recycled ex-Wg Cdrs.

Introducing streaming assessment was a stupid thing to do at the UASs as it inevitably led to conflict between academic and RAF progress. When I was a student we were invariably told that our degrees came first and flying second; flying was purely there as light relief to maintain our interest whilst we struggled with the delights of our degree courses.

The highlight of the year was Summer Camp at a 'proper' RAF station - we went to Thorney Island, Marham, Newton (hmm) and Abingdon. And St Mawgan when I was a QFI. But that high-value event which bonded the students into a team is also a thing of the past, sacrificied on the bean counters financial altar....

[Skylark4]

Beagle,
The Summer Camp is a thing of the past more because of the lack of accommodation than cost. Basically, there are almost no Stations left where there is enough space for the studes to stay in the Mess for a month. The last one I was involved in, the groundcrew were not able to be accommodated on camp and we were in a Hotel some miles away at great cost to ourselves. Nothing left over from the rate ones there. We were going to have a Camp last year but the Propellor problem hit at just that time. I think we would have used space cleared by a Squadron being on det. but I'm not sure about that.

Mike W

[lscajp]

Dear all,

Just before I start I think I should inform you of my current situation. I am currently a third year on a UAS and have had an amzing time.

We have had a brief recently from Gp Cpt EFT, formerly Gp Cpt OASC regarding the "possiblity" of the UAS having there flying (EFT) removed. Option to consider is introducing an AEF style flying course.

I love reading many posts on this website as there is a lot of bitter feelings. I have seen them further up on this post. I loved the one regarding the fact that the "yooth" of today won´t be bothered to travel to a super UAS. Hahaha how I laughed. Of course we wouldn´t we´re lazy students!!! However, I must stress that the incentive to travel over an hour to the airfield is those green triangles. Without a set course yes your right, we would have no need to travel up early in the morning for met brief.

I agree with someones previous comments about removing those that study hard time consuming degrees. How can they be expected to compete with someone doing Geography?

With respect to the ATC and its removel, not a chance, it is too much of a "good thing". Its 50 million pound budget is a mere drop in the ocean, perhaps we should be looking at other areas to cut back on. I myself was never in the ATC but flying with an AEF nextdoor I can see the benefit it brings to the kids these days.

Yes we do go away on great expeds for nothing, again spending tax payers money. So you ask why have a UAS system, as the RAF has no need to actively recruit officers? It simple, because it gives people the chance to see what the RAF is like, in many areas outside of the flying. Someone in an earlier post said that their UAS cadets make too much noise etc etc in the mess. I do apologise about this but I know in out mess the other squadron members and senior officers will obviously pick on the easy targets. But equally they very much enjoy our company as many of them have a UAS background.

It is the best kept secret at University - no doubt there. Obvously the money could be better appropriated but until that day comes I will enjoy my last few months on my squadron and I hope that the years to come shall bring fun and experience to all those that become part of such a valuable and energetic organisation.

[Uncle Ginsters]

If, as is inevitable these days, the whole argument is about cost, then surely the UAS system must stay !!

I'm not going to compare made up figures, as some seem bound to do, but lets look at the principles:

The UAS is a filter, and a damned good one at that - FACT
The UASs now train 100% of RAF EFT pilots - FACT
The UASs also chop those deemed 'unsuitable for further training' - FACT
The cost of carrying out this filter elswhere (Linton etc) = ~10X that of UASs - albeit out of someone elses pot! - FACT
The UASs provide valuable QFI experience before returning to the front line - FACT

...Just some points for the pot ;)

The alternative? The aforementioned 2 'Super-UASs'. Presumably these would run on one of two basis:

a. A summer camp-type for all VRs. In which case where does the surge req't of QFIs come from?
b. A full time unit. In which case, will we not have even more holding offrs in the system than now, thus at greater cost, as they've yet to be filtered?

Ignite and run......:E

Uncle G

[tmmorris]

bad livin': you've mis-read my post, I was referring to CCF(RN)...

Anticlockwise: not really CCF's fault if they get more flying than ATC - we can, as you say, miss school to go midweek, which clearly ATC can't. But as a result we fill far more flying slots and arguably keep the whole thing viable - if it was just for ATC it would have folded by now.

And I have to say lscajp's post seems to suggest that actually, the UAS's are already scraping the barrel academically, so perhaps the RAF does need the recruitment drive...

BEags: there are certainly some UAS summer camps out there: Cosford was full of UBAS types grumbling about the lack of flying in July!

Tim

[plebby 1st tourist]

The earlier comment about greater distances to travel selecting the more motivated studes- surely more likely to select those who:
1. Have less time-intensive courses, as previously stated
2. Have been lucky enough to have Daddy buy them a car
3. Study close to Leeming/Wyton anyway

No matter how motivated you are, try getting from Scotland/Wales/South West every weekend on public transport, while doing science/eng/whatever.:uhoh:

[Wholigan]

Can’t let that go unchallenged tmmorris. At our AEF we have about 5500 cadets on the books, about 750 of which are CCF(RAF), the rest ATC. The approximate figures for the whole AEF system throughout the country are 35500 ATC cadets and 9300 CCF(RAF) cadets. These figures are for the numbers of cadets that the flying task will be based on, in other words those who are aged 13 years and 3 months or more.

At our AEF we fly Wednesday to Sunday, except during Easter and Summer camps, when we fly Monday to Friday. During our normal week, the numbers of CCF(RAF) cadets flown from Wednesday to Friday varies between 10 and 45, depending upon school commitments and what stage the term is at. We fly some 72 ATC cadets each weekend that we are operating, and also the ATC squadrons take up some of the slack during the week at times like half terms.

My only point is that I don’t think the whole shebang would fold if it were not for the CCF(RAF) cadets. Both the ATC and the CCF)RAF) are equally important in the overall scheme of things.

PS: Not surprised that UBAS was full of people grumbling about no flying in July --- all the Tutors were grounded!

[sonicstomp]

Being a UAS product I am of course biased but:

1. I for one would probably not be in the RAF if it wasn't for the UAS. I always liked the idea of being an RAF Pilot but it wasn't until I was able to give it a go and see whether it was for me (and indeed whether I was for them) that I decided to join.

2. For those that DO join following UAS, it matters not when EFT is completed (indeed if it is completed prior to commissioning it is cheaper!)

3. It is better to chop pre-IOT than later!

4. Of course the RAF will always get enough people wanting to be aircrew, the question is whether we get a good mix and balance of individuals. There will always be a need for a graduate entry. The UAS is the best way of getting graduates to consider the RAF in the competitive job market that there is.

5. Finally, for those that don't join they will have a positive view of aviation and the military that will assist the service in many but unquantifiable ways. The 'value-added' for the military should not be under-estimated.

Bean-counters know the price of everything but the value of nothing!

[Hot Charlie]

Have been lucky enough to have Daddy buy them a car

...or have worked hard enough before they went to uni to buy one themselves...

Charlie:O

[Lee Jung]

The idea of training all potential pilots, indeed the whole officer corps, via a UAS is admirable. However the simple fact is that university tuition has been so diluted that it is of little use to the Service, add on a gap year befvore joining and a little holding time and those joining are too old when they start their careers.

IMHO is would be a better option to maintain an in-service degree for all (or most - if you want diversity) joiners, giving them a degree course in what will be useful for their career. This could effectively be a business course, with staff skills as well as leadership and flying elements. We would get our people earlier (44 weeks work a year as opposed to 30), more relevently trained and there is good earning potential from F&C students.

This system works well (from what I have been told) in the tri-service Oz defence academy and it may be worthy of consideration?

[Si Clik]

The FAA is steadily rueing the day it concentrated on graduates as our average age on entry now touches 24.

To counter this we are going to lower the age limit to fall in line with the RAF. Its risky and targets will be difficult to reach but we are hurting at the other end of the scale with our 30 year old first tour chaps not interested in second front line jobs as they are by then mostly married with kids.

I personaly joined the RN at 16(as an Artificer) and was in Flying Training at 21 after a full apprenticeship.

I think the whole graduate thing does not necessarily make good pilots and obersvers..........pulls pin and retreats 20 yards.



:hmm:

[Lee Jung]

Yeah Si, I agree, however we have an opportunity to make better officers. Being FAA myself and having spoken to a RAN observer he could't extol the virtues of a defence academy highly enough. There are other advantages - no ICSC required, OJT outside core terms, i.e flying for aviatiors, mixed with Sqn ops work, bridge time for fishheads etc.

At 21 you could have a rounded officer, ready to commence, say, AFT and then onto first front-line appointment.

This has got to be better than 'fast-tracking' URNU studes through Dartmouth, as they are deemed to have learned all there is to know about leadership, naval history etc by pi$$ing it up one night a week and the occasional weekend on a cheap version of a gin palace.

[wannabewingman]

I have read this post with interest as both someone who is applying for the forces and is an ex UAS pilot member.

I found Si Cliks post, particularly interesting with regards to the FAA,s retention problems in terms of age and would have to agree with him on that point but I feel he miss’s the point with regards to graduate recruitment and why it is good for the services.

Obviously I am biased having done it myself but only have to look back to my schooldays to realise that University was the best thing that ever happened to me.
I went to a state school that was generally regarded as rubbish and where pupil’s aspirations for the future were equally low.
Thank to a father who gave me lots of encouragement I managed to get myself to Uni and found opportunities such as the UAS invaluable. I would not have even considered joining the forces without the UAS.

Secondly does University play a role in developing young people in the qualities of being a young officer which in my opinion are maturity and leadership?
Again as an 18 year fresh from my school I had no idea about what the world was about when I went to Uni. I still cringe at the some of the stuff I did when I was 18 particularly with women! :D

I have had the pleasure of meeting some incredible people from every culture this world has to offer.
Indeed my best friend is my old room mate I first met at University. He’s Palestinian and it was amazing to get his view point on the world’s struggles when I arrived there as it was chalk and cheese at first but we somehow managed to meet a consensus and become the best of friends

It certainly made me think and I feel that was the beauty of going to University – I can honestly say that it had made me a more rounded person in the context of officer qualities and forming opinions etc.
Obviously the RAF/ Navy have potentially lost out on 2 or 3 years service from me and it has narrowed my options If I make it through selection but what there getting I feel is a lot closer to the finished article than as a wet eared 18 year old.
No disrespect to any 18 years olds there as I have met some incredibly mature young Pilot Officers on my travels but on the whole as I have said earlier I personally believe its better to get some life experience under your belt before you join something like the forces.

The counter argument to this came from my old UAS boss who joined when he was 18 and he thought sometimes it was better to get recruits young and mould them to what you want at officer training rather than being allowed to develop their own ideas as they get older and think for themselves! :ooh:

Sorry for rambling on but that’s my take on this issue,

Thanks, WW

P.S - SI Clik check your PM's. I have a question?

[Slow-Rider]

To Clarify a few points.

RAF bursary is worth £1000 per year not per term for a pilot.

UAS studes are not paid everytime they fly there is a limit to the number of days pay they receive and it's about 1 month IIRC. I certainly saw little more than that and I flew atleast 3 days per week. Pay is normally given for summer camp etc. All students receive a quarter days pay £7 approx for attending town nights.

If a student passes IHT they will finish EFT before IOT.

As recent ex-UAS I am biased. Those who think the UAS is a glorified drinking club live in the past. Since EFT is now supposed to be completed before IOT, student pilots don't have the time to waste to think of flying as something to do when you're not at uni. Didn't come across too many "wasters" on my old UAS. To remove EFT will, IMHO turn the UAS into a drinking club with less purpose than it has today.

I would agree that EFT is not necessarily the best place to stream people. I joined the UAS in my 2nd year of a 3 year Engineering degree. The pressure of flying and finishing to my best certainly meant I had no time to spare to get a job and had to sacrifice my degree to an extent. This definitely effected me and many like finacially and academically.

[kippermate]

Surely the fact that the government wants 50% of school leavers to attend university means that, unless the Services offer a worthy In-Service Degree or are prepared to reduce the academic entry standards for officers, the Services will either have to recruit at universities or act in opposition to government policy by attempting to recruit school-leavers that are suitably qualified to enter further education.

If the answer is to recruit at universities, then the completion of Elementary Flying Training at university rather than post IOT must be worthy of consideration.

[Re-Heat]

Three truths:

1) You go to university to read for a degree, not to study for EFT. No point in doing everything university has to offer if one spends their life at UAS; answer: join the RAF instead of university.

2) Who on God's earth chose Leeming? Out of limits with any Westerly, in the middle of nowhere, and too small. Perhaps someone trying to justify Leeming's existence?

3) Not for a long time has it been a glorified drinking club. Officers mess always has worse behaved twits who blame the UAS. If you want to do EFT and a degree, it is only possible to be a moderate alcoholic of university standards.


Fact is, RAF shouldn't place burden of having to come so far to fly, as people are at uni for the degree. Otherwise what is the point in doing a degree. It doesn't show commitment to be at the UAS all the time; it instead wastes a decent university place that someone else could have had. Discuss.

