UASs CUT

[Styron]

Shameful blow to RAF
21 September 2005

Shadow Defence Secretary Michael Ancram has accused the Government of undermining the future capability of the Royal Air Force after the Labour-run Ministry of Defence announced dramatic cuts in training for University Air Squadrons.

Unveiling new plans for the UASs, junior minister Don Touhig said that from now on university students hoping to join the armed forces would be offered a fuller range of personal development and leadership training, while those who decide to become RAF pilots would undertake their elementary flying training after graduation.

He said this would provide a greater continuity of training for UAS graduates than the current system, under which elementary flying training is provided to university students during their degree course.

But Mr Ancram warned that the shake-up would have serious implications for RAF training and recruitment. "Currently 60% of RAF pilots and 25% of all RAF officers are recruited through University Air Squadrons. Parliament should have been consulted before any decision was taken," he said.

Accusing the MoD of deliberately misleading MPs, Mr Ancram added: "Two months ago my colleague Gerald Howarth raised the issue with the Minister who was either unable to give the answer either because he has no idea what goes on in his own department, or because he was unwilling because he was hoping to bury the bad news during the recess. In both cases he shamefully misled the House."

He added: "The breaking of the Minister's personal assurances is an unforgivable discourtesy to the House and another blow to the RAF that continues being treated in the underhand way."

[BEagle]

Does anyone have the full text of this outrage?

Is there anyone stupid enough to bother joining a UAS which doesn't provide real flying training?

[Rakshasa]

As it ate into my revision and coursework time I wouldn't have bothered without the flying training. :(

[ACW599]

For shame. Sic transit gloria mundi.

UWAS Ruled OK.

[Jackonicko]

As accurately trailed on this board, and as reported in the current 'October' issue (in the shops for a good week now) of Air Forces Monthly.

[pr00ne]

"RAF pilots would undertake their elementary flying training
after graduation."


WHERE?

Back to DEFTS or will the EFT Flights still exist on the UAS's????

[Malissa Fawthort]

First we need to look at how and why we got to the position we were in with UASs until this latest announcement. The “system” (outside the RAF) was going to force the closure of UASs. In order to defend the existence of the UASs, they were tasked to do Elementary Flying Training, and thus the argument could be used that they were an integral and essential part of flying training within the RAF, and they were therefore saved from extinction. Nobody really pretended that this was a genuinely good thing, but it was certainly better than losing UASs.

The basic premise behind this latest change is – in my opinion – right, although if I were asked I would have to say that there would be better ways of achieving the advantages that the new system will bring (but that’s another story).

“What advantages?”, I hear the cynics amongst you screech.

Under the recent system of doing EFT on a UAS, the students had to try to manage the priority dilemma which they all faced. Did they concentrate on their degree and thus not perform well on EFT? (Remember that they were being streamed at the end of EFT!) Or did they concentrate on their EFT and achieve a lesser value degree? Of course those who were doing a degree that did not tax their capabilities too strenuously may have been able to balance their work such that they did well at both. However, a student doing an aeronautical engineering degree would have had considerably more difficulty doing this balancing act than someone doing media studies (sorry if I’ve just pi$$ed anybody off).

Furthermore, the UAS students doing their EFT over 2 or 3 years (with the associated currency and continuity problems) were being compared for streaming purposes with DE students who did their EFT in approximately 3 months, thus achieving excellent continuity and currency. The DEs also did not have to concentrate on anything but their EFT.

So – as I said – in my opinion, the basic premise of separating EFT and UAS flying is correct. If money were no object, I would have preferred to see a reversion to the old system, where UAS students did real flying training, but this did not really count towards their EFT, but merely reduced slightly the number of hours they flew during their formal EFT course. This would – again in my opinion - be considerably better than the new system’s 10 hours per year of flying, which will (incidentally) include GH, basic IF and navigation – dual and solo (about three-quarters/one-quarter I think).

Bear in mind that the students who achieve their UAS flying and then go on to undergo formal EFT after IOT, will have had 30 hours or more of “free” flying which will stand them in good stead during their formal EFT course. No reports will be raised on them or their flying performance on the UAS, and each EFT student will be treated on their merit from a “level playing field” start to the course.

The “new” EFT courses will be undertaken initially at 3 EFT bases; Cranwell, Church Fenton and Wyton. Each of these bases will have 9/10 QFIs and will run overlapping courses of about 13/14 students on each course.

Why I said 30 hours “or more” is that each UAS will be given a pot of flying hours based on their student establishment (all branches). Thus, if a UAS has 70 students, it will have a task of 700 hours per year. If some students do not wish to fly or only wish to have the occasional AEF-type air experience ride, then the hours they do not use will be shared amongst those who wish to undergo a more structured form of flying.

Under the new scheme, UASs are now still formally protected from closure and are accepted as an essential pillar of the RAF. However, there are still some large unanswered questions (actually – un-asked questions in some cases) that will need to be addressed before the new system can be brought in effectively.

In all, I think it’s not a bad effort, but I would have preferred a total reversion to the “old” UAS system.

[Jackonicko]

I cannot see why one lot of aeroplanes and instructors could not have done three jobs

1) Traditional UAS flying for undergraduates
2) EFTS flying for Direct Entrants with any post graduation 'top-up' for 1) above if they had not achieved the EFTS output standard.
3) Tradional AEF for cadets

Why did UAS undergraduates have to do the EFTS course during their time at Uni?

The cost was negligible, and the system paid for itself.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Malissa

You weren't at a briefing at at a secret air base in the East Midlands today were you? Your brief seems remarkably similar to one I heard this afternoon!!!

Jacko

The reason for doing this is to take the 'added pressure' of doing EFT and a degree at the same time away from Unis students. Remember that some of the UAS students do meet the end of course standard but may not receive a fast jet rec. The levelling of the playing field means that DE and UAS students will now have an equal chance of getting a FJ rec through continuity of training. Indeed it could be argued that UAS students will now get a better chance of the FJ rec as they will have received 30+ hours more than their DE colleagues.

In addition costs have driven the need to reduce the flying done on UASs. We all agree that it would be miuch better to go back to the UAS system of the 80s and 90s but the savings generated under the old sytem (short courses on JP and Tucano) are no longer there. Students are streamed from EFT and all do the same length course on their next stage of training be it DHFS, BFJT or METS.

[Malissa Fawthort]

Jacko:
Why did UAS undergraduates have to do the EFTS course during their time at Uni?

See above:
The “system” (outside the RAF) was going to force the closure of UASs. In order to defend the existence of the UASs, they were tasked to do Elementary Flying Training, and thus the argument could be used that they were an integral and essential part of flying training within the RAF, and they were therefore saved from extinction.

[Jackonicko]

No, sorry.

That explains why it was necessary to have a DE EFT flight on each UAS, and not why Uni undergrads had to participate in that scheme.


Roland,

The saving to which I referred was the improved likelihood of ex-UAS blokes to make it through AFTS and TWU to get into a FJ cockpit. It was always reckoned that the saving in Hawk hours alone more than paid for the entire UAS scheme.

"It was found that UAS trained pilots were more likely to pass through basic and advanced flying training successfully, and to make it to the frontline as productive fast jet aircrew. HQ PTC discovered that a UAS-trained pilot who started Basic Flying Training had a higher chance of getting to a Fast Jet OCU (a 95% chance of success) than a non graduate 'Direct Entry' (DE) pilot with exactly the same aptitude test score. These DE pilots were calculated to have only an 85% chance of passing through Basic Flying Training, with an even slimmer chance of making it to OCU. The lower 'failure rate' of ex-UAS pilots on the Jet Provost and Hawk resulted in a considerable reduction in 'wasted' flying hours (given to pilots who would not become productive RAF pilots) and the cost savings (with Hawk flying conservatively estimated at £8,000 per hour) more than paid for the entire UAS system. Moreover, the 5% of ex-UAS pilots who did not make it to a Fast Jet OCU were significantly more likely to become productive rotary- or multi-engine pilots than DE 'washouts'."

In other words, a UAS trained bloke had a 10% higher chance of getting to a FJ OCU than a DE bloke with exactly the same aptitude test results had of making it through BFTS.

[Wholigan]

No, sorry - it doesn't. The UASs started doing Elementary Flying Training as a direct result of the threat to the existence of UASs. Much later it was decided to add a "DE flight" to the UASs as a result of the decision to pull out of JEFTS and to do ALL EFT on UASs. Prior to that you had EFT at JEFTS - AND - EFT on UASs..

[flipster]

I am disappointed and saddened that our leaders cannot see the writing on the wall.

10 hrs of non-accredited 'air-experience' and a bit of 'mil leadership training' (that won't be as good, or as fun as that which the OTCs and URNUs get)
WILL NOT ENTICE 'THE RIGHT STUFF' TO JOIN THE UAS - nor, in turn, the RAF!

