Any advise please?

[phil2005]

Hi all,



I am currently in my gap year, and am hoping to apply to an University air squadron (UAS) when I start university in October. Prior to my gap year I was award an RAF sixth form scholarship (leading to university sponsorship) in the general duties branch (pilot).
However, I was not ready to go to university and was certainly not mature enough/prepared to commit myself to the RAF for the required length of service. So, I took a gap year. In my time off/working I still have the same fierce desire to fly, if not more so, and now feel ready to commit to the RAF.
As I have said, I am hoping to join the UAS, as a pilot, and my question is whether I will be treated as a normal applicant, or whether I will be turned away because I rejected the scholarship? Also, will my apptitude test scores still count?

Any advice would be gratefully received,

[Safety_Helmut]

Any advise please?
Buying a dictionary as soon as possible would be a good start !

Safety_Helmut

[phil2005]

Ok point taken, although, I was hoping for some advice relating to my initial question......but thanks anyway

[rafloo]

Clearly you are not reading English Language then?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Welcome to PPRuNe ;)

Regarding your post, don't you think it's a little irrelevant? If you want the job, you're going to need to apply and find out whether or not they treat you differently in the interview.

I'm sure that most OASC board members would pick up on the fact that this is "take 2" for you and I'd expect some slightly awkward questions. Why did you apply for a 6th Form Scholarship if you didn't think you were mature enough to commit to the length of service, or hack university? Why should they believe you've changed? Why do you think you deserve a second chance, when there are dozens of applicants who would have chewed their and your arms off for the opportunity you had?

You'll be treated as a normal applicant; they won't reject you out of hand because of this, but don't be surprised if it comes up in conversation. If I were you I'd get some spectacular answers together for questions like those above.

As far as aptitude tests go, if I remember right the majority of the tests are time limited. Hence you'll resit some, but not others.

[Jackonicko]

The RAF always attracts more high calibre pilot applicants than there are training slots available. Even in years when applications slumped and available slots soared (the 'easy' years).

High quality, high calibre candidates are NEVER guaranteed a place at FTS.

And things are particularly tight at the moment. A glut of trainee pilots in a shrinking air force. Many PPRuNers joined an RAF with 30 fast jet squadrons (Gulf War 1) but we're now looking at the real likelihood of a long term structure of just 12.

The recruiters only need the best of the best.

Virtually everyone they see at OASC will have "the same fierce desire to fly" that you have, if not more so, and (for many) their commitment to the RAF will be longer term, will not have so obviously 'wavered', and will not be 'an issue'.

Of course it will count against you, though it could be argued that your actions showed some maturity, and some realisation of how serious a commitment was required. But you need to do something that will 'remove' the question mark that would now make your application 'stand out' for all the right reasons.

It will also count against you that you are a year older than your contemporaries at Uni, and (stupidly) it may even count against you that you want to go to Uni at all. There seems to be a growing shift towards DE. I only hope that you're going to be reading something that the RAF views as 'relevant'.

In fact, in your situation, UAS service may be an excellent way 'back in'. It may be slightly easier to get onto your UAS, and if you do succeed, you can then use your service to demonstrate your commitment and qualities. Nothing will impress OASC more than a glowing report from your UAS CO.

My 'advise' would be to develop more of an eye for detail, in order to present yourself in the best possible light, and to avoid looking slapdash. ("I was awarded" not "I was award.."

[Training Risky]

Dude, some helpful posts here, and some not so helpful.

The main thing to take away is that there are a lot of re-streamed pilots in the rotary and multi pipelines who (through no fault of their own) have been denied the chance to fly FJ due to the lack of spaces on the front-line.

Good luck in any case.

[Bunker Mentality]

What you did in your gap year is also important. If you spent it smoking whacky backy in Jamaica you're not likely to attract much interest. If, on the other hand, you flew round the UK in a microlight, raising a gazillion squid for the RAFBF in the process, you'd be a shoe-in.

[phil2005]

Thanks for the advice,

In my gap year I worked for an aerospace engineering company (Sept-April) and am going to an American summer camp setup for homeless New York City kids to teach swimming/be a counsellor from June till Sept.

Luckily for me I am not reading English at uni, I shall be reading math and economics, would this be considered relevant? I would assume Aero eng, physics and math to be high on the preferred list of degrees.

[effortless]

Why did you apply for a 6th Form Scholarship if you didn't think you were mature enough to commit to the length of service, or hack university?

Beacause he was immature, why else?


Why should they believe you've changed?

Because he is demonstrating the maturity to know that he was immature.

I have sat on a few appointment boards, only civillian and I have to say that the fact that you took time to think about it would be a plus with us.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I'm not saying he has to answer me, I'm saying that I'm sure the board will ask at least a couple of those questions. ;)

[Tourist]

Jacko,
You say that "(stupidly) it may even count against you that you want to go to Uni at all. "
Why is this stupid? Lots of evidence that catching them early is a bonus for everybody.:hmm:

[Jackonicko]

I think that the RAF needs a mix of DE and UAS blokes. As educational standards plummet (as evidenced by grade inflation and the proportion of those going on to Uni) I believe that if the RAF is to get people of the necessary calibre it will have to increase the proportion of University calibre entrants (who are now broadly equivalent to DE blokes of ten or twenty years ago), and not decrease it. Moreover if the forces are to reflect the society they serve, then they must (like society as a whole) have a larger proportion of graduate level people.