[tmmorris]

1) You go to university to read for a degree, not to study for EFT. No point in doing everything university has to offer if one spends their life at UAS; answer: join the RAF instead of university.


And find you are underqualified for any decent job on leaving.

Tim

[airborne_artist]

Only mildly off topic, but the RN EFTS was based at Leeming in the late 70's. It was then a Master Diversion - complete with foam, barriers etc.

As a result we used Topcliffe as our daily base - and had the place to ourselves, which was very sensible. Sharing Leeming with visiting Vulcans would have been very awkward..

Topcliffe is now a satellite of Linton?

As for Wyton - that's a hell of a flog from Southampton and Bristol, for example.

[soddim]

I do not see why in the middle of a degree course the student should be learning to fly. Maybe a little air experience but any more is probably a bit of a waste at this stage.

If he is really motivated to fly military aircraft he will either forgo the university course or wait until he has his degree.

[Si Clik]

In Service degrees.

The whole point here is we need a mix of people as Officer Aircrew. However, over the past 10 years or so the RNs 26 age limit has pushed the age spread too far to the right. An average age on entry of 24 does not reflect a totally graduate intake above that age.

On the degree issue the RN is pushing for a foundation degree for all non-graduate officers. Its already there for the Warfare guys and with most of flying training already accredited this will be in by the Autumn.

The age limit will change soon.

Good luck.









:hmm:

[5 Forward 6 Back]

One of the attractions of joining as a graduate was less time to Flt Lt and more cash. As the in-service degree doesn't confer these benefits, it doesn't surprise me that very few people seemed to pick up the offer through BFJT or the suchlike.

Bearing that in mind, there will always be those who want to go to university for 3 or 4 years, and if the RAF wants a few graduates to join them then they have to be competitve as a graduate employer. Which they currently are :) So I can't see them changing that.

[Right here right now]

During my time on my UAS (sponsored ground branch member), we actively recruited all sorts. Being an ex-air cadet with all the ticks in the box didn't guarantee you a place, as we attempted to recruit a broad a spectrum as possible. It was policy not to recruit ground branch members (there were a couple of exceptions) as this element of the Sqn was taken up by the sponsored students. Therefore the 30 or so pilots recruited in the non-sponsored bracket were given one year to see how they got on. To be offered a 2nd year on the Sqn ALL non-sponsored students had to put their papers in for a bursary. Those that didn't want to commit left having enjoyed the experience, and are now out there as the sympathetic civvy knowing that it wasn't for them. Those that went to OASC in their 2nd year and were unsuccessful were allowed a 3rd year if they decided they wanted to give it another shot. This policy created a balanced pyramid of students, those in the latter stages of the UAS system being there as the final stepping stone to IOT.

Although there was the element of a social side to being in the UAS, certainly the pilots took it very seriously, and we had plenty of people doing the hard core degrees that are now spread across the FJ system (having been awarded 2:1 or 1sts). We also had the dedicated studes from Canterbury who would regularly do the 5 hour journey on public transport on a Fri night to get to Wyton for the weekend.

I had already made the decision to join the RAF and joined the UAS on being awarded a bursary, but there were plenty of studes who had no idea what the whole thing was about before bumping into someone in a green flying suit at the freshers fair, who are now serving across all sorts of branches.

[RowT8]

Just looking at the flying training side of this, I would have thought that change was overdue. At the moment, undergraduates, while studying for a degree, also have to complete a flying course over 3 years that could, through streaming, decide their future RAF flying career. And they compete for streaming against direct entrants who complete the course in 5 months of continuous training. Then, if they are successful, typical scheduling before, during and after IOT will leave a 1-year gap between EFT and BFT. So the first trip in a Tucano could be 1 year after the last in a Tutor, all with the benefit of 80 hours flying experience. With IOT about to get longer, surely this cannot be sensible. EFT after IOT sounds like a better idea all round.

As regards the UASs, what is the point of the vast majority of students being potential pilots? Does that reflect the real RAF? Which officer branches really need help in recruiting? I think that flying could take a lesser priority without losing the overall light blue tinge of the unit, and remove unnecessary pressure on UAS members.

[anothernumber]

Its about time they closed down the UAS's what a waste of money, time and effort to get a few guys to join up! If they want to be military pilots they will join up anyway why get them to join a club to do it.

Another problem with UAS's is that they are being used to replace the proper flying training system..scrap the UAS's and re-open EFT. And while were at it get rid of civvies training military pilots and give the jobs back to the boys who know what they are talking about.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

have to complete a flying course over 3 years that could, through streaming, decide their future RAF flying career. And they compete for streaming against direct entrants who complete the course in 5 months of continuous training. Then, if they are successful, typical scheduling before, during and after IOT will leave a 1-year gap between EFT and BFT. So the first trip in a Tucano could be 1 year after the last in a Tutor, all with the benefit of 80 hours flying experience.

That was presumably why the UAS EFT course used to be 90hrs; the extra training was there to reflect the fact that it was over 3 years rather than 5 months? Why that's gone I don't know. I guess there's meant to be enough provision of IA to keep the effect of gaps in training down, but who knows?

As far as gaps between EFT and BFJT go, I personally had three and a half years between my EFT FHT and trip 1 at Linton, and it luckily didn't cause much of a snag. I can't comment if I'd have been better with less of a gap, but I'm sure some flying experience on holds helps, even if it's just in keeping you airborne.

[AllTrimDoubt]

Quote: "And while were at it get rid of civvies training military pilots and give the jobs back to the boys who know what they are talking about. "

You, clearly, don't!

[henry crun]

I hope you will forgive some thread creep, but can somebody tell an old boy why it takes so long to get through training.

The long holds I read about in this forum would suggest that the various training establishments are not coping with the numbers coming in, is this the reason ?

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Holds for pilots have been the norm since Gulf War 1, when all the instructors were sent back to the front line, and training was stopped. Holding officers are used by some sqn's to help out in undermanned ops/admin posts. The airforce actually "needs" holding officers to do some jobs it has no manpower for.

Sadly, this means double the time to get to the front line. This doubly penalises the pilots, as they take longer to qualify for flying pay, and exit dates are based on reckonable service, which counts from the end of your OCU.

It has been known for guys to hold up to 9 years!! I had a mate complete 2 masters degrees whilst holding.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

People here blame the holds on the final output to STC; they're not opening enough OCU slots, there's not as high a requirement for JPs and they won't release QWIs to 19(F) to help clear the backlog. Which is sensible, because they backlog have nowhere to go anyway :)

Right now I don't know how long you're holding for EFT after IOT, but it's probably still 6 months for BFJT and 6-9 months for Valley, then 6 months for an OCU. There's a horrible wait for METS right now because the restreamees from Linton jumped the queue; but even those chopped from Linton and Valley now have 9 month waits, and it's measured in years rather than months for guys straight from IOT.

Earlier last year, chaps streamed ME from IOT were packed off to undermanned stations for a couple of years as OC GD. Hold lengths were of the "don't call us, we'll call you" sort of length!

Still, holding's not that bad. I don't mind making tea, and your brain doesn't start to rot until you've been drinking solidly for 3 months :}

[Spacer]

5 fwd: I hear one of the afformentioned OC GDs is fitting right in ;) Oh, and I managed 20 months between FHT and first trip on BFT :\

PS: I hear brain rot is caused by Conflict: Desert Storm II or whatever it was called!

[Pecs]

Current pre-EFT (post IOT) holds are in the order of 12 months, which is great for APOs fresh out of cranditz who don't even know if they're any good at flying until they get to their UAS DE Flt!
Pre BFJT hold is about 10 months, as is rotary. Some pre-METS holding officers are OC GDs indefinitely!
Apparently, the plan is to have one long pre-EFT hold (to try and clear the backlog), and let people progress through the training system with 1-2 month holds in-between each course.
Crazy enough to work?!

[EESDL]

USAF Flight Academy at Colarado and the L'ecole de L'air both follow the route of acdemia whilst flying training - ending with a degree. Is that not the best of both worlds?

[BEagle]

And didn't the RAF once have a Royal Air Force College which included academia during elementary and basic flying training? A well-balanced 2 1/2 years at the end of which Bloggs would have 'Wings' and a commission as a Plt Off. Slightly more in the way of academics and less pine pole carrying, and it easily have gained degree status.

It's round, it's rubber and it's black. This new invention just needs a name!

[welshwizard]

Spot on Beagle! A Grad doesn't make a good Officer necessarily. Lets get back to the days of the bright 18/19 yr olds who can be moulded into the ways of the Officer Corps.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Well said Beags, because the circle is round, funny old thing, we find ourselves back where we started. Albeit with slightly less money, slightly less assets and slightly less morale.

God I am far too young to be this cynical but they will keep reinventing the wheel and calling it a "circular conveyance device"

@rse:(

[5 Forward 6 Back]

5 fwd: I hear one of the afformentioned OC GDs is fitting right in Oh, and I managed 20 months between FHT and first trip on BFT

Lucky chap that you are; and my brain's recovered nicely from said rot!

Drop me a PM and let me know how you're coping with the spinning whirly things.

[practicepan]

perhaps we need to realise that life in todays RAF is somewhat different to the one anyone expected pre 9/11 we are away a lot more, to places where people shoot at us! Also public opinion hasn`t exactly been strong regarding our latest endeavours. Obviously their is still a need to encourage recruitment, and the UAS is the perfect way to do that. Of course their will be some "wasters" but we will also be able to continue the tradition of employing people of a very high calibre through this system. The fun police are trying their best to take take take from the Air force, it is on subjects like this that we have to stand up to them! Apart from anything else surely a UAS is a good place to go and be an instructor after being messed around on the front line for 6 yrs or so - there is only so much of the desert that anyone can take!

[serf]

well, are they closing or staying ?

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Any more bids????

Going........going............gone.:(

[mightyai24]

At the risk of causing controversy (after a few beers), I think that that UAS are not overly relevant for that RAF as it stands today. However, I do think that the closure of AEFs would be a considerable loss to the ATC/CCF, who really do form a decent first exposure for modern yoof, without whom, we will dwindle further still...

In alcohol extremis,

MAI24

[Roland Pulfrew]

Rumour has it the "final" version of the report is due out at the end of this month. Where it goes from there - who knows? Will the ultimate decision have to be taken by the AFB?

[50+Ray]

Thank you AllTrimDoubt for for response dated 20 Jan which I have just read.
I am biased, having benefitted from a University Cadetship in the old days. I struggled to get to my UAS for three years, without a driving licence or funds, and amassed 112 hours, which penalised me to the extent of a 120 hour Jet Provost course instead of the standard 160 hours, after 7 months on the ground.
My UAS time was marvellous, making many lifelong friends, some of whom joined. My RAF time was thoroughly enjoyable and being in the same basic trade I have now over 5000 hours of military instructional hours.
IMHO it would be sad to chop the UAS system. It is also unrealistic to expect students to risk their degree passes by putting extra effort into getting to distant airfields.
JEFTS actually worked very well, as those unbiased enough to visit always confirmed. The product was of a uniform standard with good currency, and future holds were a problem of RAF streaming inefficiency, which was a factor throughout my service career!
The old argument about a degree at Cranwell was lost thirty+ years ago. The time and effort to achieve recognisable academic rigour and acceptance for the degree was not compatible with training then, and I hope still not even in today's dumbing down era.
Sorry about the length of the rant - the subject means a lot to me. Regards to all ex-students of whichever service.

[safe single]

So far we've all discussed the recruitement benefits(or lack of) of the UAS, but what of those who haven't clue of the military when they join in freshers week? By that I mean the guys and girls who have a look, attend the training nights, have a couple of flights perhaps and yes, enjoy the social events which do make the UAS on of the best 'clubs ' to join (or did in my day anyway), but then decide that the military is not for them.
These are the people who will hopefully go on to be employed in promenant positions in industry, business, even politics etc etc. The sort of people who may be called upon to defend the military, or help it in any way. These people will be able to use their basic understanding of how it works and will hopefully also have fond memories of their time there.
I admit that I have not been in the system for quite some time, but I have many friends who are now doing very well for themselves in civvie street, but still love to hear about what's happening in the blue suit world.

[A2QFI]

2 years ago there were 6 pilots flying Harriers who were the products of just one UAS (based at Woodvale). I think, having been a QFI on Bulldogs, that the UASs are a marvellous way of showing potential Officers, not just aircrew, what the RAF is about and the money they cost is well spent.

[Perfect PFL]

I spent 3 years on a UAS in the late 90's. I completed the UAS syllabus, and so the RAF EFT syllabus. I got about 100 hours I think in the end. I was never sponsored, and didn't join the RAF. Ok, so I was one of the rare people who managed to complete the flying without making a commitment to the RAF, but there were a few. In my year I think between 20 and 25 pilots began in the first year, of which maybe 5 actually went on into the RAF. On top of that there were the sponsored ground branch people too who got a bit of free flying as well as their bursary payment.