This is sad because the RAF will need to be recruiting MORE, NOT LESS, of the country's very best undergrads. In turn, this is because, for the first time for many, many years, a greater majority of our pilots will have to have single-seat FJ potential.

What about Direct Entry pilots - won't they save us?

I don't think so as, these days, nearly every 18 yo of any quality wants a degree, while DE TOS must be very unattractive to todays 'youff'. Furthermore, with today's apparent educational standards, those that want DE may be less likely to be of the right calibre. That is a sweeping statement, I know, and there will be some very good DEs, for sure. However, in IMHO it is unlikely that many 18 yo DE junior officer pilots will be as good as those of even a few years ago.

So, to turn what was an excellent recruiting tool (UASs were the best society in uni and always oversubscribed) into probably one of the worst, is totally counter-productive to our long term needs.

The people who we will need to recruit are intelligent, full of life, with a fair amount of panache, confidence and awareness but whom have not yet necessarily decided on a mil flying career. Regrettably, I do not see the proposed UAS structure as having the anything like the attraction equivalent to that of even the most recent incarnation of the UASs, let alone the pre-1995 system. It is more likely to attract military 'cabbages' who couldn't get into the OTC or URNU.

All this just to save the 'five-eighths of the square-root of f@ck-all' at a time when the competition from the Airlines to snap up air-minded graduates is really hotting up? This is pure folly!

I might be wrong but I would not mind betting that in a few years time, we will be revisiting the UAS structure......... but then it will be way too late!

RIP UAS (...... RAF?)

[BEagle]

Well put, flipster!

And just what is the "more structured form of flying" supposed to consist of, Melissa? What will the course consist of (in both theoretical knowledge and flying training content) - and who will conduct the training?

3 years of watching someone else's flying? What a daft concept. Some happy Hunter hero living out past dreams by inflicting his aeros sequence on his reluctant passengers four times a day whilst telling them how good it all was 40 years ago? Bolleaux.

Forget the UAS, join the URNU or OTC, have fun and get paid for it!

How can the airships get away with cashing in the family silver in this way?

[durpilot]

I was wondering if someone could confirm if this announcement made earlier today means that the UAS system as we know it is now over from today or has the whole brainless idea still yet to be signed off.

The reason I ask is recently a certain group captain gave us briefing in our crew room and he told us the crossover period between the new and old systems might be immediate.

Personally as a student pilot on a UAS I cannot agree in the opinion that this is better deal for anyone, with effectively 50 minutes flying a month on the new system compared with approx. 2 and a half hours a month on the old system [excluding IA trips]. As regarding the continuity issue isn’t that why we had IA trips! And although one may argue the competitiveness of getting streamed FJ on this new system is better, it was as I saw it, the students decision, he/she could either press on, granted with periods off for academic study [although this did allow time for refection on the previous sortie], or he/she could take it easy over the 2/3 years and then compete EFT after IOT.

“We are told from the beginning that we should respect our senior officers, yet it is these officers that have made the RAF and all of our services it is today.” Lets bring back some senior officers with some backbone and brains that have are not purely concerned with the objective of promotion, regardless of the consequences.

[SSSETOWTF]

While I wholeheartedly agree that this is a crying shame, I'm not sure it quite represents the outright catastrophe that some suggest. I'm absolutely sure I'd still want to join the UAS if I were at the Fresher's Fair this autumn. I would have thought there are still hundreds of teenagers out there who spend their youth going to air shows, playing flight simulators and dreaming of flying a fast jet down the Welsh valleys (I'm not the only sad one am I?). For people like that 10 hours of flying in an aerobatic aircraft and low-level nav down Derwent Water (?) will still be very attractive. And as has been mentioned above, probably well over half of my old UAS didn't come close to flying 30 hours a year anyway (maybe I went through with a particularly apathetic bunch though?).

On a slight tangent, while I wouldn't want to suggest that we don't need to take the cream of today's graduates, I'm not sure I agree with the argument that it's a show-stopper because Typhoon is a single-seater. I think the RAF are a bit wrapped around the axle about single-seat pilots needing to be sky-gods or something. I think it's largely a function of our current platforms. I mean the Jag, pre Jag-96 days was an ergonomic disaster, and the Harrier's always had a bit of a reputation for being a little unforgiving at times. Maybe there's a bit of a hangover from Lightning and Hunter days too. But the rest of the world send their 'average' pilots to fly the Viper, Hornet, Mirages etc. where they usually have a radar, a designation pod and all sorts of weapons to play with. I'd hope that Typhoon should be quite an 'easy' jet to fly, and the cockpit looks like it's had some thought put into it. So I would hope that anyone who graduates from Valley should be as eligible to fly Typhoon as anything else.

I still think the biggest shame is that the UAS regional trophies aren't decided by an aero's routine fly-off (but then that was always for the lucky 1 on the sqn that got it).

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[BEagle]

But SSSETOWTF, the point is that those folk who would have joined the UAS because they were going to be taught to fly will now think twice about joining... And I'm pretty sure that the vaguely stated "....fuller range of personal development and leadership training" won't be of much interest to potential recruits either. What does it mean anyway - 3 years of muddy romps with pine poles and wet tents? Hardly has the allure of solo aeros, does it?

30 hours in 3 years.......woeful.

Having learned what URNU do in fast patrol boats, I wouldn't bother with the UAS. Period. I could always learn to fly at a civilian flying club later on in life if the RAF can't afford to teach me at university any longer. But I could never afford to go to sea in a FPB unless I won the lottery - so I'd join URNU instead.

See http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1967.html

[durpilot]

I have to second what Beagle says about joining the URNU, as they do everything the UAS’s will do including the possibility of going flying at one of there camps down in Plymouth.

Secondly most universities have AT and gliding clubs that don’t involve compulsory meetings listening to sometimes times complete drivel on why we should drop everything we worked for and join the regiment as a gunner compare this to the uni clubs where we meet socially during the week and then at the weekend go out an actually do something fun and relaxing - with the knowledge that if we do have a bit too much fun too many times it can’t effect our chances at the time of application to the RAF.

I just can’t see people joining the new UAS system who are not already extremely keen on joining the RAF and therefore apply anyway, thus eliminating the people who firstly may join and be converted to joining the RAF after being lured by the free flying. And secondly, and probably most importantly missing out on the people who will go on to high profile jobs in the civie world, who understand the concepts of the RAF and what it stands for etc etc.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Jacko

I understand what you are now getting at. Unfortunately in these days of beancounters (who know the cost of everything....) your assessment of the savings paying for the UAS system is very difficult to prove and even harder to cost!

With regard to the flying TRAINING that will be undertaken on UASs I understand that there will be a structured syllabus, that all instruction will be undertaken by Q qualified pilots, the syllabus will mirror to some extent the NPPL syllabus, the flying will not be assessed (except for fit solo/not fit solo), pilots will continue to follow the current syllabus until the new syllabus is in force and the 30 hours is not capped. For those students who do not want to be pilots their flying can be tailored to meet their needs - if they just want to do the Dams Run everytime they fly then they can, if they want to progress through the syllabus and do the solos then they can - it will be their choice.

Oh and there seems to be no shortage of volunteers at recruiting, even when the new system is explained to them.......so far!

[teeteringhead]

Wonderful timing too .... I will watch with interest the imminent recruiting for the UAS I share an airfield with ........:(

[EESDL]

Forgetting about the sorry demise of once great UAS system, will these new female recruits you alluded too be at The Display Pilot's leaving bash????

[Pontius Navigator]

Flipster wrote:

<<I don't think so as, these days, nearly every 18 yo of any quality wants a degree, while DE TOS must be very unattractive to todays 'youff'. Furthermore, with today's apparent educational standards, those that want DE may be less likely to be of the right calibre. >>

There are pros and cons in this argument and it is another sign of the magic roundabout. If we accept that the educational output at 18 is not what it was we must also accept that the same is true of university. I make that assumption on the basis that the first year is now making good any knowledge or skill gap at school. The range of degrees on offer are also questionable. So our 18 year old that wants to go to university must also be selective in what degree course they embark on. In other words they must already be aiming at military flying.

What hasn't been stated in this UAS release is the shift to getting in DE aircrew at 18. The training system then handles any academic discrepancies and the 18 year old enters productive service 3 years earlier and can leave after a couple of productive tours whereas the UAS man may be seeking out after one tour - but that is less attractive in terms of hours and experience!

Do UAS make better aircrew prospects? As I said before, of 6 ex-UAS only the two who wanted to be navigators made it straight through the system (and the only two who got their PFB). Of the other 4, all became chopped pilots and only one got through nav training.

From that I would conclude that they did not have a better chance of getting to a FJ cockpit but a better chance of staying in the system so we would get a return on our money.

From this end of the tunnel that looks a very dubious prospect especially as we marked the 3 failures as high risk at the meet and greet!