In today's climate, if you want graduate level people, you're probably not going to tempt enough of them in before they have the chance to exploit their opportunity to go to Uni. Any sensible young bloke who's worked hard enough to get to Uni is going to want a degree as a fall back position, and will relish the social, sporting, fun and UAS opportunities that a degree course will provide, rather than wanting to go straight from the grind ofA-levels to the grind of (waiting around for months on end to start) Cranwell.

Moreover, it seems to me that recruiting a bloke at 17.5 will give you someone who (generally) will often lack the maturity to hack many aspects of training (today's school leavers are much less mature, much less self sufficient, and on the whole have less nouse, grit, and initiative than their predecessors). It also seems to be being used to allow stupidly long holds, rather than in getting blokes to the frontline at an early age.

Of course a youngster will absorb training better and quicker than a 21 year old graduate, but if that graduate has done three years on a UAS, he may have other advantages that more than compensate.

As I say, the existing, mixed system has worked well, and I think that viewing a UAS graduate as being somehow inferior to a DE 18 year old (and discouraging your entrants from maximising their potential, maturity and qualifications on those grounds) is stupid, short sighted and counter-productive, and will lead to declining standards.

[kippermate]

I agree completely with Jackonicko. Until the Services introduce a degree scheme that is worthwhile, and the government are determined that far too many school leavers should continue to university, the the military will have to either recruit more undergraduates/graduates or the calibre of recruits may drop. Although I am informed that there is no lack of volunteers for pilot.

As for Phil2005, apply to join a UAS, but be prepared to answer the difficult questions. Blow you own trumpet, but try not to sound too cocky. If you come across well at interview, there is no reason that you will not get invited to join.

Good luck

kipper

:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Jackinoko is right but remember they are recruiting OFFICERS and not pilots. Aircrew is but one option. If you have no fall back position, ie pilot or bust, then bust it may be.

The degree modules you re considering look good, on paper, al you have to do is look at the passing out details at Cranditz. What? Only a B Eng?

:D

[Tourist]

Absolute B@llocks.

With a graduate you get:
Shallower learning curve
Not enough ability to take discipline
Career compression
Probably serious girlfriend therefore unwillingness to deploy
Useless knowledge about Geography, Law, Fashion, basket weaving etc
Greater expectation of wage etc therefore more disappointment
"Maturity", if by that you mean set in their ways.

The fact that everybody gets a degree DEVALUES them, not the other way round.

Get em young when they learn fast, enjoy mess life and more importantly LOVE going away around the world.
Its a young mans game, so if anything turn Dartmouth, Cranwell, Sandhurst into 6th form colleges and go from there.
(and don't get me started on this Officer first rubbish:hmm: )

[Pontius Navigator]

Tourist, agree with everything you said and even the last sentence - maybe.

But the last sentence is the cruncher. No OQs, no chance. Simple.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

With a graduate you get:
Shallower learning curve
Not enough ability to take discipline
Career compression
Probably serious girlfriend therefore unwillingness to deploy
Useless knowledge about Geography, Law, Fashion, basket weaving etc
Greater expectation of wage etc therefore more disappointment
"Maturity", if by that you mean set in their ways.

Rubbish! I learned faster as a graduate; I picked up the BFJT and AFT courses much quicker than I remember picking up anything when I was faffing around as a 19 year old. I've not spotted many graduates interested in the military who can't take a bit of discipline, and serious girlfriends?? Who marries the girl they're with at 20 during a degree? ;)

Career compression? If my direct entrant mate and I serve until 55, you get an extra tour out of him. I'm sure that won't be an utter career stopper if a graduate has what it takes.

Greater expectation of salary is fair enough, but I don't think many of us are disappointed with it; I'm very happy with what I get paid.

And I know nothing about geography; :} but I don't think there's much wrong with me wanting a decent degree from a decent university to start using at interviews if I ever have my eye poked out in the bar ;)

You can generalise anything; but I'm pretty certain that I was a much better bet through Linton and beyond as a graduate than I would have been as an 18 year old. You only have to look at the number of hedges I woke up in at uni to know that .....

[Jackonicko]

Though it was always claimed that ex-UAS mates were more likely to 'go all the way' and to successfully pass through AFT/TWU, and though it was said that ex-UAS mates were more likely to serve to 38/16 (and beyond) I am not for one moment suggesting that the RAF should aim for an all-graduate pilot entry, though three years on a UAS is a remarkably effective and cheap 'filter'.

The existing system, and the existing mix of DE chaps (fresh from A-level) and grads, works well. Some blokes would be useless to the RAF at 18, but are a great bet after three years growing up and enjoying UAS etc, while others would be past it and stale if you waited a moment past their A-level.