Of the people who went into the RAF, every single one of them wanted to take this path before joining the UAS at the beginning of their time at University.

The pilots in the squadron fell into two groups - those who sacrificed their degree for the flying, and those who sacrified the flying for their degree. There really was no balance to be found, because to do truely well at one, you couldn't put the required effort into the other. Probably half of the people from my year who joined as pilots (3 of 6, say) hadn't finished the EFT course during their 3 or 4 years with the UAS, because they chose the degree. They would have had to go back and finish this after IOT, and probably get re-taught all that they had forgotten from the flying they left off that year or more before.

I probably favoured the flying more than my degree, and so got a lot out of the UAS. If I were to go back I'd do the same again though as it was a great 3 years, a great bunch of people, and a load of brilliant free flying that I'll not get the chance to do again. I would have got a higher degree class if I'd have not been in the UAS, I'm pretty sure of that, but still, wouldn't take a different route.

Despite having gained a lot from my time on the UAS, on top of just the flying, I still don't think it is a cost effective training method, or recruiting tool. As I say, I think most people who go from UAS to be RAF pilots would do anyway. Many of them either have to go back and finish the EFT training anyway, or have a long wait before next flying at Linton.

I am an aviation industry professional now, and my UAS experiences have been extremely useful to my work, but have been of no direct benefit to the RAF for their investment in my training.

[luke77]

I chose a university that had a UAS so if (and I did) I got in, I could try flying. I couldn't afford to fly otherwise. I liked it, and spent 12 years then flying fast jets.
So, without the UAS, I would not have joined the RAF.
The UAS offers some that can't afford to fly a chance to see if they like it and I for one will be sad if it is shut down.

[BEagle]

The RAF gave me a RAF Scholarship in 1968 and I learned to fly Cessnas at Bedfordshire Air Centre. I was planning to enter RAFC as a Flt Cdt; however, the day we all arrived we were told that as many of us as possible should now go to University. Thus a year later I went to London QMC to read Aeronautical Engineering. The UAS kept up my motivation by providing excellent flying training and camaraderie; chaps like 50+ Ray were also there at the time!

The difference was that the flying was purely motivational and was not formally assessed for streaming purposes; completion of the PFB syllabus merely reduced the length of the subsequent (and excellent) Jet Provost course at RAFC. Things continued like that for at least the next 25 years....as I found for myself when I did my first QFI tour at ULAS.

Pressuring the UAS students of today effectively to choose between flying and their academic studies is an atrocious way of doing business. UASs are an enormous intangible asset to the RAF and their cost is peanuts - especially as the RAF doesn't even own the aircraft any longer.

The UAS is an excellent place for novice QFIs to learn their trade; for that reason all FTRS, reservist, pseudo-civilian or whatever other non-regular personnel are currently instructing on UASs should go and their places handed to 'real' RAF QFIs. The syllabus should train the students to the same PFB standard it always did, but there should be no pressure, streaming or other factors to disrupt the students' academic studies.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Dear Deliverance, Sir

There were of course those of us who had the capacity to get a good degree and do well on the UAS. :E

Incoming in spades

I have the honour to be..........................;)

DS

[flipster]

Close UAS's (and ipso facto, AEFs)?......................Bl00dy lunacy!

Never heard such tosh - and all to save just a few quid (that's about all they cost), getting someone faceless self-seeking oik promoted so Gordon Brown can have his pound of flesh?

I'm with BEagle - Lord Trenchard, in his final resting place, must be accelerating to destruction!

Those at the top - go with your feelings - you know this idea is wrong and will come back to haunt the Service.

:{ :{

[AllTrimDoubt]

Oh get a grip, man. Move into the 21st century why don't you? The Cold War is over, thigs have moved on.

Accept it or go sit with your mate Trenchard and bemoan the loss of the Gosport tube in flying training.

[flipster]

The Cold War may be over but the Services need to recruit, train and retain top people. This is especially so in view of the lack of investment/infrastructure by HMG and our guys and girls being told to more and more with less and less.

Despite some bemoaners on this thread, the UASs have been excellent recruiting media for the RAF and a goodly percentage of today's Service have been attracted through UASs.

I'm sorry to pour water on the fire of those who think that to grab em early is feasible - it is not. Those young people who we need to recruit, all realise the importance of a decent degree, not just a HNC-equivalent in Mil Studies (not that this is ever going to happen).

Add to this, the backdrop of cil aviation's need for constant feeding - not just pilots but engineers, ops and ATC. It is predictable that Mil Aviation will find itself unable to recruit sufficient numbers of the right quality to become self-sustaining. The UASs might be able to keep us afloat.

Get rid of the UASs, then we are sunk.

FYI I am an ex-UAS stude and I am priviledged to have been taught by some excellent people. Their attitude and outlook on life persuaded me (and a number of others) to join up. Eventually, as UAS QFI, I was even more priviledged to pass on that enthusiasm to a host of people far more talented than myself.

Looking back through my log-book of 3 years spent at a UAS in the late 90s, I can count over 25 FJ, 10 ME and 10 RW pilots, some Fleet Air types, as well as loads of top-rate Navs and Gnd Branch stars . Some of our students are sword-winners at Cranditz and recent display pilots, medal winners in Veritas and/or Telic while others are already on the promotion ladder or even back as a QFI themselves.

While some would still have applied for the RAF, it is doubtful whether all of these people would have joined if they hadn't been through the UASs.

It would take a REALLY impressive TV ad/CIO office to beat that!

[LOMCEVAK]

The degree versus flying debate can be summed up as "a II/II degree is an aircrew first"! If you are on a front line squadron, who do you want to go to war with, an average pilot with the brain the size of a planet, or a highly motivated pilot whose drive and enthusiasm has improved his flying ability to a very high level (and who has, coincidentally, achieved the minimum degree required by the RAF)? I suppose the main problem now is that the RAF is most certainly not a job for life and your degree may well be needed for your second career.

And yes, I got a II/II but have based my second career on my RAF flying experience.

[AllTrimDoubt]

...Looking back through my log-book of 3 years spent at a UAS in the late 90s, I can count over 25 FJ, 10 ME and 10 RW pilots,

That's efficient...we used to get that in 9 months worth of course throughput at a certain EFT organisation

[airborne_artist]

On a pure value for money basis the ATC/CCF beats UAS hands down on the spend/recruit analysis.

From www.aircadets.org:

"41% of Officer and 51% of all Aircrew (including pilots, navigators, air electronics operators, air engineers and air loadmasters) recruits into the Royal Air Force are ex-air cadets .... The greater success rates and contribution towards recruitment, along with the personnel support role (eg at airshows etc) save the Royal Air Force an estimated £11.1m per year."

In addition the ATC (35,000 strength, UAS how many) also gives teenagers (and their parents) a very positive view of the Services.

I know that there are plenty of other good benefits from running the UAS organisation, but be carefull how you justify it!

[kippermate]

Not that I am complaining (in fact the opposite), but the Defence Youth Organisation (ATC/ACF/SSC and CCF) costs the British taxpayer £100m per year. That came from the mouth of their big boss; Maj Gen The Duke of Westminster.

[SCINHead]

Grrrr,
Eventually I knew something would rattle my cage enough to get me to post, but I never thought it would be this.

Flip thanks for the training... who would've thought that I would now be a QFI..Scary!

Getting rid of the UAS's is complete arse if you are than going to say "ah, but its great for air cadets." You still have to operate the aircraft so the cost per cadet goes up. Give them 20 mins then send them to uni for 3 years they are bound to find something better to do. Added to that the best pilots I have operated with so far have definately not been ex air cadets who arrive with the " I've flown X hours tutor with a former Lightning/phantom/tiger moth pilot so this is how it should be done" HOOP. The RAF has moved on and these guys have no idea. If you can justify the end of the UAS than the AEFs should close tomorrow.
RANT OFF

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I dont think you can really compare the UAS to Air cadets in terms of expense and return. There is a huge difference in the investment made per cadet and the end result is wildly different. With an Air Cadet who does several years, you will get a teenager with military bearing, an interest to join, good exposure to service life and discipline. With a UAS cadet you get an EFT qualified pilot who is 'streamable' to go into full time RW/FJ/ME training.

Both are excellent PR for the RAF and allow people to get involved from an early age, as such they are obvious targets for cuts, and having benefitted from the UAS system I think it stinks that they are getting rid of it, but playing devil's advocate I can see why in the current climate there does not appear to be much choice. It makes no sense to have a two pronged EFT system whereby some guys do it in 6 months, and some 3 years. It is inherently unfair in terms of continuity and the fact that UAS studes have no formal groundschool before they start flying. Instead they learn how to do all the stuff they should have been able to do after graduating IOT before Basic training at JEFTS groundchool.

I can see the AEF's staying, which will end up flying UAS 'pilots' on a limited basis for air experience with an EFT system existing somewhere on a big UAS/EFT 'superbase' for guys who have done IOT. The UAS will just turn into an official drinking club as opposed to an unofficial one.

Thoughts, comments?

DS

[BEagle]

"...Looking back through my log-book of 3 years spent at a UAS in the late 90s, I can count over 25 FJ, 10 ME and 10 RW pilots,

That's efficient...we used to get that in 9 months worth of course throughput at a certain EFT organisation"

That was just one UAS QFI's logbook. Multiply his numbers by all the other UAS QFIs and you get some idea of how good the UAS system is at recruiting high quality pilots.

The current 'streaming' philosophy is inherently unfair. Go back to the policies of the UAS about 10 years ago, get rid of all non-regular RAF QFIs and restore the proper, non-bean countered, role of the UAS.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Just one thing that I would add to your post, in addition to the streaming point change and full time regular QFIs, put EVERYONE through whatever the MFTS equivalent of BFTS is going to be. At least that way the new guys/gals will be pitching up at OCU level with a degree of airmanship and sufficient hours under their belt to give them a fighting chance of being productive.

[Hueymeister]

Beags me old dhobey bucket....you've 2 hopes of that happening in today's climate....and both of them are dead..pity....I liked Bob's films, and his troop shows!!!!!!!!!!!

HM

[Well Travelled Nav]

It doesn't matter how good your arguments are to keep the UAS system, I hear that the senior officer carrying out the study hates the UAS system.

Why ?

Apparently because his son failed to get in on 3 separate occasions.

Don't suppose he would have declared a personal interest when he received the job.

UAS RIP.

[Flik Roll]

Everyone would benefit more if Air Cadet's actually did some proper flying training rather than aeros on an AEF. Tutor for UAS only, ATC AEF on the vigilant and Gliding scholarship on the viking. Far more cost effective.

As a UAS stude, i most certainly need to finish my training...

[kippermate]

Flik Roll (or is it Snap Roll?)

If you read TGO(E) you will find the Air Cadet Flying syllabus.

:ok:

Oh, and good luck with EFT!

kipper

[Uncle Ginsters]

Kippers, me old,

Whilst there may be a TGO stating the 'syllabus', that implies some thing is being taught. In aviation ( at this level, at least), that requires a QFI.
Whilst not wanting to undervalue of the vast experience amongst most AEF pilots, they're simply not even close to providing interesting, rewarding fg trg when compared to that that UASs give. Has anyone seen an Air Cadet even half as happy/fulfilled as a UAS stude after his solo formation trip? :ok:

I still think that this will cost more in the long run. At the end of the day, the UAS is a filter for the commisioned world. Now we're going to put them all through OACTU and onto a full wage before they hit the EFT filter - how can that ever be cheaper? Especially when you include the ever growing holding fraternity. :D

Uncle G

[BEagle]

Interesting to note that BA have recently offered contracts to ab-initio pilots at Jerez before they have even flown their IRs!

It won't be long before the current pick up in airline recruiting filters all the way down to cadet level. When that happens, the RAF will have huge difficulties competing against the airlines for pilots......

Catch 'em young - or lose 'em forever. And yes, it'll cost you. But not much.

[Flik Roll]

Kippers,

Fully aware that there is a syllabus - just how many people do you know who stick to the syllabus? Most spacies just want to go upside down..... fair do's but not on thier tenth trip in a row eating tax payers money to go on an aero's trip which could have been used far more wisely as a UAS stude's trip instead of (i use this term tenderly...) wasting)?) a trip? Bit of a joke really when there are UAS studes wanting to do a tri which they have been waiting to do for 2 weeks due WX and then they turn up ready to go, WX is great but some cadet is hogging the airframe to go upside down.
ATC and UAS's should NOT mix like that. Either donate some airframes solely for ATC flying or stick 'em all on the vigilant; imho it's more than suitable for teaching them to fly! Will make them better pilots as it's harder to land :)

Just a thought, not a dig!

[Dimensional]

Not that you're biased, eh FR?