[BEagle]

The NPPL syllabus defines the dual and solo content required - basically a total of 32 hours of which 10 must be solo. That excludes the Navigation and General Skill Tests, each of which are about 90 min and must be flown with a UK/FE(PPL).

The Navigation Skill Test must be on a route which the student has not practised before, dual or solo. So no cheating by flying it dual beforehand! The NST must be passed before the Qualifying Cross-Country (including 2 intermediate landings at aerodromes other than the point of departure) is flown.

The theoretical knowledge syllabus is very specific.

The current level of accreditation agreed by the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee for UAS students seeking a NPPL with SSEA Rating was based upon 'traditional' UAS theoretical and flying training. However, a decision taken in committee in June this year, chaired by the CAA's Head of Licensing, requires that, once the 'new' UAS syllabus appears, the NPPL Policy and Steering Comittee will decide how much credit the new scheme will be given towards the NPPL with SSEA Rating - and it is by no means certain that it will receive the same levels of accreditation as hitherto.

The NPPL P&SC will be requesting early sight of the 'new' UAS ground and flight training courses in order to approve the appropriate level of accreditation.

Roly - what are 'Q qualified pilots'? Do you mean QFIs? Or something else? Recent conversation with the relevant CAA Head confirms that only flying training conducted by a current QFI on type or the holder of a current civil FI Rating may be counted towards licence issue. Any other 'air experience' flying will be considered to be passenger flying only.

[flipster]

If one of my 'flippets' ever wants to join the mil after uni (if they get that far), then, certainly, I would not recommend the proposed University 'Ground' Sqns - the OTC or URNU would get my vote - depending on whether my 'precious ones' prefer eating mud or salt water!

Even with the 'attraction' of 10 hours air experience a yr, any undergrad worth their salt would think likewise - EVEN those already wanting to join the RAF after uni! Intelligent youngsters are more than capable of reading between the lines and they will know they would get a better deal (AND MORE FUN) with properly run units, rather than with the shambles that UASs are doomed to become.

If we continue down this path, we are in danger of losing out to the RN and Army and, as I have said before, to the airlines who are staring a shortfall of pilots in the face.

Spirit of Lord Trenchard - where are you now?

[rodan]

As one who spent time in the UAS system during the 3 years that straddled the switch to EFT, I am dismayed at this neutering of the UAS system.

The EFT idea was always a bad one, although it perhaps delayed this inevitable outcome by a few years. The old system, however, had much to commend it - bright undergrads were given the time and space to work on their degrees whilst gaining invaluable experience, in both flying and the RAF way of life, with no pressure other than passing checks and proving themself not to be a pillock in the bar. No need to prove fast jet potential, that could wait until EFT proper when they would bring their accumulated experience and 100% of their effort to bear on the task.

So what will we have now? 3 years of IOT preparation with a laughable nod to what really drives these people with 10 hours a year of AEF? I might have joined a UAS like that, having spent several years in the ATC and made my mind up a long time before that I wanted to join the RAF. Would a proportion of my erstwhile colleagues, many of whom are now RAF aircrew, have joined? Doubtful.

The fight for the brightest and best graduates is more intense than ever, and the forces are not in fashion at the moment. 'Advanced Air Cadets' is certainly not going to help the cause.

[Large Dave]

Hello all,

I'd just like to add my comments to Flipster and Beagle's concerns about the effects on recruiting.
They are concerned that only 10 hours of flying will turn people off the UASs and on to the URNU/OTC/TA etc. I don't believe this to be the case.

Firstly, the reduction in flying hours is not as dramatic as first appears. 10 hours a year is more than most old-system ground branch generally did anyway. Yes, there are a few keenies who bag all the STC trips going, but these will still be around. Also, if the pilot chaps divide their course evenly over the three years it amounts to 20 hours a year, which is a mere 10 flying hours less.
The cut in flying does not therefore seem that significant.

Also, the UAS seems to mainly recruit two types of people: Those who have done Cadets etc and are looking to pursue a career once they grad, or people who see the opportunity at Freshers' Fayre and decide to give it a shot. Neither types are being put off by the changes. The ex-cadet types still want what flying there is and prefer the RAF culture over the Trench-digging and the off-to-bed-early of the OTC and the URNU. The guys who find out about the UAS from Freshers' Fayres haven't got a clue what EFT is anyway, and get sold on the UAS by the Sports and AT as much as the flying. We still have the edge over the other services.

In-fact, we are finding that as the entry criteria for Pilots (specifically anthropometric and medical) is no longer a player, many more undergrads are eligible to join. We therefore have a much larger pool from which to cream off the top candidates. This can be only a good thing for the UASs.

Dave.

[Jackonicko]

Rodan,

As someone who straddled the change, can you tell us when that was?

When did DE blokes start pitching up to do EFT on UASs?
When did uni undergraduates start flying an EFT type syllabus on UAS?

Large Dave,

How does 30 hours equal 20 hours per year "if divided evenly over three years"?

[Large Dave]

Jackonicko,

Was referring to the 60hr EFT course on the old system, if taken over the three years amounts to 20/yr.

DAVE

[BEagle]

Sorry, Large Dave, but you overlook the fact that this proposed University Air Cadet system will be competing for recruits with URNU and the OTC.

I've also noticed that one reason behind this UAS dumbing-down is to increase the availability of AEF flying for air cadets. Presumably to entice them into becoming DE pilots rather than going to university?

Was it all really that expensive pre-1995?

[rodan]

Jackonicko:

I might not have been 100% clear. The change I was referring to was when UAS training assumed the status of EFT. The syllabus had been the same before the changeover, it just didn't count as EFT. After the switch, students who completed the syllabus were streamed at the end and went straight to BFT after IOT. This was, as I recall, in '97 - I can't be 100% sure though.

Edit - BEagle seems to be suggesting the switch was in 1995. I'll go along with that, he would know better.

I don't know when the DE's started pitching up on UAS's, probably after I left in '98. However, the year after the switch one of our ex-stude's came back after IOT to complete the syllabus.


Large Dave:

Was the old system not 90hrs? I certainly did more than 20hrs a year.

[Large Dave]

Rodan- the old-old system was 90hrs, then they brought the UAS syllabus in line with the DE one- 60hrs. This happened Summer 02.

Beags- On the biggest and the best UAS which you know and love, we're finding no impact on recruiting. As I said, we're getting many more eligible applicants because of the loss of Aircrew med and anthro requirements.
At the time the Freshers are joining, they don't seem to care if its 'just' 10 hrs a year- it's more than they're going to get digging foxholes or floating around at a VNE of 20kts. The UAS still give all the AT and Sports that the OTC and URNU have, and the socials are in a different league.
The only impact I see this having is the possiblity of disheartening existing members who may now decide that the OTC or URNU 'floats their boat' more than the new UAS system, but again, I don't really see what they've got on us.

Dave

[BEagle]

Well, I think they'll soon get bored with it. Travelling all the way to Wyton just to play Air Cadets for 3 years?

Nope - not for those with half a brain.

OK - so now you can recruit lots of pretty little girls who would have been too small to train properly under the traditional scheme. Lots of moist, pink, nubile young things who'd rather flutter their eyelids at your aeros than rush half-naked against Jerry.

Haaang on........

(With apologies to Capt E. Blackadder)

[Bob Viking]

I think I can answer that question.
When I attended Cranwell back in September 2000 three of my colleagues (one of which is sat right next to me now as a fellow Squadron pilot) were specially selected to be the first DE course, held on Yorkshire UAS.
Fact.
BV:ok:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Yeah, they did DE's on YUAS and ULAS once every few JEFTS courses just to relieve the load on JEFTS (aka MELINLIN) until beginning of '03, thereabouts, when the whole chabang went to DE flts all over the place....

[Michael Edic]

Hi all,
Whilst I detest the idea of any dumbing down of the UAS system if Large Dave says that there is no effect on recruiting I am inclined to believe him, he is somewhat in the know at present.

I know this may not be what UAS were originally designed for and may not meet with a lot of appreciation here; but genuine flying training for all, irrespective of (potential) branch, may well attract a higher proportion of talented non-pilots who may contribute much to the service in their own way.

In addition the keenos will get much more than 10 hours a year.

On the bright side as UAS are still in existence I will be able to maintain my superhuman fitness levels with occasional runs to Harrods and back.

IS THERE A ULAS IN THE HOUSE???

Regards to all

[Crashed&Burned]

So it's goodnight from the UASs and therefore it's goodbye to the AEFs.

That kinda takes the Air out of Air Training Corps. Will the ATC merge with the Army Cadets? Sounds logical.

The RAF is fast becoming invisible..

C&B

[UberPilot]

I will mourn the loss of the UAS's as I knew them. They were, without a shadow of a doubt the best club/society in the entirety of the British tertiary education system, and probably one of the best recruiting tools for any organisation.