Once people have done two tours they're pretty well indistinguishable. Some of the best and brightest are DE, some are ex-UAS. The existing system ensures that you get the best from both worlds.

If it ain't broke, then why fix it?

And if it needs fixing, then is dropping the entry standard the right way to do it? 20 years ago, only the top 2% went to Uni, and the RAF relied on this top 2% to provide just under half of its pilots. Now the top 40% go to Uni, and you're talking about recruiting only from the rest......

And with regard to your specific points:

"Shallower learning curve" - nonsense - it depends on the individual and a three year UAS course can provide a firm foundation that compensates, and a knowledge of what "you're letting yourself in for" that provides useful motivation.

"Not enough ability to take discipline" - unfounded over-generalised prejudice.

"Career compression" - would be a good point if DE blokes' younger age wasn't used to allow an inefficient system to give them longer in pointless andunproductive holding posts.

"Probably serious girlfriend therefore unwillingness to deploy" - or more eager to get away, perhaps!

"Useless knowledge about Geography, Law, Fashion, basket weaving etc" - it may have been different in my day, and/or at the UASs I know about, but about nine in ten guys on my squadron were studying Aero Eng, Mech Eng or Eng. I was the only arts undergrad in my year, though there was a dentist the year above me, and a biologist the year below.

"Greater expectation of wage etc therefore more disappointment" - maybe.

And I stand by 'maturity'. Most 18 year olds regard 12 years as a life sentence. Most graduates view 16 years as entirely reasonable. Nor are graduates the 'inflexible' 'set in their ways' chaps you caricature - most have trained minds that are more open than those of callow youths with GCSEs!

[BEagle]

When we wet-behind-the-ears Flight Cadets were told in 1968 that 'They' had decided that as many people as possible should go to University, we were told that "The self-discipline developed as an undergraduate to complete academic studies whilst completing military obligations will benefit both the Service and the individual". Or words to that effect.

With school academic standards plummeting, I find it astonishing that people are being encouraged not to go to University.

Why do they want more non-graduates to join the RAF? Simple - they won't need to pay them as much and they'll get more productive service out of them. It'll also give them an even greater opportunity to put the skids under the UAS system to save a few pounds for Greedy Gordon (or hopefully his opposite in another party).

However, joining younger means that the magic 2000hrsTT/1500PIC will be gained earlier, so young Bloggs will have his ATPL or CPL/IR in his back pocket sooner and wil be able to escape to the airlines sooner.....

[Need for Speed!]

I do agree with Jackinocko that the RAF needs a mix of DE and UAS candidates but i also disagree with some of the reasoning...

20 years ago, only the top 2% went to Uni, and the RAF relied on this top 2% to provide just under half of its pilots. Now the top 40% go to Uni, and you're talking about recruiting only from the rest......

Surely what you're looking for is quality of individual, not what percentage of society they are from. It doesn't matter whether someone has been to uni, is coming straight from school or has been in employment for a few years, if they have what it takes - recruit them! Having recently finished EFT on a UAS, i wouldn't follow half of that 40% to the pub, let alone to war.

"Career compression" - would be a good point if DE blokes' younger age wasn't used to allow an inefficient system to give them longer in pointless andunproductive holding posts.

Maybe. However, I am currently gaining plenty of experience in the UN Command HQ in Tokyo and would argue that the productivity of this holding post is unparalleled by any other post I may have as a junior officer in the air force.

Most 18 year olds regard 12 years as a life sentence.

Disagree. Most guys I joined with are on PC's. I fully intend on staying in until 55.

I am in no way saying that DE's are the only way forward for the future, I just think you need to strike the right balance and recruit the right people.

[Weezer]

Phil,

Ignoring the drivel about relevant merits of degree vs DE, you need to consider what you are going to do if you don't make it as aircrew (many don't). Are you prepared to consider a career in the ground branches? If so maths/economics degree should demonstrate that you're trainable and most branches will be open to you. Something more focussed towards applied engineering is necessary if you want to go for Eng O (not physics or maths).

As to the year out - you look like you've done something reasonably worthwhile - make sure you window dress it properly, so you stand a fair chance.

Good luck

[phil2005]

Thanks again guys,

When I applied for the Sixth form scholarship I was clear that it was 'pilot or bust' for me, and my desire has not changed and neither will my focus.
With regard to the DE or GE debate, I think that it is very much dependant on each individual. If at 17/18 an applicant demonstrates the qualities that the RAF requires then DE would be a good choice. Where as, if at the same age they (the applicant) still showed most of the qualities but a clear potential for growth then spending 3 years at Uni would probably be the better choice. Of course in either case there is a risk that, in the first instance the applicant was not ready for officer training, and in the second, three years at Uni could destroy the qualities previously demonstrated.

[chrisburden21]

Looks like I took a rather different approach in my application.

Been at University for 2 years, applied DE for Pilot, and have booked a place on Novembers IOT. Definately not a guaranteed route, but worked for me.

Just highlighting the different options available!!

Good luck in what ever approach you choose.

CB