P.S. Get your head back in the Stude Study Guide! :p

[Flik Roll]

Shh I'm on hols :rolleyes:

[Twinact]

While not directly to do with UASs, but linked, what grips me most is that many AEFs are manned by ex-mil pilots who have left for the airlines !!!!!!!!!!!!! Or ex-senior officers

How many of you out there are scraping to get hrs for licences?

As an ex-spacey I think AEFs are a great recruiter and they should continue in some form, even if it means contracting civvy flying clubs.

But we've got the manning wrong. Priority should go current serving aircrew and not those who jumped ship.

[Hueymeister]

Twinact....judging by your locstat and your handle, you'd be a Chinny driver....who spend long periods of time away...and find it difficult to devote the requisite time to an AEF...I know... I've done it and only scraped enough time off to JUST maintain currency. The baby boomers are just about to hit retirement age, that should free up some slots. Some just left when their time was up...hardly jumping ship.

[Twinact]

Hueymeister,

Thanks, correct on both counts. I don't resent those who have made the decision to leave - we all have sometime! But the system doesn't support current serving aircrew. Airline pilots have their schedules months in advance, we're lucky to know what's happening next day.

Its probably too late judging by the theme here, AEFs, and UASs, will be lucky to make through the next round of spending cuts.

[Flik Roll]

They should send holding pilots to AEF's rather than to the photocopier

[AllTrimDoubt]

You should've joined earlier, instead of wasting time at Uni (and UAS). By now you'd be in a productive job!

[Flik Roll]

Some of us didn't get in first time around and had to go to uni - trust me, i didn't want to go to uni! :{

It was only a suggestion, I'm not holding - i know there are a few post Linton flying on AEF's but why can't more holding officers do it?

[kippermate]

For the record, there are, to my knowledge, 2 holding pilots (waiting for Valley) on an AEF. They have been personally sanctioned by GCFT (they don't have the required qualifications to be an AEF pilot), and are filling their boots.

[Flik Roll]

Yep, why can't more do it - I read the required qual's and it was a lot just to fly kiddies around; or at least that's what I thought!

[Wholigan]

OK – I’ll bite again.

Working backwards through the posts:

a. Yes there are some pilots holding and flying on AEFs now. I have one right now and 2 more with effect from next Wednesday. Why not more? The system has only just recently reverted to (more or less) what it used to be many eons ago, in that pilots who achieve a high average pass or better at Linton can fly air cadets. Prior to that, pilots had to have a minimum of 500 hours first pilot before being allowed to fly cadets. It stemmed from the need for (in my view slightly over-protective in the past) duty of care to the young cadets. The change is welcomed by me at least, as I now have a constant source of readily available pilots, even when the airline pilots and/or the serving RAF pilots are going through one of the many and frequent ultra-busy periods when they find it difficult to find the time to attend the AEF.

b. The breakdown of pilots on my outfit is: 12 ex-Service, current airline pilots; 12 current RAF/RN/Army pilots; and 12 fully retired pilots. Airline pilots do NOT have their schedules “months in advance”; most of them are lucky to get a month ahead to plan their AEF flying availability.

c. The flying commitments required for an AEF pilot are to remain current (31 day currency) and to achieve a minimum of 50 hours per year. That may not sound very much, but when you are flying 20 minute sorties it can sometimes be difficult to achieve. I find that – because of their tight commitments to their main job in today’s busy times – the current serving officers are the ones who have the most difficulty maintaining currency and achieving the minimum number of hours. The fully retired – and this includes your “ex-senior officers” – are (generally) the ones best to rely on for short-notice filling in on days when there is a shortfall of pilots available. Also remember that these pilots are basically unpaid volunteers.

d. I would be amazed if the reason that the “UAS studes wanting to do a trip that they have been waiting to do for 2 weeks” do not get their trip is because “some cadet is hogging the airframe to go upside down”. All UASs have priority over the AEFs with whom they share the airframes and so it is considerably more likely that it will be the AEF sorties that are cancelled, all other things being equal. However, it is sometimes true that the AEF is flying aircraft when the UAS is not. This can be for a variety of reasons, most of which are usually weather driven. To teach – for example – straight and level or climbing and descending will require a clearly defined horizon, something that is not necessarily required for AEF experience flying. Next time you dip out on your trip, a pro-active request for the reason on your part may go some way to better understanding, although a good UAS will have already explained the reason to its student(s).

e. Approximately half of the pilots on my AEF are ex-QFIs or current QFIs (not necessarily on the Tutor) and so are perfectly capable of “teaching” the rudiments of flying to air cadets. The other non-QFIs are also - in my opinion - similarly well equipped to teach the basics. They all have considerable "hands-on" experience with generally somewhere between about 3000 and 15000 flying hours, probably just enough to be able to get across to a youngster how it is done in basic terms! Bear in mind that cadets are actually supposed to get one 20 minute trip per year each, and this is what the AEF flying task is calculated on! This is – of course – hardly conducive to a steady and progressive working though a “flying training syllabus”. It does – however – permit the teaching of the basics and the achievement of the “catch ‘em young” requirement, and I see my job as primarily “hooking” youngsters into an everlasting interest in aviation. If it is thought that we are “not even close to providing interesting and rewarding flying” to cadets, then those that think that have never seen the joy and excitement exhibited by most cadets, especially on their first ever trip. One of the most satisfying aspects of flying air cadets is to take a young (remember they can fly at the age of 13 and a quarter) and frankly extremely nervous - sometimes almost terrified – cadet, and instantly converting them on trip one to someone who can’t wait for his or her next trip. To see them walking back to the hangar from their trip and making like a Harrier pilot on Friday night with his/her hands is reward enough.

f. On our AEF, the cadets receive a 10 minute briefing from me, then they see the video, and then they are each individually briefed by the pilot with whom they are planned to fly on just what is going to happen on their trip and what they are going to be taught.

I think that’s enough for now.

[Flik Roll]

Cheers for that - cleared somethings up.

[BEagle]

Years ago I did a little bit of cadet air experience flying in my spare time whilst flying HM's tin triangles at Sunny Scampton. Interestingly, I found the ATC lads were keen as mustard, whereas some of the sullen CCF (RAF) kids were as keen as, well, mouse turds.

One CCF (RAF) child announced that his father flew 747s for ba. Splendid, I thought, he'll have half an idea about flying. WRONG - little bugger hadn't a clue and simply wasn't interested. But that wasn't quite as good as a tale told to me by the AEF guys at White Waltham when I was a UAS student... One day, it was the turn of Eton College to go flying. One pompous little prick, after about 5 minutes in the back of one of HM's Thundermunks, piped up with "You can take me back now, pilot, I've seen enough....." 20 minutes, much aerobatics and a few honk bags later, they returned to WW.....

It would be an utter tragedy if AEF flying were to stop..

But Wholi', old blue-noter, for f***'s sake don't let the little lads behave like H*rr**r pilots :yuk:

















Only kidding:D

[rodan]

Edit - Something strange afoot here. The post I was replying to is no more.

[Another St Ivian]

On our AEF, the cadets receive a 10 minute briefing from me, then they see the video, and then they are each individually briefed by the pilot with whom they are planned to fly on just what is going to happen on their trip and what they are going to be taught.

Incidentally that is a system I haven't seen at any other AEF, but I did find extremely good. I think all were better off for it. Perhaps not for the horse like dog though :}

Back on to the subject for a moment; If the UAS's were to reduce to a 10 hr/per year flying experience type profile, what would become of the excess capacity in the system? Is there any PFI penalties for under utilisation of the fleet, or would there be a change in contract terms, an extended period of EFT, etc? Or, would it signal an expansion in UAS recruitment?

ASI

[Flik Roll]

I guess that's just wait and see....


Some AEF's are very good btw, I was being very general.

[EESDL]

Just finished 15 months instructing on a UAS and, all respect to current student, there ain't no future leaders there

[Perfect PFL]

Well Travelled Nav wrote:

"It doesn't matter how good your arguments are to keep the UAS system, I hear that the senior officer carrying out the study hates the UAS system.

Why ?

Apparently because his son failed to get in on 3 separate occasions."

As you've decided to get personal with your comments now, I guess I'll have to straighten some of your facts out - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and all that.

Failed to get into what on 3 separate occasions? Getting into the UAS, or the RAF? I applied for the UAS once. I was accepted. I spent 3 years on East Midlands UAS, and completed the entire EFT syllabus. During this time I never once went to Cranwell for selection. I did, however, apply for the RAF during my final year at University, and attended OASC after completion of the UAS flying. This was a mistake if I wanted to join the RAF as a pilot. I obviously passed an aircrew medical to get into the UAS, but on attending OASC I was told I did not meet the required eye sight limits to be a pilot. So 3 years on the UAS, completed EFT training (with "two 5's" on FHT), and told I can't join as a pilot as my eye sight wasn't good enough. (As an aside, I believe the eye sight limits changed some time during my UAS time with the introduction of Typhoon approaching. Also I subsequently found out that as I had completed EFT I should have been assessed on the old eye sight limits, and so should not have failed the medical. Getting rid of good pilots from the UAS system on stupid medical reason (arms too short etc) just because you have to be medically fit to fly any RAF aircraft as a pilot is a whole different subject though.) So I hope that straightens that one out for you a little at least.

You obviously like your anonymity on these type of web forums like everyone else, but when you post completely inaccurate facts some of us are then forced to not remain behind ours.

As for the other points in your post, they are not for me to comment on as I have little knowledge on them. Maybe something you should bear in mind before posting in future.

[kippermate]

EESDL,

Is the fact that there are no future leaders on the UAS you have just left due, in part, to the example that they have been set by their instructors? Or am I way off the mark?


:O

kipper.

[Flik Roll]

Spot on Kipper....

EESDL's profile says it all as well...

[mentaliser]

Well, well, well...

Whatever our views on the rights and wrongs of it, we should all be clear on one thing: it's cobblers for the UASes. This is simply a reflection of the fact that for the UASes to survive in the long term, they must survive every review (which seem to happen on a virtually annual basis), whilst on the other hand they only need to be axed once. So whether it's this time, next time or the time after, they've had it. I would actually put my money on it being this time, as somehow it just feels that the mood of the government/service/country is ready for this once important part of our national fabric to be ended.

And so what about the rights and wrongs? Well, frankly, I think that the UASes now would be best put out of their misery. I (almost) completely agree with BEagle's post of about a week ago - the UAS system worked well when it was a recruiting ground and a forum to promote "air-mindedness" within the future generation of leaders of society. Turning it into a mini-EFT, and judging its success on that basis, robbed it of what it did well. And as many have observed previously, the UASes can never do EFT well, especially if that involved streaming, for a whole host of reasons well covered by previous postings.

In the grand scheme of things, UASes cost buttons, and if correctly assessed and not asked to do a job they were never designed for, their contribution to the Air Force and society would be 10 or 100 times their cost. But now the system is a shadow of its former self, and in many ways is actually disruptive to the aims of the Service. I now hear that UASes fail to recruit the high-calibre studes that they once did. I am not surprised. A great opportunity has been wasted, and one day this decision will be regarded as a paradigm of "penny wise, pound foolish". But it won't be the first, and certainly, certainly won't be the last.

I am afraid (as will be most readers of this post, I'm sure) that this specific situation - essentially irrational decisions regarding the allocation of government funds - is reflefctive of a far, far broader and long-standing problem. The history of the RAF alone (representing a tiny slice of total government expenditure) is littered with examples of exactly this - the TSR-2, Nimrod AEW programme, closure of Abingdon, Scampton, now Lyneham, ..., to name but a few.

Basically, the top and bottom of it is that the incentive structure in the public sector is perverse. If a private company consistently makes bad business decisions, it goes bankrupt. When governments do, nobody beyond those directly affected care. In industry, private companies are incentivised to get the best people for job in question, knowing that the higher quality of person doing a job, the more money that can be made or saved. This is why decent finance people get paid £100k+. In the MOD, business cases are done by low-grade analysts and accoutants (who would never get a job in the private sector) on £20k. So often their analysis is bollox. And, unlike in the private sector, there is no smart and highly experienced person to tell them that the anaylsis is bollox, or to give due regard to the value externalities, which in the case of the UASes is huge.

This extends to the current breed of senior officers, who have become pseudo-politicians. This is not surprising as, ultimately, they are judged by politicians. Their "election issue" is making savings - so lopping a few tens of millions off the budget this year by making some saving or other (e.g. culling the UASes) will get some brownie points. And by the time the folly of the decision is realised, the individual(s) concerned have been promoted, posted, and have moved on. And in this disposable age when not even government ministers resign any more, there is no atmosphere of accountability (the military was always rather poor at this anyway).

I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.

I am afraid that I cannot foresee any positive solution to this as the problem is so systemic - it is an intrinsic problem with democracy. Politicians quite correctly pander to the plebs who vote for them.

As we mourn its passing, let's raise a glass to the UAS system we all knew and (mostly) loved. One thing Tony Blair can't take away is our fond memories of it.