As regards the issue of continuity and how the new system will be better as it gives more continuity etc for all Pilots, I have heard it said, and it makes a great deal of sense, that more contunuity will mask some weaknesses to a certain extent. It's a lot harder to study and then to prepare and fly a "complex" EFT sortie (LL Nav etc) every few weeks without having the basic continuity of a DE to fall back on (i.e. checks, basic handling, general aimanship etc). So, although this is both a pro and a con, every sortie you had to spend the first 10-15 mins regaining the feel for the aicraft and so on, as well as achieving out the aims of the sortie. BUT, if you can do it you demonstrate more potential and thus identify yourself as a good candidate for BFJT. This, however, is only my personal view based on my experience.

EDIT: This is in no way meant to be a DE v UAS post, nor I one better than the other - i'm just saying that I don't believe the argument for binning EFT on UAS's based on continuity is valid.

[Bob Viking]

MELINLIN
You obviously know what you're talking about then!!
Some people on here really need to remove the noose from around their necks and forego the suicide plans for a little longer.
In reality it probably won't change very much at all. Why don't we wait a while before getting all morose and whiney. Lets leave that to the Navy. It's what they're best at!;)
As for all this UAS is better than DE cr@p. It's a very old and boring argument. One which I really can't be @rsed to dignify with a response. Am I to consider myself a freak statistic then. Graduate DE, JEFTS to single seat fast jet. Or am I just on the extraordinarily long METs syllabus!!
BV

[joe2812]

I would have thought there are still hundreds of teenagers out there who spend their youth going to air shows, playing flight simulators and dreaming of flying a fast jet down the Welsh valleys (I'm not the only sad one am I?). For people like that 10 hours of flying in an aerobatic aircraft and low-level nav down Derwent Water (?) will still be very attractive.

That's me.

the point is that those folk who would have joined the UAS because they were going to be taught to fly will now think twice about joining... And I'm pretty sure that the vaguely stated "....fuller range of personal development and leadership training" won't be of much interest to potential recruits either.

Unfortunately that's also me.

I'm off to Uni on Saturday and have been looking forward to going for a UAS place for as logn as I can remember.

Of course i'll still go for it, but I am still truely gutted it's not the UAS I was hoping to join.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Well, that's that then. We all saw it coming and now it's happened. The only problem is how to faithfully follow a plan that throws up more questions/problems than it solves:

10hrs a year - or 7.5 in Scotland!
- either way that's not enough to stay current - so what's the IA allowance for currency?
What is the true benefit of this system?
Will a flying instructor who teaches the NPPL syllabus truly still be a CFS-worthy QFI?
With one QFI per UAS, the young guys can't develop and very few old guys can offer the same energy to PDT...so who gets to be the chosen one then?
How will the AEF cope with the extra tasking (and will they want to for the same wage)?
Who will train and standardise the old-guard and how will they find the time to maintain our time-honoured proficiency?
Why weren't CFS standards involved in the planning thus far, and what are their thoughts on this standards nightmare-in-the-making for the rest of the RAF?
Will we have to put up bar prices to cover lost Pigz board earnings?

and on and on and on.......

The goat is out and running - and this time he's on acid :ok:

But like everything else at the moment, we must somehow find the answers and cobble together a result for the studes' sake......

Oh for a simple front line job....

:hmm:

Uncle G

[BEagle]

"Will a flying instructor who teaches the NPPL syllabus truly still be a CFS-worthy QFI?"

Not sure what you mean by that, Uncle G.

Only flight instruction conducted by a current QFI-on-type or the holder of a current and valid civil FI Rating may be counted towards licence issue.

Anything else will be considered just passenger flying. As the CAA are already only too aware....

[Large Dave]

Joe,

Don't jump on this melodramatic bandwagon. Did you really want to compete on streaming with guys who were doing EFT full time when you were earning a degree as well? This change works out to your advantage.
People here are recommending looking at the OTC/URNU. Some of them were commending this even before the change because of the EFT issue.

If you do decide on the UAS:
You will receive 10 hours flying training on an aircraft that would cost you a shedload to hire if you could find a flying club that had a comparably well-equipped, perfectly maintained aerobatic machine.
You will be taught by RAF QFIs with a wealth of experience that you would be hard pushed to find at a Civilian club. I was taught by a former F-16 QWI. You don't find many of those instructing PPLs.
You'll be treated like an adult, not a squaddie.
It's the best way to set yourself up to do a job that most people would give their right arm to do. (They'd find it difficult to do without their poleing arm though.)
You'll develop friendships for life with like-minded people and experience a level of camaraderie which you probably won't have encountered before.
You can go ski-ing, sailing, canoeing or pretty much whatever you fancy that's outdoors or sporty for a stupidly cheap price.
We'll pick up any travel, food or accommodation costs.


And we'll pay you.

The UAS remains the best thing you can possibly do as a student.

Dave

PS- on the UAS, you'll have plenty of chances to go and get cold and tired with the OTC for the weekend, or to arse around on the URNU's dinghy (make sure it's not your turn to blow it up.) When the OTC are offered a 20 minute AEF trip, they give it to their one of their top Cadets as a prize. Nuff said.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Gents

As with any 'change management' (to poach from the thread on management bolleaux) the devil is in the detail. Does anyone have a copy of yesterday's MOD Press Release? There is a lot of rumour and supposition being posted here as an example:

So it's goodnight from the UASs and therefore it's goodbye to the AEFs.

Just where did that come from? The AEF task remains and will likely increase.

10hrs a year - or 7.5 in Scotland!

Why only 7.5 hours in Scotland? It is 10 hours per student per year. Those that are keen will get more (assuming that some do not take up there current allocation - quite a few current students don't make 10 of their 20 currently!)

We need some fact here and need the press release.

Beags Q qualified as in QFI.

[Large Dave]

21/09/2005 10:58

Ministry Of Defence (National)
REVAMP FOR UNIVERSITY AIR SQUADRONS




The future of the University Air Squadrons has been reaffirmed under
new plans announced today by Defence Minister Don Touhig.

A review of the shape and size of University Air Squadrons has
determined that the undergraduate programme can be made fairer for
University Air Squadron (UAS) students, who will no longer have to
juggle a degree with achieving the high standards expected during
formal elementary flying training.

From now on, UAS students will be offered a fuller range of personal
development and leadership training while at university. UAS students
who decide to become RAF pilots will undertake their elementary flying
training after graduation at the same time as all other pilot entrants
to the RAF.

This will provide a greater continuity of training for UAS graduates
than the current system. Currently, elementary flying training is
provided to university students during their degree.

UAS flying will increase at some bases as the training is centralised,
and it will cease at a number of bases. The changes will not of
themselves drive any airfield closures.

Up to 10 hours a year of light aircraft flying will still be available
to all UAS students. The reduction in UAS flying will allow for an
increase in Air Cadet air experience flying.

Defence Minister Don Touhig MP said:

"The changes I'm announcing today will increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the successful University Air Squadron programme, by
making it the right shape and size for the modern RAF.

"University Air Squadron students support the changes, as the system
will become fairer. The changes will resolve the students' conflicting
pressures to achieve a good degree and the highest standard during
their elementary flying training. Instead, they can achieve both, as
well as receiving first-class personal development at university from
the RAF.

"The University Air Squadrons themselves, in turn, will now be able to
put more emphasis on the personal and leadership development of all
potential officers regardless of which branch of the RAF they wish to
enter."

Notes to editors

1. The results of the Air Cadet experience flying review will be
announced to Parliament after the recess.

2. Following these changes, the following airfields will no longer be
used for University Air Squadron Elementary Flying Training: RAF
Benson, RAF Cosford, RAF Leuchars, Colerne, RAF Leeming, Glasgow
Airport, Boscombe Down, RAF Woodvale and RAF St Athan. RAF Cranwell
will see a slight reduction in flying, due to a reduction in
instructor training, while RAF Wyton and RAF Church Fenton will see
some increase due to the establishment of new training squadrons to
meet the elementary flying training task.

3. University Air Squadrons currently have a total undergraduate
membership of some 1,000. Elementary flying training is the first
stage of RAF formal pilot training. The training is coordinated
through RAF Cranwell.

4. 21 RAF posts will be abolished as a consequence of the review. Post
holders will be moved to other duties.

5. This is one of two studies; the other focused on Air Cadet flying.
It is anticipated that the second study will bring benefits to cadets,
and these will be announced to Parliament shortly.




Client ref 202/05

GNN ref 121327P

[ShyTorque]

It's understandable that some don't see how the RAF will be able to recruit the "right stuff".

You're all missing one bit of information. They're bringing back national service next year...... :E

[BEagle]

"The University Air Squadrons themselves, in turn, will now be able to put more emphasis on the personal and leadership development of all potential officers regardless of which branch of the RAF they wish to enter."

But what precisely do those empty words mean? Muddy pine pole romps and wet tents, plus turgid 'air power' lectures on training nights?

Large Dave, you are attempting to defend the indefensible. The whole problem started when some idiot decide to introduce UAS streaming.

As I said it would.....

[idle-centralise]

So they want UAS's to concentrate on officer development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was what IOT was for, and that was a big enough nause when it used to be six months, never mind now that it's been extended by eight or so weeks. 4 years of IOT style $hite whilst at Uni? No thanks, I'd rather go out and enjoy myself with my mates. Going to a freshers fair and walking up to some random and asking if they want to do some "officer development"; they'll laugh in your face!

Incidentally, I don't buy all this stuff about degrees detracting massively from your performance at EFT. If you can't do a decent degree, get a reasonable grade and devote a day every two weeks to flying and most of your summer and still do well enough in the flying then you are not good enough to be in the RAF as a pilot, and the sooner someone lets you know that the better. The training only gets harder. Much harder. And in the future you won't have a couple of weeks to read up on the next stuff you are doing, you'll have a couple of hours.

I managed it, lots of my mates managed it, and we're all still in the system, which works the way it is. It's not broke...........therefore........

Would prefer to see everyone go Tucano and then get streamed though, especially with the extra capacity at Linton at the moment and the long holds.

I-C

[Uncle Ginsters]

Sorry about the abbreviated post:

Beags:
Will a flying instructor who teaches the NPPL syllabus truly still be a CFS-worthy QFI?
- Referring to the reduction in syllabus content for the UAS QFIs to teach. Will future UAS QFIs be a lesser version of those operating in EFT Schools? If not, how will they keep current in order to be assesed on sorties that they're no longer teaching?

Roly,
Why only 7.5 hours in Scotland? It is 10 hours per student per year.
Apologies, but i was led to believe that it was a 30hr allocation in toto. Scottish degrees are a standard 4yr duration giving 7.5hrs/yr. Either way - even 10hrs per year isn't enough to keep a stude current under the current regulations. This could lead to 'pulsed' continuity - or flying only happening over Summer Camps. Do the ac then sit dormant for the remainder of the year? Do the AEF have the surge capacity for this as well as their ATC tasking?......

Why couldn't we just wait for MFTS and replan then? We're not saving any money here at considerable f%^kabout-factor.

My main point still stands...the unanswered/unanswerable questions are endless.

Per Ardua :ok:

Uncle G

[Combine Harvester]

Large Dave seems to have hit the nail squarely on the head. This announcement has been met with much melodrama, wailing and collective gnashing of teeth, but with most arguements based on speculation, supposition and emotion rather than balanced reasoning. Surely the inclusion of broader RAF training, not flying alone, should open the UASs up to those seriously interested in an RAF career, including the ground branches. The UASs are, indeed, one of the best societies at uni and are oversubscribed. However, is this because the Nation's undergrads are clamouring to serve Queen and Country or could it be that they see it as a ticket to some free flying, lots of cheap booze and a good social? I don't see any problem with separating the wheat from the chaff and attracting those with serious military (not necessarily flying) ambitions and binning the 'passengers'.

Let's try and remember, chaps and chapesses, that the RAF comprises more than aircrew alone and, whilst flying is our Service's primary role, the other branches need high-calibre recruits too. These changes to the UAS structure, shifting the focus from purely flying to more 'personal and leadership development of all potential officers' should produce more balanced individuals and should be welcomed.

[BEagle]

"That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Yes-man Party and can be heard later tonight on BBC2"

"These changes to the UAS structure, shifting the focus from purely flying to more 'personal and leadership development of all potential officers' should produce more balanced individuals and should be welcomed."

OK - I'll ask yet again. WHAT DOES 'personal and leadership development of all potential officers' ACTUALLY MEAN? WHAT WILL IT CONSIST OF?

The UAS chaps and chapesses I was honoured to instruct were extremely well balanced individuals. If not, they were soon winkled out and binned.

[Combine Harvester]

BEagle, m'dear chap,

There was nothing Party Political about my post, nor am I a Yes-man; far from it in fact.

I just feel that shifting the balance from purely the flying aspects of the RAF to inform and develop a broader knowledge of the Service rather than developing the 'head up own @rse' attitude of many of the UAS members, with whom I have come into contact of late, to anything other than flying must be a good thing for the Service, surely?

[BEagle]

Developing a broader knowledge of the RAF in general was one of the many reason we used to deploy to an operational RAF station for Summer Camp.

But the UASs don't ven do that any more. Partly because they can't afford it and partly because there are so few operational stations left with sufficent accommodation.

As a student I went to on camp to Thorney Island, Marham, Newton (OK - perhaps not operational but busy with training airmen then), Lyneham and Abingdon. As a QFI, to St Mawgan and Benson. Our students only really started to work as a team during such Summer Camps.

In any case, who the heck really wants to spend 3 years learning about the Royal not-Air Force? It would probably put any intelligent youngster off for ever.

Sorry, but I still consider this dumbing-down to be inexcusable.

[Uncle Ginsters]

CH,
Whilst it has always been in the interests of the UAS to get away from the 'head up own @rse' (as you put it!) attitudes of studes, things have already changed greatly. In the last few years alone there has been a change in emphasis towards the Leadership, Development and Service Trg side of life - like it or not. This is due mainly (but not solely) to the GTI (SGT PTI) on Sqn strength. None of the other staff are trained in PDT or such things - although we may soon have to be.

Yes - it will be a good thing to develop this further.
However, the outlook for the RAF's Pilot Recruitment plan can only be a more grim one than at present. You only have to look at the quality of some of the DE and 1st year Bursers (all branches) that have succeeded at OASC. It is not by any means as high as someone that we would recommend for entry into the Service apparently they have good raw aptitude though!

"An AGILE and ADAPTABLE Air Force that, person for person , is second to none, and that is able to provide a WINNING air power contribution to joint operations in support of the Defence Mission"

Are these changes going to help the RAF Vision in a flying sense?
The groundies will get a much better service out of the new system, of that there can be no doubt.

Uncle G

[jayteeto]

This news is not great, but there is one important thing that I can see happening. Correct me if I am wrong, but this means EFT is not going to be done at UAS. This has to be a good thing. The graduates I joined with many years ago all raved on about how UAS was great fun with a bit of flying thrown in. When EFT was introduced to UAS, the pressure was on and the fun factor reduced. Could this be a compromise??

[cockanelli]

Its been a couple of years since I've logged in to this site as I get bored enough with all the bitching at work. It's nice to see the same uninformed people spouting b*******, (BEagle).

I am in the middle of the changes at the moment and for the actual students, it will be a much better deal.

1. They are not limited to 10 hrs/yr. That is just how the hrs are calculated for the sqn. There should be enough people who try it once and get sick or just don't want to fly for the ones who do to fill their boots. Its for everyone as well.

2. They don't have to stick to a set in stone syllabus. If they want to do aeros, they can do them. If they want to get a PPL accreditation, they can do that. If they want to have a look at LL nav then they can do that. It is much more flexible for them.

3. There is no pressure for them to complete difficult coursework and then have to do a whole nights work to remember how to start the thing and then get bollocked for forgetting to set 1013.

4. They get loads more AT. For everyone.

I am a product of EFT on the UAS's and I coped but I would have far rather done it in 1 go in 4 months to get the continuity.

I await the wrath of the old timers. He he

[BEagle]

Sorry, Hercules child, it is you who is sadly misinformed. I have had, shall we say, a reasonable amount of correspondence from people over this issue and all have been unanimous in their criticism of this proposed change. In fact some very heavy guns are beginning to mobilise....

The PPL or NPPL accreditation WILL be reviewed - particularly the credit for theoretical knowledge.

Increased low level flying to give ground branch candidates air experience might well prove to be a political hot potato. "Horse rider killed by joyriding air force" might be a future headline, perhaps? Structured low level flying training is one thing, joy riding quite another.


And surely you've been in the RAF long enough to be able to spell that infamous Cypriot beverage....

Well, I suppose it is Friday evening....

[Malissa Fawthort]

Just so you have something to go on, this is the proposed outline syllabus. As has been said many times already, this is not concrete and can be extended by the use of hours not used by those who may not be interested in doing the "structured flying".

___________________________

Familiarisation 0:45 (dual)

Effects of Controls 1 & 2 1:00 (dual)

Straight & Level 1 & 2 1:00 (dual)

Climbing & Descending 1/Medium Turns 1:15 (dual)

Climbing and Descending 2 1:00 (dual)

Stalling 1:00 (dual)

Stalling 1:00 (dual)

Consolidation 0:45 (dual)

Circuits 0:45 (dual)

Circuits 0:45 (dual)

Circuits – First Solo 0:50 (dual) 0:05 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Forced Landings 1:00 (dual)

Forced Landings 1:00 (dual)

Sector Recce/Consolidation 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH/Sector Recce 1:00 (solo)

Steep Turns 0:50 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Basic Instrument Flying 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Basic Instrument Flying 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Navigation 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Navigation (Landaway) 1:15 (dual)

Navigation (RTB) 1:15 (dual)

Navigation 1:15 (dual)

Solo Navigation 1:15 (solo)

[BEagle]

Much of that syllabus meets NPPL Phase 1 to 3 requirements - but it begins to diverge in the latter stages and there are a considerable number of omissions when compared with the NPPL syllabus. Particularly with regard to the navigation section.