[uknasa]

Mentaliser,

'I am ranting now. But just look at things the government provides (NHS, railways (sort of - still heavily meddled with by regulation), Post Office, police) and compare it with the private sector (Virgin Atlantic, BUPA, DHL, Securicor). Trust the government with something, and look what happens.'

I think you'll find the Post Office is a private compamy accountable to share holders...

Not seen any Virgin UAS - oh that's right, they get their pilots once they have been trained by public funded UASs. NHS does a pretty good job which is why the private health care suppliers tap into it when required!

[16 blades]

I think you'll find the Post Office is a private compamy accountable to share holders...

Partially accurate, except the UK Govt is the sole stockholder. So, acutally, bollocks.

NHS does a pretty good job

More bollocks. I have many friends and relatives who work for the NHS. I know differently. Please open your eyes.

Back to the thread, I feel the UAS system had a role to fulfil when, as someone alluded to, it's intake consisted of the future leaders of society and industry (as well as those of us who were destined to be Her Majesty's Finest). They have, however, become more and more irrelevant in exact concert with university education itself, as this government presses ahead with its "all must have prizes" policy of sending any kid who can grunt half a sentence in pidgin "txt-yoof-speak" english to university. The decline in the UAS system is, IMHO, due to the decline in the standard of student who finds their way to university nowadays, itself a result of a dumbed-down education system.

16B

[EESDL]

Kippermate
Couldn't agree more!
Soon realised tht UAS was not the sort of place where I wanted to spend my last years in the RAF. I thought it was, that's partly why I was delighted to be posted there. As Bob would say....
"Times they are a changing"



PS Hope you had a sore head Saturday morning, would have loved to have stayed but bad timing, another time maybe?
Spelling mistakes are because I'm using a cypriot keyboard!!
Can't find Kokenelli west of Akrotiri

[uknasa]

16 B
'I have many friends and relatives who work for the NHS. I know differently'

In that case it must be true!! I also know a number of friends and relatives that work in the NHS and they all say that the funding and service provided under this administration are far superior to that under the last.
And on the Post Office you are wrong - suggest you do some rersearch.

[BEagle]

EESDL/Kippermate - 'they' tried to get me to go back to the UAS world a few years ago. But having kept in touch with the way things had gone to hell in a handcart, I resisted that as strongly as I could and didn't go in the end. The UAS system has indeed been ruined; just remember what it was like a mere 10 years ago (possibly not even that far back) when it was a far, far better place to be for QFIs and students alike.

It cannot hope to attract high calibre students when anyone working hard enough to gain a good degree would prejudice their chances of FJ streaming by the associated lack of flying continuity.

RAF Abingdon in the early '90s with folk like StopStart to teach was highly rewarding. I didn't think that I'd enjoy it as much as I did - but it turned out to be a very useful tour which was also a lot of fun. AARRGGH - I used the 'f' word! I know how the beancounters hate that.....

Summer camps at St Mawgan...leading 'convoys' during Civil Defence week...Junta tailchasing...Thursdays in Town... Such harmless fun! And it all cost the square root of bugger all in real money.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Completely irrelevant to this thread but had to respond as uknasa appears to be back in spouting rubbish mode, again :rolleyes:

Regarding the Royal Mail/Post Office, from the DTI website:
UK Government is the sole shareholder in Royal Mail Holdings plc. One ordinary share is held by the HM Treasury solicitor (as a nominee of HM Treasury) and 49,999 ordinary shares plus one special share are held by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Treasury hold a share because company law requires a plc company to have a minimum of two shareholders. More research required?!? By who?

Regarding the NHS: if the NHS is so well funded my father (UK taxpayer all of his life) would not be going private for a forthcoming op. And TBliar would not have announced this weekend that he plans greater use of Private Healthcare (if re-elected) to try and reduce waiting lists!

[EESDL]

Just to re-iterate - ain't yet met any future leaders of industry whilst instructing at UAS BUT have met a couple of annoyingly natural pilots who, despite sporadic attendance, produce great elementary flying performances whenever they can get in.......
.....they like their drink aswell so all is well with the world again.
They've both admitted, however, that they would have joined anyway and it was not the UAS system that sparked/kindled/maintained their interest in flying but it was their fascination with flying......

If you are lucky enough to get an interview...remember, despite what you want to say...you want to be an Officer first, then a pilot!!!!!!!!!!!
Bon Voyage.

[spinstallaeropfl]

I think continued to support to AEFs is a much better idea... kick that spark and interest in flying off when they're at the right age..! Is it true AEFs are going to get more hours and provide uni studes with a bit of ad-hoc hands on in place of the current 'odd' syllabus..?

SSAP

[Flik Roll]

I heard 10hrs AEF per year per UAS stude and current 1st and 2nd years are allowed to finish the syllabus - as i say all rumour control.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Go on, let's stick some more rumours in. :)

I'll see your 10 hours AEF for UAS studes per year, and raise you just Wyton, Fenton and Cranwell doing EFT.

Any takers? :}

[Spacer]

Na, I fancy the 21 students each at Glasgow, Aldergrove (We can start a NIUAS) and Heathrow (The UKUAS).... that's what I reckon ;)

[airborne_artist]

Spacer and 5 Fwd

Leaked from a paper shortly to be presented to CAS:

"In order to attract and retain the most energetic of the 18-23 age group it is suggested that all UAS units are merged and the new unit located at the airfield with ICAO code LEIB. Initial reaction from QFIs has been positive"

[Circuit Basher]

:D

airborne_artist Do the old sod QFIs get a retirement home and a pacemaker to keep up with all the nubile holiday makers??!! ;)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Do UAS studes still get home-to-duty?

I'm already planning that landaway....

[Spacer]

Hmm... I may run out of gas en route somewhere. Oh well, anyone else fancy a swim in the Bay of Biscay?? ;)

[teeteringhead]

We can start a NIUAS Restart you mean spacer ...

There used to be a perfectly good one called QUAS....

...but of course it was also the most expensive cos of all the trips to the mainland - so it was the first to go.

A really good thank you for studes who were at threat on the ground (other than like all studes from excessive drinking, sh@gging etc).

rant over...

[Spacer]

Yea, I remember QUAS, as I would have attended Queen's had the UAS still been going. My CCF (back in the day) had to fly everyone to the mainland and then bus everyone to Woodvale to do AEF..... can't have been cheap!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Hmm... I may run out of gas en route somewhere. Oh well, anyone else fancy a swim in the Bay of Biscay??

Warm this time of year... get in! :ok:

[EESDL]

Recall being standby crew in the province one night and got the call to ferry hissed up studes from Belfast to their annual Dinner at Aldergrove - and back again.

Crewman appreciated the sick slopping around.

So please, do not pursue the value for money bollax that some have been mentioning.

And 'No' we would not have been flying anyway, we would have been hoping to spend the night at home...............as we were quite busy at the time.

The issue of using RAF assets to make our lives easier and provide the odd 'jolly' is fully (or 'was') endorsed by this particular puke - but that's another topic, and someone did mention 'cost'!!!!!

[16 blades]

Let's cut this 'cost' bullsh1t - it 'costs' very little to take an aircraft, which we already own, operated by crews, which will be paid anyway, and fly it somewhere for a few hours. 99% of our 'costs' are fixed overheads - in this case, the only variable is fuel, which we pay absolute peanuts for. You could also argue maintenance as a 'cost', but since we own the engineers and facilities, almost all of this is fixed overheads as well.

Supposedly incurred 'costs' are simply accountancy trickery in order to justify the bean counters existence. Point in case - after the advent of civilianised EFT, the question of savings by civilianising BFT was seriously looked at. Someone I know was asked to work out EXACTLY how much 1hr of flying training in a Tucano 'costs' - included in this were the salaries of QFI and stude, engineers for maintenance, even the salaries of the blunties on the station who 'support' the task. The result was that a 1hr training sortie cost £xxxxx (i cannot recall actual figure). To then say 'let's reduce costs by cutting flying hours', or that 'this 2hr jolly of yours has cost the Mod £xxxxx' is a ridiculous and specious argument, but it is one you will hear the beancounters using all the time. BOLLOCKS!

16B

[PhilM]

Not looking good for someone wanting to join a UAS next year :{

[Flik Roll]

no not really....!

[EESDL]

16 Blades
Like I said, I'm all for it, it's our train set isn't it?
Snag is, we don't own grobs/engineers anymore.
Someone, somewhere, costed 1hr in a grob at £800 for our F£C customers. Nice work if you can get it!

[16 blades]

Yes, and we also charge them roughly the same amount for a week's accomodation in the mess....

...nice revenue source, if you can get it (which we can)...

16B

[kippermate]

I don't think that the price paid for 1hr in a Tutor by F & C is the same as the cost!

kipper

[Cat5 in the Hat]

Everyone would benefit more if Air Cadet's actually did some proper flying training rather than aeros on an AEF. Tutor for UAS only, ATC AEF on the vigilant and Gliding scholarship on the viking. Far more cost effective.

Sounds like a good idea Flik - but with the extra tasking at Viking level - it will only cause grief for those whom have to fight her-in-doors for the weekend!

And even if we are one of the biggest VGS in the land, we can't operate all our 'frames off the short drag :(

And just to add to the mix - some of the conventional fleet are over half way thorugh life-ex. What will happen at life-ex? Possibly no flying for Air Cadets at all. Might as well roll in the mud or go for a swim.....

[EESDL]

Kippermate,
you're quite right - should have stated 'rate'.

16Blades
I've been informed that the the revenue goes to the FO, not the Defence Budget. The project could have been self-financing and possibly making it feasible to train some future RAF pilots on the back of it!!

[Dockers]

The money does come to the defence budget eventually. It may or may not be given back to the consuming unit.

[Flik Roll]

Cat5 from what I hear anyway the Air Cadet Org won't be able to much soon anyway as there is so much in the way of H&S.
I'm sure that they will dissapear along with the ageing fleet!

[Cat5 in the Hat]

Hmm....

Wouldn't suprise me one bit!

[siam]

All this reminiscing is all very interesting but does anyone actually know yet what is going to happen? :confused:

[ShyTorque]

Let's hope the Conservatives get back in, for a start. ;)

[pr00ne]

ShyTorque,

Yeah right, that'll really help the UAS system........... NOT!

Who do you think started all this contracting out and privatisation in the frst place? With their stated aim of privatising or contracting out over a dozen defence agencies, saving an additional £2.7Bn through "efficiency savings and restructuring" I would suggest they would be the kiss of the death for the UAS and a lot more.

[BEagle]

Old Mad Maggie's lot with their Thatcher-greed mentality did indeed start the rot, pr00ne, but that gurning idiot and the rest of his slimy crew have done nothing to change matters during their many years of misrule.

[pr00ne]

True BEagle, alas very true.

One of the hopes I had back in 1997 was that we would see an end to contractorisation and privatisation with perhaps a limited clawing back of some existing contracts when they came to an end.

Unfortunatley it appears to have gone the other way with the current regime being even fiercer advocates of the dreaded PFI. I still cannot quite come to terms with the fact that it is a Labour government who are presiding over the FSTA nonsense.

Still, better the devil you know, I wouldn't trust Letwin an inch with defence spending, he would make the Portillo era seem like sweetness and light.

[bandit]

Let's be honest, when we can't even send our squaddies into the desert with the requisite kit it's long overdue that we dismantle the UAS flying circuses.
I know it's a great shame... :( former air marshalls will now have to crack on and find themselves some alternative flying clubs.

VMT

[Arclite01]

Any further news on the UAS futures then ?

Arc

[Flik Roll]

Mate just back from OASC - bursaries are stopping. Sign of things to come i guess? Dam, left that one a bit late!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Bandit


Typical uninformed opinion!! May I ask what your knowledge of UASs is? It would appear that you are confusing AEFs (which are staying) and UASs which may lose a lot of their flying! There are very few former air marshal(l)s (one l in marshal by the way) flying with UASs!

And what justifies the comment "flying circuses"? UASs provide the RAF's Elementary Flying Training if that happens to be to university students, as well as RAF regulars, then that is the system that was decided upon!

[onthebumline]

RP,

Agreed that the UAS' provide EFT for regulars and pikey students, but the whople point of the discussion is wether or not this service is being provided at the best possible value for money......something that the modern armed forces must consider.

Army and Navy EFT is carried out at Barkston Heath on the Firefly, as you are all aware. DEFTS put about, at a guess, 45 (11 courses of 4) navy students and 65 (11 courses of 6) Army students through EFT each year, with the odd failure, you could say that they pass about 100 students a year, and do this with about 15 aircraft.

Each of the UAS' pass about 15 students through EFT each year and do this with about 7 aircraft. Which is clearly much less efficient and cost effective than the DEFTS system. Not to mention the cost of running all those airfields around the country and the wastage on students who do treat the UAS as a flying club.