For a course spread over 3 years, there's precious little dual GH in the latter stages....

What ground training is envisaged?

[Jackonicko]

30 years ago, a school leaver with two A-levels was one of the academic elite. Every Direct Entrant was part of the cream.

University graduates were even rarer fish.

Today, even the laziest, thickest, mediocrity can attain a pair of A-levels, while even a degree is not the indicator that two A-levels once were.

And at this very time (when non graduate level people arguably ought to be rejected out of hand) the Royal Air Force is looking to decrease the proportion of graduate aircrew entrants, and to increase the proportion of DEs.

And I'd suggest that many of today's 21 year olds are less mature, less ready to absorb training, and some are less able to 'fit in' as grown ups in a crewroom than yesterday's school leavers. And why should they be? Most of them haven't been allowed the freedom and independence that their predecessors had, and have been cosseted and spoiled by over-protective parents.

The Brass keep insisting that DE's absorb training better, that they reach squadrons younger, and give greater return on service. But the real reason is that PMTC can easily dial in huge holds when the trainee is a youngster, and can camouflage their pi.$$ poor organisational performance .....

There's a place for graduates and DEs in the RAF, I'd have thought. The system of taking a mixture of both 'ain't broke' and doesn't need fixing.

[Large Dave]

Ooh sorry for my late reply, I've been busy beating off very high calibre people wanting to join the UAS with a big stick (crikey) and they still keep coming. I even booked some interviews for a couple of URNU guys who have seen the light but couldn't join last year due med.
Officer Development doesn't mean pinepoles. The new IOT doesn't even get the pinepoles out AFAIK. They're not cool anymore.
What is cool, however, is going Ski-ing, canoeing or whatever AT-ing for cock-all personal contribution, getting CILOR and getting top-notch instruction. This is what is meant by Officer Development.
Example, some of the guys have just come back from a bit of a walk and canoe in the Black Mountains area (Lord Hereford's Knob and all that). Yes, there was an element of damp tents and Rat-packs about it, but they all had a right old laugh getting through it and learnt a load about themselves. And in this increasingly expeditious Air Force, that's just the sort of stuff I believe we need and we’ll be seeing more of it under the New Regime. Hurruh.


Dave

[cockanelli]

So then BEagle, you're taking 2nd hand info as gen., as always. I've had the briefs first hand and although on the surface, it does seem like a bad idea, it really is not. It is not that I have been brainwashed, it is just that with all the information to hand, I have come to the conclusion that it is not all doom and gloom but that there are an awful lot of positives to come out of the Marston Plan

[BEagle]

"Example, some of the guys have just come back from a bit of a walk and canoe in the Black Mountains area (Lord Hereford's Knob and all that). Yes, there was an element of damp tents and Rat-packs about it, but they all had a right old laugh getting through it and learnt a load about themselves."

All very laudable - and the sort of thing I did in the CCF or at Cranwell.

But it hardly puts much Air into University Air Squadron, does it?

I believe you mean an 'expeditionary' air force, Large D, rather than an 'expeditious' one? Or did you mean 'expedient'? That'd be very worrying.....

And cock-anally, as I'm now a civilian it's pretty self-evident that I don't get briefed at first hand, isn't it?

[cockanelli]

Don't talk about what you know nothing about then, We don't do personal abuse in here -- even asterisked out personal abuse!

Are you a little bit wound up now?

[BEagle]

Such sparkling and well-honed wit. Is this a typical example of the 'kewl-yoof cuwcha' now allowed into a once fine Service?

In answer to your question, no.

[Rahboy]

Like many, I was following the UAS situtation with trepidation. I'm (reasonably) recently ex-UAS and didn't find the currency issue a major problem. In fact I was told that this was taken into account at streaming boards - was that not the case, Large Dave?

When I heard the expected decision had been made a few days ago, my initial reaction was similar to that of Beagle's - another ill-informed decision from higher echelons that would have short term benefits but long-term disadvantages. However, having read some of the comments regarding recruiting, I suspect (and hope) that my fears may have been unfounded. If the posted syllabus is accurate, then it will still give a good grounding for the UAS guys and girls when they go to JEFTS; if the 30 hours can be supplemented due to another's lack of interest, all the better.

All in all, if the interest at freshers' fairs keeps up (and if not, I', ready to be shot down), there is a chance that the UASs can benefit from these changes, as painful as it is for me to say so.

One quick question - are the 10 hours a year available to any member? If so, surely there must be some medicial before sending people solo?

Regards,
The premier squadron to fly from Wyton

[Biggus]

Rahboy

On ten hours a year who is ever going to go solo?

[cockanelli]

The flying is available for anyone. Even those who are already sponsored in a non-flying branch.

The med will give them A3G1Z1, which roughly equates to similar to a PPL med. Basically, if they can walk to the RMC thats a pass.

The hrs are recommended to be taken in 'lumps' to give a certain amount of continuity and as I said before there is no cap on the amount of hrs per person.

It has been quite a while since i have been described as a yoof - Thanks.

[Wholigan]

The 10 hours per year are available for all UAS students of all branches. As far as I know, an NPPL medical is the equivalent of a heavy goods driver medical. However, UAS students need a medical category to participate in AT, so medicals will still be required. Such things as a need to wear glasses will not debar people from flying on a UAS. I think I'm right in saying that all UAS students will undergo a medical examination and will recieve one of three grades: "fit" which will allow them to proceed if they wish into the RAF as aircrew; "fit UAS flying only" (self explanatory); or unfit (will preclude flying, but not sure if it will preclude joining the UAS, but I'm sure someone will tell me).

[BEagle]

The NPPL Medical Declaration basically requires that there should be nothing in the applicant's medical history which would preclude him/her for meeting the standards required for a professional driving licence. If those cannot be met, but the applicant can meet private driving requirements, a more restricted NPPL Medical Declaration may be made.

The important point is that the Medical Declaration must be made to the applicant's own GP, who has full access to the appliant's medical history, rather than to a CAA AME.

Service scholarship students on the Barrie Smart or Sir Philip Sassoon schemes are examined by Service doctors who hold CAA AME authorisation and are assessed to normal JAA Class 2 medical standards.

[blagger]

Have been reading through all of this on the UAS changes. Few things that still puzzle me -

- Some people seem to be missing the fact that all the QFIs will be gone from most UAS's - will all the AEF pilots have the time/inclination to go back to CFS and get a QFI cat back again? If they don't want the hassle/commitment, doesn't all this look rather shaky. How many of the AEF pilots have never been QFIs and will they have to do the full Tutor QFI course?

- If all the QFIs have gone, who will be staffing all these wonderful new activities - are we posting in ground branch officers to replace the QFIs? I can't imagine (and wouldn't blame them anyway) the AEF pilots will take any part in town nights etc...

- I guess the limited amount of flying means that UAS studes will get flying kit on a day loan basis like the AEF cadets - many might scoff but I think the issue of flying kit to studes is an important part of the UAS system. I'm just imagining all these UAS students loving to wear blues/CS95 all the time...

Might be worth staying with/getting into a VGS (Volunteer Gliding Squadron now!) while you're at uni instead now - I know you won't get the AEF pilots experience and a fast, aerobatic ac - but you do get stacks of flying hours, captaincy time, chance to instruct etc...

[Uncle Ginsters]

Blagger - couldn't agree more about the AEF.

They are generally well-minded guys with the love for flying. But let's remember one thing - they don't get paid! (with the exeption of OC/DOC). Is your bog-standard line AEF pilot going to want to go through all of the hassle of getting CFS qualified, then with every sortie, going through the Brief-Teach-Debrief-Report cycle with periodic standardisation and assesment? All these guys want to do is pack in as many hrs as possible. I can't see AEF pilots wanting to live at Cranditz to qualify - Are CFS standards going to detach to AEF stns to qualify these guys?

What about the hrs issue? How many AEF guys are still professional CivAir pilots? Can you imagine the Chief Pilot of CosyAir telling his boss that he's unable to fly as he's used up all of his hrs instructing UAS studes? (...enter Beags with the regs...)

The 'plan' (if i may be so rude as to call it that) appears to be based around the couple of AEFs in Middle-England where pilot recruitmant isn't a problem, and most staff are ex-senior officers/QFIs....that is not the case everywhere else.

We're in for a very interesting cross-over period, methinks. :rolleyes:

Uncle G

[Spiney Norman]

Chaps.
As a mere civvy, sorry to butt in but does anyone know what impact this will have on the future of Woodvale?

Spiney

[Skytrucker]

The new Woodvale Estate comprising 3,4 & 5 Bedroomed individually styled picturesque executive houses. The plans are already drawn up. Give Redrow a ring.;)

[BEagle]

Or perhaps M*rst*n Enterprises? :\

[DB6]

The “new” EFT courses will be undertaken initially at 3 EFT bases; Cranwell, Church Fenton and Wyton. Each of these bases will have 9/10 QFIs and will run overlapping courses of about 13/14 students on each course.

Wait....wait...that's strangely familiar. Ahhhhhh, I remember now. I used to work at a place just like that - 11 QFIs, all A2/A2 (equiv) or A1, training overlapping courses on a marvellous aircraft, British it was though, not German, built in Yorkshire at Slingsby's place in Kirkbymoorside. Yes it's all coming back to me, based at Church Fenton we were. Had to disband in summer 2003, bit of a waste really.

It was called JEFTS.

They must have been up all f***ing night thinking up that one :mad:.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Its just all sad sad sad. I was lucky to make the most of the Air Training Corps, then the Volunteer Gliding Schools then the University Air Squadrons. I also benefitted from a Flying and RAF scholarship and thus had 200hrs of flying time in RAF aircraft by age of 21 and had flown in several types of Rotary, Fast Jet and Transport aircraft.

What a rich, exciting, moulding, fun, informative and superb way of inducting Officers of some calibre (even if my own was .22 when .303 was required).

I've nothing more to say than I lament how this has all been brought so low in just 15 years.

Sad,

WWW

[PinkFlyer]

Malissa Fawthort has already posted the proposed new UAS syllabus, does anyone have the current EFT syllabus for comparison?

PF

[Al-Berr]

Does anybody know if this will alter the number of QFIs required? 10/11 at each of the 3 bases sounds a lot.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Al-Berr,
QFI numbers should be something like
3x10/11 = 30/33 (3 EFTSs)
14x1 = 14 (1 QFI per UAS)
Gives 44/47

AEF Bosses and AEF QFIs and CFS types (~15) on top of that on top of that maybe?

At the moment there are 90+ QFIs in the system. So how does that leave the front line? Especially when OCUs are moving away from in-house FIs and more towards CFS QFIs.

Uncle G

[UberPilot]

For comparison, current EFT syllabus:

1) Famil 0:30
2) E of C 1 0:45
3) E of C 2 0:45
4) S and L 1 0:45
5) S and L 2 0:45
6) Climb, Desc & Med Tuns 1:15
7)Climb desc 2 1:00
8) Stalling 1 1:00
9) Stalling 2 1:00
10) Circuits 1 1:00
11) Circuits 2 1:00
12) Cicuits (1st Solo) 0:30/0:05
13) Circuits Consol ) 0:45/0:30
14) Circuits Consol 0:30/0:30
15) Circuits 0:30/0:30
16) Circuits 0:30/0:30
17) PFL 1 1:00
18) PFL 2 1:00
19) Sector Recce 1:00
20) Solo Sector Recce 0:50
21) Steep Turns 1:00
22) Spin 1 1:00
23) Spin 2 1:00
24) GH 1:00
25) Solo GH 1:00
26) GH 1:00
27) Pre SAC GH 1:00
28) Spin Aeros Check 1:00
29) Solo GH 1:00
30) MRT 1:00
31) Solo GH 1:00
32) GH 1:00
33) Solo GH 1:00
34) GH 1:00
35) Solo GH 1:00
36) IHT 1:00
37) IF 1 0:50
38) IF 2 0:50
39) IF 3 1:00
40) IF 4 1:00
41) IF 5 1:00
42) IFT 1:00
43) Nav 1 1:00
44) Nav 2 1:00
45) Nav 3 - Solo 1:00
46) Intro to LL 0:45
47) Nav 4 1:15
48) Nav 5 Land away 1:15
49) Nav 6 land away (RTB) 1:15
50) Nav 6 Solo 1:15
51) Nav 7 1:15
52) PNT 1:15
53) Form 1 1:00
54) Form 2 1:00
55) Form 3 1:00
56) Form 4 Solo 1:00
57) GH 1:00
58) Solo GH 1:15
59) GH (FHT Pre-ride) 1:15
60) FHT 1:15

Total 62(?) Hours, although when you account for IA I ended up with 72 dual and 12 solo.

Make your own comparisons.

[Malissa Fawthort]

Some savings eh?

New command structure has UASs working under College pillar at Cranwell, in fact under 2 newly-established wg cdr posts in OASC. Full costs of those posts? Who knows, but nothing short of £150K per year possibly.

Old system has (say) 40 pilots out of (say) 80 UAS students, thus needing 40 lots of helmets, flying suits, boots, socks, gloves, green roll-necks, long johns etc. New system has 80 flyers needing, therefore, twice as much kit! Not to mention it will possibly need another SE Fitter on each base. Has anybody authorised the issue of flying kit to non-aircrew branches? You know what stores are like --- “sorry, you can’t have those, I don’t have the authority to issue them”.

As a UAS cannot exist without an AEF now, there is a need to establish 2 new AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, which will require the provision of Alpha helmets, flying suits, gloves, parachutes and seat cushions for cadet flying. Will they also need another SE Fitter? I wonder if Glasgow and St Athan will mind aircraft flying on Saturdays and Sundays every week? Is there a restriction on numbers of days flying allowed each week? Will the current “owners” of the airfields be prepared to change their working week if there is such a restriction? How much will it cost to persuade them to do so, if – indeed – you are able to?

I wonder what it would cost to keep the UAS structure exactly as it was, but just have a sqn ldr OC plus one other (or possibly 2 in some cases) full-time QFI(s) on each (thus removing any problems of flying supervision on any UASs/AEFs that are not on proper flying bases), and have the OC AEF, where there is one, (explains my “possibly 2 in some cases” above) as a QFI to help out as needed with UAS student flying. I wonder if that would give more flexibility than the proposed system of OC AEF plus one other full-time QFI teaching the UAS students. It would certainly help when one or other of the 2 full-time QFIs under the proposed scheme is on leave or off sick, especially as one of them already has a full time job running the AEF. This proposal would – of course – mean that you would not have to form AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, thereby saving on the costs of kit and personnel, and removing the problems of convincing the 2 bases to operate weekends.

For planning purposes, you would have to discount the plan to have some AEF pilots C to I to instruct some aspects of the UAS flying, as they are all part-timers and thus could not be totally relied on to be available – WITHOUT FAIL - when UAS students want to fly, although these C to I AEF pilots would – naturally – be available on occasions to help out as required. However, they would (of course) all need to attend a course of unknown duration in terms of hours and days to, upgrade their C to I to enable them to instruct UAS students. I wonder how long it will take to upgrade these C to Is and how much it will cost? I wonder how much of a commitment (hours/days per year) they will be required to give once the money and time has been spent upgrading them? I wonder if they will be paid when they instruct? I wonder if their instructional hours would count against the CAA maximum number of hours per year for airline pilots? I wonder if their companies would be prepared for them to say “sorry – can’t do that Frankfurt shuttle – I’ve used my hours instructing on a UAS”? Would that mean that airline pilots would not be able to take part in the scheme, leaving only the fully retired AEF pilots? Would all of these C to Is have to do CFS Examiners rides and EFT Standards rides every year? What would be the minimum number of instructional hours per year to retain their ability to continue instructing UAS students?

I seem to recall that in “the old days”, questions like this were raised during the study phase of any proposed change, and they were addressed and answered before the new system was introduced, rather than having masses of people scrabbling round like blue-ar$ed flies after the event, trying to fire-fight problems that have been caused by pi$$-poor staffing processes.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Have i missed something in recent years? It seems as though all major changes have been thrust upon us have little detail/forethought leaving the minions to sort out the gaping holes in planning. Examples? :

- Pay As You Starve
- LEAN (See Lyneham Thread)
- UAS Changes.

Still, i've never seen a Freshers Fayre as busy as those recently, but i guess that's because now we can accept those that were previously medically ineligible for UAS(and RAF) service. We are rapidly heading towards a point were the majority of UAS studes are indeed good people, even future leaders of industry - but fundamentally unfit for the RAF. Well, with the change in command that's now somebody else's problem, just like the plan!

Malissa - the Squipper question was raised a while back and hadn't even been considered (apparently). Still no guidance on this - but at least the supply chain will be its usual, hastly self when needed.

Uncle G

[The mother alligator]

We've been recruiting to the new requirements, and, being completely honest with the flying on offer, we've never had so many applicants ..... of both genders :D .
I think that there are a lot of postive things in these changes, and that they shouldn't be so easily dismissed. I echo the fact that I simply cannot see where the savings are going to come from, but it's obviously a step to implementing MFTS.
I believe the situation and changes could be worse, at least the UAS's are still here.....Just!!