Looking at the figures, any rational thinking individual would without doubt close the UAS down tomorrow and reintroduce a DEFTS style system. This decision has however benn left in the hands of a load of crab brasshats and politicians so one can only imagine that they will remain open.

All the figures used here are of the top of my head and are purely illustrative to demonstrate that the current system is costing too much.

Please keep replies and comments to the subject matter, any thoughts on my typographical and grammatical errors may be stowed back aft where the sun does not shine.

OTBL

[airborne_artist]

OTBL

There's one obvious solution:

Scrap DEFTS and move the RN and Army studes out to the UAS system. That will improve the UAS utilisation/output stats, and so justify the UAS existence. :E :E :ok:

[bandit]

RP

What you passed off as mere "Typical uninformed opinion", is infact carefully considered opinion formed after serving on both UASs and the equivalent RN/Army unit. :ok:

I find it quite surprising that anyone with any notion of rationality could defend the UAS system.

In an ideal world with bags of cash then maybe the UASs would be feasible, however as OTBL put it the figures speak for themselves. With the cuts made to the RN and Army in mind, thank god some of the many inefficient appendigaes of the RAF are being scrutinised.

Absolutely indefensible.

VMT

AA

Nice one, flying clubs to replace military training. We may as well all start swaggering about in denim, at least the dubious output would be consistent across the board....

VMT

[AllTrimDoubt]

OTBL & Bandit - (our paths may have crossed!) You are spot on with your observations.

JEFTS worked despite being stuck out of the way in some cra**y portacabins and turned out some quality pilots using some pretty talented individuals. DEFTS continues to do its best - yet the light blue continue to flaunt the UAS system as a centre of flying excellence.

They missed the opportunity to have the JEFTS model as the hub with the UAS's as spokes and instead focussed entirely on the latter, closing down their own part of JEFTS in the process.

As a reward they got the Grob, with it's benign, underpowered handling and (initially) no clearance to fly IMC!!!

And throughout it all, the RN and AAC have simply continued to turn out regular courses of quality pilots.

Speaks volumes.

Rant off.

[serf]

Do the UAS's do military training other than the flying ?

If so then they could be justified, just like the University OTC system.

[Re-Heat]

View from someone who was on a UAS, but didn't join:

What's the harm in every pilot in the UK, or for that matter every pilot in Europe, doing the same basic training be they military or civilian?

Benefits - everyone knows what everyone else is doing in their airspace allocations (within reason).
Downside - not enough mil flying early on, and standard of instruction issues.

Put everyone in some sort of uniform and use it as pre-entry grading, saving everyone money for those who can't hack it. Certainly I can see a benefit to standardisation of an element of EFT with JAR syllabuses before military diverge to the skills required for military aviation.

My UAS time was great, but was it necessary? I certainly gave serious consideration to joining up that I would not have otherwise done, and many of my colleagues on the UAS who did join had never considered it before. Surely that has achieved its aims, and created in myself and other who did not join up a sense of - lets say - friendship or affinity towards the RAF?

I think those who would always have joined up regardless were an ever-diminishing pool in my experience around 2000. That would on one hand make UASs more invaluable than ever before, but on the other hand with a smaller budget, a more cost effective solution could be tailored that doesn't impact so much upon the fact that people are at university for a degree, and result in an EFT product that isn't devalued as it taught while students at uni have to prioritise either their degree or the flying, which is to the detriment of both.

Remember that there is a significant difference between progress and destruction of tradition. Don't use the latter as an excuse not to think outside the box, but equally destruction of the UASs are not necessary to achieve a wholesale change to meet the current day requirements.

[bandit]

serf

I believe there is the odd bit of military training here and there, the paucity of what there is however would make the teddy bears' picnic look like a section assault.

Absolute sham.


AlltrimDoubt - BZ

VMT

[Roland Pulfrew]

Bandit/ATD

As OTBL says his figures are purely illustrative, and wrong! The figures do not therefore speak for themselves! The RAF still has a requirement for some 100+ ab initio pilots per year (not sure of the latest OASC figures but it is over 100). These 100 personnel are trained by the UASs. Some are direct entrant and do the full EFT course, some have been members of UASs and go back to the UAS to finish their EFT and some complete their EFT whilst at university and then go straight to the next stage of training after IOT. As to cost effectiveness there are a lot of frontline pilots out there who will admit that they joined the RAF because they joined the UAS and had not thought about it before that. Cost effectiveness is one of those ideas deployed by bean counters and accepted by people who cannot think deeper. How many personnel have joined the RAF in branches other then aircrew because they had their first experience of RAF life as passing interest at a fresher's fayre. That cost cannot be calculated but UASs do provide a lot of personnel to branches other than pilot/WSO. How do you cost that?

Now I am no blind defender of the UAS system but the RAF do have an organisation that provides EFT and that was one of the main reasons they pulled out of J/DEFTS. Why pay for two systems when you already fund one? The future of DEFTS is not as secure as some would like to think. The AAC want to go to an all helicopter training system so that would leave the RN as the only user of DEFTS. What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs). Lots of benefits all round, particularly in these days of jointery. It would benefit all 3 services in learning more about each other, it would provide regular students for the QFIs on UASs, so they would get to instruct the full syllabus more regularly. And lets not forget all 3 services need to grow instructors somewhere to feed the front line OCUs with QFIs. With the draw down at Linton and possibly the UASs where are these QFIs going to come from? Cost effectiveness? (Although I agree the Tutor is not as powerful as the Firefly lets not forget that the Firefly was not without its own problems when it came into service, it has just been around a bit longer).

As someone who had to deal with the end product of JEFTS/EFT I can assure you that the product is not as sound as some would like to think and certainly not as good as personnel who went through a BFT system. Now if the reason for removing flying from UASs was to fund a system where all personnel went through the same BFT system on say the PC21 then I would support the reduction in UAS flying. As for the lunacy of putting EFT on civil flying clubs - utter, utter madness (and I know that is taring a lot of good civil flying instructors/clubs with the same brush - to them I apologise in advance). I understand the CFS world are now receiving instructors who have hardly flown formation let alone lead any. Have done minimal low level time and Linton have a large number of ex multi engine pilots who have never flown the Tucano so have to be trained how to fly it before they start the CFS Tucano course. More cost effectiveness?

Bandit (without blowing your cover) may I just ask when your experience of UAS and JEFTS was?

[onthebumline]

:p :p

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."

:p :p :p :p

again.....do it again

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."



Please....just one more time

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."

:p :p :p :p

I will post a proper reply once I stop laughing......probably next week some time:p

[Roland Pulfrew]

Quality Reply :mad: I meant, on the assumption that UASs remain (possibly a big assumption) and DEFTS goes (not such a big assumption). Who is going to provide the RN with their EFT? RN EFTS?

[bandit]

RP

In and around 2003.

I don't think you were on the correct wavelength when you read my post about flying clubs. I was inferring that merging RN/Army EFT into the UAS system would be akin to farming out military training to University "Flying Clubs". A big step backwards in the opinion of all those who have been through those institutions.

I think you'll find that Church Fenton and Barkston Heath combined weigh up far more efficiently than god knows how many UASs scattered around the bazzars. There are so many different justifications for this I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling them out, just talk to any Fenton/Barkston grad and he/she will fill you in, before or after discussing the relative merits of both systems.

Merging RN EFT into the UASs, just the kind of muddlebrained crab blundering that set JEFTS up in the first place before deciding to pull out.

VMT

[Roland Pulfrew]

There are so many different justifications for this I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling them out, just talk to any Fenton/Barkston grad and he/she will fill you in, before or after discussing the relative merits of both systems.

Go on then!!! By the way what is at CF? JEFTS left some time ago!

And by the way I do, on a regular basis. Its part of the job! The system has changed since 2003. Regular EFT on UASs works, suggest you ask any recent grad of the "new" system. The RAF still cannot justify paying for 2 systems!! It is NOT cost effective. (And the EFT product is still not as good as a BFT product)! :E

[bandit]

Well start listening shippers and they'll set you straight. Because you're obviously labouring under the misaprehension that over 100 tutors (inferior, benign, low-powered) giving 100 grads per year is comparable to less than twenty Fireflys (almost twice as powerful more advanced aircraft) giving the same number of grads through;

1. One, singular well (and efficiently) standardised institution, ie. for those slow on the uptake, no offence RP :confused: does not invole touring the UK to keep standards in check.

2. A full time Military training unit.

etc etc etc

VMT

BTW poor emergency banter.

[Roland Pulfrew]

OK I promise to listen if you will.

1. The RAF CANNOT afford to pay for 2 systems of EFT! (They might not even be able to pay for the one they HAVE got if the report has its way!

2. The Firefly is still a light aircraft and performs nowehere near as well as the JP/Tucano/PC21, even if it can out perform the Tutor. I am not suggesting that 100 grads = 100 grads (because the UASs grad a lot more. The 100 ONLY refers to the RAFs EFTS requirement). The UASs have 2 roles and are not dedicated to a single task like DEFTS. I would hope that a full time students can achieve more annual graduations, but then would DEFTS be able to meet the RAF requirement as well? Answer No. The second reason for the RAF withdrawing from JEFTS.

3. A full time military unit........you must be refering to the UASs then, because you cannot be referring to DEFTS!;)

4. And for those equally slow on the uptake, bandit, the UASs are not just about pilots and navs! The well scattered UASs are used to recruit to all branches in the RAF. The navy are not taking their boats from the URNUs (indeed I undersatnd that they are looking at providing 2 more). The army are not restricting their OTC by limiting the number of hours in holes in the ground. Without flying the main attraction to joining a UAS goes.

5. Whilst we have UASs, then they are capable of providing RAF EFT. It is called irreducible spare capacity. And the recent product from RAF EFT is just as happy with their training as those that DEFTS produces (as I said the system has changed in the last 2 years). Who wouldn't be they are just starting their careers and will do whatever it takes to get to the end point!

6. Ultimately this is turning into a pointless p:mad: g contest you are right, and so am I, but for different reasons!

[Need for Speed!]

The system has changed since 2003. Regular EFT on UASs works, suggest you ask any recent grad of the "new" system.

I am a "recent grad" of "the new" system. Finished as a DE on a UAS earlyer this year. Worked for me!

NFS

[bandit]

I'd say you're about half right, not so sure about the last part of that sentance.

If you can't pay for two flying training systems, scrap one and stop bleating!

You are right in one respect though, this is turning into a p:mad: g contest. I'll therefore cut to the chase and just say that DEFTS is far better than the UAS system, Tutors are rubbish long live independant RN EFT!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Still not listening I see.....:rolleyes:

We have scrapped one, we got rid of JEFTS, no bleating involved!

"Independant RN EFT", hasn't existed for a long time and unlikely to do so again!

Nothing like an arrogant fishead to liven up a friday. Off to HH now!! Byeeee

[Jimlad]

"The navy are not taking their boats from the URNUs (indeed I undersatnd that they are looking at providing 2 more). "

Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so.

The Boats are a useful tool for the RN as they are cheap and can go to a lot of ports that biggers things can't, thus keeping the RN in the public eye and getting nice publicity. They also do other tasking for the RNR and other organisations.

The fact that the URNU scheme has been running since 1967, and since that time has not to my knowledge produced a single known captain of industry or Admiral is of course irelevant :)

(I say this as an ex URNU stude and TO)

[BEagle]

"Without flying the main attraction to joining a UAS goes"

I would say, without flying the ONLY attraction to joining a UAS goes.

"Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so."

Delete 'URNU', 'Navy' and 'RN' and insert 'UAS', 'Air Force' and 'RAF' and you could be describing what the UASs were all about until the idiots ruined them with the lunacy of pre-BFT streaming recommendation based upon UAS performance.

And don't anyone kid themselves that the RAF wants 'younger' people than UAS graduates because they're easier to teach and generally fitter - it's purely so that the beancounters can squeeze another 3 years 'productive' service out of them before their 38 point or whatever it is these days. Pure and simple.

I wonder whether the MoD-box beancounters have woken up to the current moves in ba's recruiting..... Once that ramps up even more (as it surely will), they'll be back to competing with the airlines for those few people who seem to want a flying career these days. No UAS APOs flying their ar$es off when not working for their degrees, no bursaries (worth less than a few months of supermarket shelf stacking to most students) = no interest except for the RHS of an A320.

And we'll all chorus "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

But it'll be too late then. Tough!

[kippermate]

Roland,

I'd ignore bandit. Remember, to win a pi$$ing contest, you need a kn0b!

:ok:

kipper

[AllTrimDoubt]

...so you'll be volunteering as one then!!!


:cool:

[FEBA]

Bandit - RP
What a couple of twits you two are. This is no place for silly playground arguements, my plane's better than yours etc etc. Give us a break please.
Is there anyone out there with an informed opinion/knowledge of the fate of DEFTS?
FEBA

[BEagle]

FEBA, on the contrary, the debate between the 2 of them is highly interesting.

JEFTS, DEFTS or whatever it's called had a different objective to the UAS scheme. Just as RNEFTS used to have a different objective to the UAS scheme.

Muddled Purple prose led to the stupidity of trying to force unacceptable compromises upon everyone - and neither the Firefly nor Das Teutor are as suitable for Elementary Training as was the Bulldog.

What would I do, given a clean sheet?

1. Retain the UAS scheme, but replace all QFIs with real RAF QFIs, not time-expired ex-senior officers. Abandon the concept of attempting to stream students based on their UAS performance.

2. Re-introduce University Cadetships.

3. Re-introduce a common BFTS at Cranwell on the Tucano for ALL RAF and RN pilot students.

4. Let the RN and Army do their own thing with RW training.

But of course the RAF can't afford any of that.

[AllTrimDoubt]

BEagle

There are some who are most definitely in the loop as it were not just to the history, but some of the proposals for the future.

Some of your statements ring true, but as one who has experienced all 3 types mentioned, then the Firefly is suitable for EFT. A 250'MSD clearance a la 'dog would be an advantage, but it still does the job very nicely and sorts the men out from the boys in prep for BFJT in a way the Grob cannot. (I should imagine that use of the rudder, energy management and the ability to think ahead in aeros to maintain base ht rather than gain during a sequence you would deem acceptable)

And yes, I've also taught BFJT - so I can compare the end product!

Agree that ideally we woiuld all complete BFJT. That would also remove the current snag of QFI's not having previously experienced the syllabus and platform on which they teach!

But please don't lump the RN with the AAC as advocates of pure RW throughput. We value our fixed wing time and gain some useful skills, streaming etc from it.

B*gger - cover blown - chaff banter quick! (Bl**dy Crabs!)

[Roland Pulfrew]

FEBA

You need to re read some of the previous posts. There is no willy waving about ac types (apart from the fishheads);) . I accept that the Firefly is probably the better EFT ac, even though the Tutor can gain height during aeros. Both would ideally be on the military register to allow 250 low level (500' is just @rse) and PFLs to 100' with out worrying about CAA rules regarding PVVS.

And "Yes" about DEFTS!

[pr00ne]

Why is the EFT fleet civil registered? How does it differ from the Squirrel and Griffin RW training fleet that is contractor owned and maintained but fly as military registered aircraft?
The multi engine training Super King Airs have also just been allocated military serials so what is so unusual about the Grobs and Tutors?

[Ullevi]

Any news yet guys?

[Re-Heat]

Why is the EFT fleet civil registered?
To avoid the time and expense of going through Boscombe?

[rafloo]

Why is the EFT fleet civil registered?


simple, to save time and money.

[Flik Roll]

Have heard another rumour that the tutor is apparently to easy to fly and enough people aren't getting chopped so they are going to do EFT on the tucano; like they did with the JP for a bit; as they have spare airframes.

:confused:

[Dockers]

My rumour control says an announcement is expected soon after the election.

[Ranger5]

1. Retain the UAS scheme, but replace all QFIs with real RAF QFIs, not time-expired ex-senior officers.

They are real QFI's

[BEagle]

They are time expired ex-senior officer nontheless - and why should they be employed as UAS QFIs when there is an alleged surplus of ME JOs who would surely benefit from the opportunity to become QFIs at less than half the age (and pay?) of the old timers?

[Skylark4]

BEagle,
What has come over you. You are WRONG.
The University Air Squadron is staffed by "normal" serving RAF Officers, all QFIs except for the odd one who was as above but has now "retired" and been reincarnated one rank lower and is a Civvie in Uniform. (Sorry, can't remember the correct technical term for this.)

The Air Experience Flight is commanded by a full time RAFVR officer, the only full time member of the Flight, supported by volunteer pilots who must have gained Service Wings (any Service) and may be serving or retired members of the forces.
Admittedly, some of these can be a bit gash, blokes like Cliff Spink, Sir Roger Austin, the late Ken Hayre(sp?).

The Aircraft are the same ones shared between the two competing users.

Mike W

Edited to add:-
The C.O. of the only AEF Flight I have any knowledge of, a man of vast experience, his last posting before "retirement", in a training role, personally vets any applicants, does their conversion to type and continuously monitors their performance. I have known him to sack pilots who were not performing as required.

M.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

... which reminds me of popular crewroom rants at training bases I've seen. Why should AEFs be full of retired officers supplementing their pension when there're dozens and dozens of post-BFJT and post-AFT holding officers doing SAC ops clerk jobs up and down the country?

It's a good way to crush a guy's morale. Well done on getting your wings, mate, now off you go to do an SAC's job left gapped because we're making everyone redundant. And you have to do it for 14 months, because our training system's a bit busy with another air force...

Be nice if they could do a flying job, and exercise those shiny new wings.

[Hueymeister]

5 fwd and some back

You are wrong about them supplementing their pension...they get home to duty and max 28 days pay per year...hardly a huge amount of dosh.

[Circuit Basher]

5F6B - as a 'user' of the Air Experience Flights for many years from the Air Cadet perspective (having experienced about 8 of the AEFs around the country over about 33 yrs), I maybe have a different take on it. All of the pilots I have ever met (well, nearly all!!) have been walking talking recruiting posters for the RAF, many of whom genuinely use all of their service experience to enthuse cadets about an RAF career. I believe that to be eligible for consideration as a pilot, they have to have been Combat Ready and have a minimum of 500 hrs total time with 300 hrs as PIC (I'm sure Beagle will be able to correct me on this!). I'm not sure that your average stude after BFJT on a holding posting will meet these criteria and certainly are unlikely have the presence / stature to be able to 'wow' the cadets.

These are genuine enthusiasts (such as former ACM Sir Michael Knight, who was re-ranked to Fg Off with 4 AEF at Exeter!).

[5 Forward 6 Back]

You are wrong about them supplementing their pension...they get home to duty and max 28 days pay per year...hardly a huge amount of dosh.

That's fair enough; apologies for not getting the books out and doing some proper research before posting!

Re: Circuit Basher's comments, I believe it's 500hrs P1 and they must have previously been combat ready. Currently, there are a handful of post-BFJT studes as test cases flying on AEFs (If I remember right, they needed a "high average" pass from Linton to be eligible.).

I didn't intend this to be a rant against AEF pilots. Obviously a lot have some spectacular experience, some great dits, and they're all very nice guys (certainly every one I've encountered has been).

Rather, as BEagle was saying, I think it's a bit off the mark that we're filling what are effectively RAF flying posts with a lot of retired officers, when we have a massive overflow of young, still enthusiastic, capable pilots who are left kicking their heels and making tea for anything up to 18 months between courses. Fair enough, especially when young and inexperienced, they need to spend a hold or two on the front line; learning what happens there, how a squadron runs, and what their future job'll be like. But if you spent 6 months as a squadron holding bod after IOT, then 9 months after EFT, then maybe 14 months after Linton... there's only so much tea making you can take when you wander away from Valley with your eyes on TW in 6 months' time.

Don't want to knock the gents who do a great job on AEFs, but I'm sure that while cadets must be enthused by tales of Phantom and Lightning derring-do, wouldn't they also be quite interested to fly in the seat next to a chap 3-5 years older than them who can tell them a bit about how to get into his job now? When I was a cadet, I never thought for a second I might actually end up like any of the guys who took me AEF flying; but if it was a 22 year old post-BFJT stude, I might have thought differently.

[FJ2ME]

5F6B,

Here , here on your comments. However, you are very sadly mistaken if you think that holding typically takes place on a front-line squadron. True some people ask to do strange and eccentric posts as they are especially interested in something or the location is personally convenient, but many people end up holding attached to dull MOD entities or bizarre ghost stations around the UK hardly anyone else worked.

I know of one such pilot who spent his hold (quite a few months) as guard commander at Scampton... The list we were given after BFJT to chose from had only 1 or 2 frontline squadrons on it. I guess they're too busy on the whole to have some deadweight 'stude' around asking dumb questions. Still, some pilots are glad of the break from flying after the rigours of Linton!

Also, my own previous enquiries about doing something constructive during hold (such as ISS) fell on deaf ears. Basically no-one expects you to acheive anything on hold apart from foreshortening your life due to liver damage! And if you do try to get some ticks in boxes it rarely comes into reality.

I do think that it is a shame that a fair number of highly qualified and motivated people get treated like Ops SACs for months on end when more interesting jobs are around. I know one guy who was trying to get on an AEF but I don't know how it turned out- initial responses were not at all positive however. Still, if you get your finger out and organise it yourself you can have some cracking and useful holds like me!

[5 Forward 6 Back]

FJ2ME; if you have any decent tips for holds, I'd be glad to know, as it appears I'm rapidly moving towards another one...!

If I try to remember my Linton course, we sent 3 to front line squadrons, with the rest doing a variety of things; holding on their old UASs, or sitting doing non-jobs on stations close to the geographic area they said they'd like to be.

I was one on a front line squadron, and while I enjoyed working with the people there, and loved taking a ton of leave after Linton, I didn't really find the job particularly stimulating as I booked my seventeenth set of low level times on a 12 hour shift four months in....

Unfortunately for us, after BFJT, they only asked what part of the country we'd like to hold; there was no opportunity to specify squadron, base, or anything.

There are definately 2 post-BFJT studes on AEFs now, so well done to them. I'm sure that they'll hit whatever the next stage of training is with a fair chunk more enthusiasm, and hopefully some increased airmanship and captaincy skills. Not things you build sitting behind an ops desk, or in a tea bar...

[chippy63]

Why not have a blend of retired senior officers and those on hold?

[airborne_artist]

Why not have a blend of retired senior officers and those on hold?

The retired officers could then teach those on hold usefull career skills, such as ducking the blame, planning well-funded overseas training trips, and how to mix a proper dry martini.

[tmmorris]

Must be said that freshly bewinged JOs might not be quite as sympathetic to the odd cadet who can't really take the aeros, or quite as patient with the thick ones - in my experience of AEF the younger the pilot the more gung-ho. But you do get to meet some interesting types, often only a few months after finishing frontline jobs (e.g. the last pilot I flew with had recently finished as OC of a Jaguar sqn).

For UAS, though, a different kettle of fish: young and enthusiastic might be more to the point.

Tim

[airborne_artist]

Must be said that freshly bewinged JOs might not be quite as sympathetic to the odd cadet who can't really take the aeros, or quite as patient with the thick ones - in my experience of AEF the younger the pilot the more gung-ho.

However, the flip side is that a freshly be-winged JO, who was DE, could be 21/22 years old, taking a 15/16/17 y/o on AEF. That would really motivate those who were already interested in a pilot career.

I last flew AEF in a Chippie aged 17 - less than two years later I was solo-ing one when I passed RN grading at BRNC ....

[chippy63]

Yes, I remember they had some great characters at the AEF at Woodvale in the early 60's- I mentioned to one of them that I was going to Biggin the following week for Flying Schol selection tests and he spent an extra couple of hours giving me valuable hints. Good result, as well:ok:

[winglessone]

Back to the question in hand - does anyone know any more about the future - or even when it will be anounced??!! :ugh:

MOD website still says March, some people saying April, some after the election... will anyone just put us out of our misery and tell us!

Interesting that in the RAF yearbook CAS sings the praises of the ATC and promises his continuing support for them and then says absolutely nothing about the UAS, just that they are being reviewed! Can we take this to mean that our lords and masters have decided we are an awkward distraction???

Keeping us all in limbo cant be good for morale...

[Southern Scottie]

If the UAS go, the AEFs will go too. The gliding schools will follow in due course. I can hear the accountants salivating already.

Retrenchment into a few 'super UAS's' is based on an idea of economies of scale. In the public sector, no economies result from such nonsense.

You can forget about superannuated QFIs, holding postings and all the other whinges. They won't apply..

Lose the UASs and the dominoes start to fall.:bored:

[BEagle]

Rumours reaching me are of 3 centralised squadrons at Wyton, Cranwell and somewhere else in 't North.

In other words, the UASs would lose their individual identities and become some amorphous EFTS. Quite what undegraduates would be supposed to do during term time, I cannot imagine.

Whoever thought up this meddling interference with the UAS system clearly has no concept of the work which UASs did pulling in students who would otherwise never have thought of an RAF career. But, since they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they will no doubt go ahead and ruin the UAS system on beancounter grounds and it will never recover.

If the other rumour of ground training only at UASs is true, then few undergraduates will wish to join a UAS with no flying. The winners will be the airlines and the OTC.

Have 'they' never heard the maxim "Don't fix what isn't broken"?

I plan to go to my old UAS's 70th anniversary soon; I wonder whether it will be around to celebrate its 75th......

But, looking on the bright side, perhaps there'll be some Airships to poke in the chest?

[dogstar2]

I saw a couple of posts about hold jobs and thought that I would give a couple of tips. Yes, holding can easily be a waste of your life, however, if you apply yourself and use some imagination you can easily transform a period of waiting into something very worthwhile.

I held for 30 months a few years back and did a masters at Uni, and got a batch of adventure trg quals as well. The uni stat now, as I fast approach an option, gives me opportunities other than joining an airline, so it has proved to be very welcome. Before asking to be released for the uni course, I had basically lined the whole thing up, chosen a sensible military related (very tenuous, though) subject. I then approached the poster who was delighted that I had solved a posting problem for him. Thus ensued one of the best years of mu life!!

Also you might find that one of the reasons that Front Line Sqns don't have many slots, is that they are pretty busy dealing with things other than holding post paperwork. I bet that if those enterprising holding guys amonst you contacted Sqns direct, that you would be able to square away your own posting.

Good luck

[teeteringhead]

ruin the UAS system on beancounter grounds The writing was on the wall when QUAS got the chop, thereby denying ANY student in NI the opportunity of UAS life.

But of course old chap, QUAS was more expensive than any other UAS............:(

To adapt Pastor Niemoller: "When they came for the UASs, I did nothing, because I was not on a UAS......"

[Southern Scottie]

I assume that RAF Woodvale will be another housing estate by this time next year.

Ah,....progress.....:mad:

[lscajp]

BEagle think its Wyton, Cranditz and Fenton

[Flik Roll]

I hate rumours......

What about the SE and SW of England then!? No southern super UAS?

[Michael Edic]

The only super UAS is ULAS. The rest will just increase in size. Beags, I look forward to meeting you in person at said Capital Air Wing do. I'll be the drunk one leching on some women!! Think I can safely say that without giving my identity away!
Kind regards
Mike

[BEagle]

If the current day ULAS ladies are as delightful as the Witchlettes of my QFI era with whom I still keep in touch, then it should indeed be an excellent session!

[Michael Edic]

Amazingly Beags some are genuinely attractive!! One or two even buy the blokes a drink occasionally. Could it get any better....?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Heard an unsubstantiated rumour today, so thought this was the ideal place for it ;)

UASs to drop EFT for students. Back to "free" flying, but nominally capped at some number of hours per stude. All graduates and DE pilots to one of three bigger UASs to complete a common EFT syllabus post EFT.

Sounds like a good deal to me; the burden of EFT's lifted from uni studes, UASs stay open, and there's a common EFT for everyone.

They'll be sending everyone to the Tucano next :ok:

[scribbler614]

Quick penny's worth from a former UAS stude - 15 years back- now a journo in the national news media.
UAS worked for me, in as much as I left with a working knowledge of the light blue service, and a huge respect for it.
It didn't get me to sign up, and even back then there was a recognition among studes that this was an astonishing freebie which most taxpayers would be fuming about if only they knew, and the whole thing was probably doomed in the long term.
As I recall, virtually all of our number who did go on to serve had already made that decision before they laid their hands on a 'Dog.
But boy, did we have a blast. Summer camp at Laarbruch. Training nights with cheap beer and even occasionally interesting speakers, and the best light aircraft instruction a mere mortal could ever ask for.
Can UASs still be justified, when you can't even keep Coltishall open a few extra months, and the RN can't afford to keep its Harriers until the new toys arrive?
Dunno.
But as someone who now watches defence from the outside for a living, I know one thing for certain.
The RAF has got to get its message across to the public better than it does.
You need them to love you, or at least to care a little bit, and a few displays by the Reds or floats at the Gay Pride parade isn't going to cut it. Splendid though the Reds are.
Tony & Co certainly don't see you as a top priority - if they think about you at all - and there's no reason to think the next lot will, whoever they are, even with the top Whitehall job going to a light blue wearer.
I can't stress this enough.
The Army is twice your size, and they struggle to keep their profile up, and make themselves heard in the outside world, and certainly in the Treasury.
The Cold War left you all with a habit of wanting to be low-profile, if not anonymous. Maybe it made sense at the time, but not any more.
The forces - particularly the RAF - are being hacked to the bone and beyond and there has been NOT ONE SQUEEK about it in this election campaign, even at a time when we're at war, in all but name.
If Joe public doesn't spare you a thought, nor will the bunch of specimens chasing his vote.
I'm not convinced that teaching a few undergrads to fly is the answer - sad to say I don't have one to offer - but Lord knows you need to do something, and I fear scrapping the UASs is indicative of a drift in the wrong direction.

[Spacer]

5fwd... That is exactly what I heard... but maybe from the same people??!! But I hear that's gen at the moment... starting sometime soon!

[Southern Scottie]

Come on, Scribbler. Get scribbling!:8

[Counterfeit_God]

Im currently a MASUAS student, the boss said only a coupla weeks ago that there has been no decision yet as to the fate of the UASs soon as there is ill post.

[lscajp]

I have news on the fate of the UAS system. PM for more info.

<info from an AVM>

[Flik Roll]

Far too many rumours I have heard now!! When are we supposed to find out? Should be soon I imagine?

[kippermate]

I believe that the plans are still subject to ministerial approval. Until that happens everything is still a rumour (even if it comes from an AVM!) Furthermore, I don't suspect that the future of the UAS system will be at the top of Dr Reid's in-tray so we may have to wait some time yet.

kipper

[EESDL]

Latest rumour that has been confirmed by the Barber that's just around the corner from the RAF Club......
1. All Grob Tutors to be melted down to make one good one.

2. Due to the poor development of the area and the fact that the local international airport has not 'taken off', Cambletown International is to be re-named to Macrihanish/Glasgow International and will house the one remaining 'Super Grob' for the sole purpose of showing those students with the means to actually get to Macrihanish/Glasgow International, what an Elementary Flying Experience Facilitator looks like.

3. It was decreed by a chap who was in for 'something for the weekend' that following the RAF's tradition - those affected will be the last to know!

[BEagle]

I hear a rumour that UAS students might be limited to 5 hours air experience flying only during their entire time at University.......

Surely that must be a bolleaux rumour?

[Hummingfrog]

The rumour that I have heard is that the UAS will change its role from teaching students to fly to giving students Air Experience.

One of the reasons behind this is that the RAF, in these times of shrinkage, has no problem attracting people who want to be pilots but has a problem attracting people for the other branches. Traditionally the UAS has concentrated on pilots while other branches have had the odd trip but were usually just social members.

To help attract students to other branches they will be offered Air Experience flights to encourage recruitment. The number of hours has not been promulgated.

Students have changed since my days on NUAS where flying came first and Uni a poor fourth (after girls and rugby). Nowadays students put Uni first, girls/boys second and flying third so continuity is a problem. Hence the idea of going to a super UAS/EFTS after uni has finished.

I look forward to giving AEF to students as I believe there will be a syllabus for them to follow.

HF
(The Glorious 12th)

[Michael Edic]

Hummingfrog,
You forgot beer!

[exleckie]

As one of the grease monkeys who despised jumped up uni kids playing pilots whilst the rest of us played for real,

Well, I think that UAS organisations are a brilliant way to recruit guys n gals from different specialisations into our ever decreasing Air Force.

1. We get officers who want to fly.
2. We get engineering officers who wish to engineer.
3. We get grads who don't want commissions coming in who make d@mned good airmen /women.

Quote, one young holding officer. "Some of my friends from IOT wish they were lineys on the flight line, not like us pushing paperwork around"


Getting rid of UAS's is like building a third rate supermarket. Lots of shopping material but buying a quality brand becomes a distant memory





Exleckie

[Alchef]

So any facts guys???

[ladyfly]

A letter was issued the other day listing AEF'S and UAS's that are to remain open, I wasn't privy enough to see it, so if anybody knows anything, please pass it on.

L'Fly

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

With pilot numbers set to reduce over the next 15 years it is inevitable that the emphasis of the UAS' should adjust away from the overwhelming focus on pilots. We also need to attract high calibre doctors, engineers, WSOs and OSB officers etc. An introduction for students to the military with a bias towards the air environment will be, in my view, continue to be of benefit.
In the past, the attitude on the various UAS' towards ground branches, and indeed the navs as well, varied greatly in attitude. I was fortunate to be on a UAS that took an interest in the ground branches (thanks to Ray and KB et al), even if the boss at the time was a bit of a tool.
My limited (and indeed on my part particularly inept) introduction to flying the Bulldog was, however, very useful to my understanding of aircrew workload when I went through FC trg. Additionally, some 19 years after I joined, the UWAS mafia serves me well to this day when dealing with various fast jet mates! Also, when Neat closed for example, the OC Ops Wg, Stn Cdr and the IntO were all ex-UWAS - perhaps that's why they closed the place!
Anyone remember what all the categories on the 'gap board' were? Very non-PC but most amusing.

[Jackonicko]

lscajp

"I have news on the fate of the UAS system. PM for more info."

Check your PMs.

[Alchef]

lscajp,

Any chance of that PM please???

[durpilot]

Hi all,

I was wondering if the UAS system does close down as we we know it, does anyone know will it be phased out or an automatic chop?

[Hueymeister]

Come on then...

[Wholigan]

FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kippermate]

It has still to reach the suits.

Till then...........................


kipper

:ok:

[AllTrimDoubt]

Oh fer heaven's sake - am out here 3000 miles away (on holiday though ie 3000 miles in the "right direction"!) and want to know what I'm coming back to!

[Wholigan]

And so asking for even more ill-informed bollox and guesswork from people who actually have no idea what is going to happen but have heard something on good authority from the girl-friend of the milkman whose sister works in the Officers' Mess at Innsworth is going to tell you what you are coming back to?????

Yeah right!

;) :E

[BEagle]

Well, the latest rumour I hear is 30 hours.......

Spread over 3 years.

Which they think will equate to a NPPL with SSEA Rating.

Which it clearly won't. That wouldn't even come close to meeting the NPPL syllabus requirements and it is highly doubtful whether any of the theoretical knowledge could be credited. And I say that as the person who wrote the current NPPL military accreditation which was based upon 'traditional' UAS instructional practice. If that changes, then so will the level of accreditation.

But perhaps The Doc will grab whichever pratt thought up such a stupid idea by his apologies for testicles and tell him not to try to fix what ain't actually broken.

[teeteringhead]

An introduction for students to the military with a bias towards the air environment will be, in my view, continue to be of benefit. Which was exactly the original point of a UAS.

'Twas all part of Trenchard's great plan to make the whole country "air minded", and to emphasise the independant air force.

Cranwell (real Cranwell as in Flight Cadets) was for officers, Halton for apprentices. The UAS (first was OUAS in 1923) was not meant as a recruiting or training tool, but to show the future "great and the good" (doctors, lawyers, teachers and "captains of industry") something of this new RAF. And of course the idea was copied (and is still used in its original philosophy) by the Cinderella Service's two Ugly Sisters.

Flight Cadets and Apprentices are a thing of the past, so why should they keep the UASs ....:(

I refer you once again to the words of the Rev Martin Niemoller .....

[Dimensional]

The UAS (first was OUAS in 1923)

No it wasn't! Primus et Optimus ;)

The trouble is, while all this is eminently a crying shame, you have to admit it makes sense if you're going to rely on EFT for streaming to not try and do it at the same time as a University course ... and by 'course' I mean something other than 'Underwater Basket Weaving with Macrame Studies'. Speaking as someone who's about to complete EFT and is doing a demanding degree, streaming is big-time stress.

-D

[Ullevi]

Anyone know what the deal would be with going away for the summer when a student on a UAS?

I know summer camp is compulsary but i was thinking about doing Camp America next summer. UAS would take the priority over anything else though.

[kippermate]

Ullevi,

Ask your Boss. I'd let you go to Camp America provided that you realised that you would (probably) have to forfeit your bounty. You may even be able to make up your continuous training when you came back from the US. If you dont ask....


kipper

[Studefather]

For something affecting several hundred students out there, it's all gone a little quiet.
Does everyone 'in the know' already know, or are we all (sensibly) waiting to hear the official pronouncement?
Any informed advice appreciated.

My name probably gives the game away.
PM if you prefer.

[BigGrecian]

Studefather wrote:
Understand that from Sept UAS flying will be AEF only and the EFT course will be terminated.

Can anyone confirm anything - or am I just speculating and spreading rumours? :cool:

[Alchef]

The latest over the weekend from my squadron xxI was that by July all QFI's would be restreamed onto real a/c and back into real jobs.

Bosses will be given ground duties and all flying will be done by AEF pilots with UAS studes as "Jollies", non instructional and unstructured flying.

There will be little or no solo flying, if there is it will be circuit bashing and nav stuff only, see you later GH solo!

30 hours per year for every UAS stude, pilot or doctor and everything in between.

There will be 3 DE training bases, Cranwell, Witton and another??

If you finish EFT this summer then you don't have to do it again, if not you will.

This whole shake up will save 2 Million in QFI salaries (apparently).

What about all the APOS doing EFT who used to be Off. Cdts??? £20+K p/a as opposed to £1500 p/a.

Its all on Reid's desk, just waiting for the signiture.