[TeBoi]

Many of you have said that people will not join if there is no full EFT on the UAS, even though they're still getting 30hrs towards a NPPL and then EFT afterwards with a better chance of FJ rec. If people are put of by this then I think we're better off without them. I would also definitely question their motivation.

There is definitley no shortge of very high calibre people still applying to join the UASs; I have seen that for myself this past week. Most people who want to join the RAF as pilots would still jump through any hoop we place in front of them. Granted, the system is not attractive as the old one but I don't think we are going to lose any/many of the right kind of people.:*

[PinkFlyer]

Well done Uberpilot for supplying the EFT syllabus but does anyone who what each trip contains?

For example circuits requires a glide, flapless, normal, low level and perhaps a square.

What IF approaches are required for EFT?

What aeros are required?

Will the new UAS syllabus be able to provide these?

Pink

[flipster]

In think some people are missing the point of the 'dumbing-down' of the UAS (tho', of course, this is in line with government policy!)

I am glad that EFT has been taken away from the guys and girls doing degrees - thank the Lord for that, at least. Also, I am glad that recruiting is going well.... this year.

However, of course recruiting is going well - every tom and dick and harriett can join now the med and aptitude criteria have been dropped.

You will waste your breath on an increasingly larger number of people who are never going to be able to fill a Typhoon cockpit. Great for the ground-pounders, I suppose - but in today's world (which is very different from mine as a stude or QFI), we need to be recruiting a higher percentage of the undergrad population who COULD go SS FJ.

We could have lived with a smaller UAS syllabus and more OQ stuff but with the same selection criteria - money is tight. However, I don't think that would have worked either but, quite frankly, this c0cked-up system is the worst of both worlds.

Now, we will attract less of a percentage of the right kind of people and the few that are attracted will not get the full benefit of the 'old style' syllabus, As a result, they be less likely to get to the front line so less FJ cockpits will get filled!

I suppose the answer is to lose a few more squadrons.......um, sounds familiar!

flipster

ps Anyone who thinks that UASs have not been good recruiting tools is talking tosh.

I checked my log-book for the 3 yrs I spent on a UAS to see how the students, with whom I was priviledged to fly, had progressed. This was in the mid 90s (with and without streaming, medicals and aptitude but before EFT):

25 FJ
17 ME
6 RW
7 NAV

(I didn't fly with all studes for the first and last, so there were a few more)

I suspect about half of our VRs had designs on an RAF career before they joined but only 6 of had joined us as Bursars - the rest we 'converted' and they went on to do very well - in fact, about 7 more were streamed FJ but had to go ME or RW as there was a backlog in the FJ process - as ever.

Not bad for one UAS (albeit one of the best) with only one intake per year! I believe that some other UAS were better and some, worse.

Nonetheless, I am certain that the future UAS system will fail to attract as many good fliers - which is a waste of good opportuity, instructors, resources and the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we will need.

[Flik Roll]

Pink Flyer;
CCTS: Normal, Glide, Flapless, Low

IF approaches: PAR, SRA and maybe an ILS. PAR is airfield dependent

Aeros: Minimum Basic 5 for IHT: Wing over, Loop, Aileron Roll, Stall Turn, Half Cuban, Half Horizontal. You will learn others which could include...Slow Roll, Barrell Roll, 1/4 Clover, Roll Of The Top, Reverse Stall Turn, Noddy Stall Turn, Porteus Loop...list goes on! You are expected to do more than the basic 5 for FHT. Most people can real of at least 10 meaneouvres by IHT.

The new syallabus according to Gp Capt Round, at the moment, does NOT contain aeros or formation. However, they are going to get aeros added but not formation. But latest has it that students will not be allowed to do solo aeros (Spin Aeros Check). However, this won't apply to those already cleared. Studes will also not be cleared for low level nav solo (again, doesn't apply to those already cleared). I guess those cleared formation will be allowed to as well :E

Feel free to correct if I'm wrong but that is what I was told. I also didn't realise that SUAS have already stopped flying at Boscombe Down.

[BEagle]

Rather than just continuing to annoy 'Them' by groaning about the latest change to the UAS flying syllabus, perhaps it might be opportune to reflect on the way things were in the past and the subsequent changes since those days:

Chipmunk student 1969-73:

Had already obtained a PPL through the RAF Scholarship scheme. In first year flew 22:45 dual and 15:30 solo, mainly circuits, stalling, PFLs, solo GH and Sector Recces. In second year flew 33:45 dual and 11:00 solo, including aerobatics, spinning (dual and solo), Preliminary Instrument Flying Grading and a tiny amount of navigation. In third year flew 18:25 dual and 14:00 solo, mainly more GH (no IF), plus fractionally more navigation, culminating in Preliminary Flying Badge awarded after completion of a total of 115:15 hours, of which 40:30 were solo. 12:50 total IF time.

I also blagged a 4th year, but just marked time doing GH dual (7:55) and solo (14:30).

But no low level or formation flying. These were considered 'post-PFB' exercises which were only flown if the UAS had the hours and opportunity. Mine didn't, others did! No formal streaming assessment was made.

Bulldog QFI 1989-1992:

Students had pretty much the same (perhaps slightly less) flying than I'd had 20-ish years earlier. All (APOs and Cdt Plts) had 2 guaranteed years, some Cdt Plts were granted a 3rd year. All the exercises I'd done as a student were covered, except for Forced Landings with power and solo spinning. Additionally, use of VOR/DME (and ILS, informally), intro to low level, low level manoeuvres and formation dual/solo were included in the 3rd year. The course was more tightly structured and managed than the course I'd flown as a student, navigation was properly taught although it was flown at 2-3000 ft. Low level navigation was not included. No formal streaming assessment was made.

So, given a clean sheet what would I suggest?

Three x unassessed 20 hour years:

Year 1: Up to 'solo sector recce' standard. Sponsored and non-sponsored students.
Year 2: Basic aeros, navigation and GH. Sponsored students and selected non-sponsored students.
Year 3: PIFG and PFB both mandatory requirements before IOT entry.

Plus, for sponsored ground branch students only, air experience flying.

Don't bother with: Formation and low level navigation. Leave it until BFTS. Learn to walk with confidence before trying to run!

[flipster]

Beags

Your idea sounds good and certainly better than this proposed fudge but I would lament the loss of LL and formation. We found that these extra skills helped identify the really good ones (SS FJ) from the good (2 seat) from the average (ME/RW). Also, on our UAS, we used to use proper 'composite' sorties as a build up to FHT (outside the suyllabus, I think - but we had a ballsy OC).

For example, we would ask 2 studes to plan and brief a formation deparure and some pairs manouvring, then to split, followed by a bit of LL to Ip-tgt (not TOT), then pull out out of LL to GH and IF home, finishing off with ccts- with a few emergencies thrown in! Once the studes learnt to cope with an 1:30 of this (in a Bulldog too), then the syllabus FHT was a piece of cake! Scores reflected what we asked them to do over and above the syllabus and they went on to become better pilots for it - certainly they breezed FHT (mostly). Furthermore, it was quite challenging for QFIs to keep ahead of things, keping us on our mettle.

However, Beags, with or without formation and LL, you and I know that those days are gone - most regrettably!

[BEagle]

Well, the formation and low-level aspects were obviously very demanding, but my feeling is that sound airmanship and consolidated stick-and-rudder skills at UAS level are more important than so-called streaming assessment. Which, frankly was total bolleaux and grossly unfair - as I've always said!

Is 60 hours proper flying training on Das Teutor for future RAF pilots at university really too expensive in today's RAF? Surely it's of more value than giving future ground-pounders 30 hours of "Oooh - aren't you clever" air experience?

[flipster]

Beags

Yes - we did the composite stuff before and after streaming was introduced - but we probably would have been b0llocked by HQ UAS if they had known. Streaming at UAS was an @rse idea - everyone said so at the time but it probably saved the UASs back then.

Bl00dy bean-c*nters (oops that should be bean-counters, sorry!)

[Grand Fromage]

Beagle,

If the new system allowed 20hrs per year and was all given by QFIs and not AEF pilots, what would your recommendation be post IOT? I'd like to see everybody go to Linton but I can't see that happening.

With regards to LL and formation on the old system, I think flipster is right. Also, I heard a nasty rumour that when doubt existed about the ability of a stude who may have been "positively stroked" shall we say ;) those concerned could turn to LL and formation SRFs to see how said stude coped in these demanding areas.

But it was just a nasty rumour...:ok:

GF

[BEagle]

Post IOT? A common-core BFTS system for ALL ab-initio RAF pilots - and an end to the pervasive 'fast-jet centric' attitude towards flying training.

Are you saying that it is intended that some of the non-air experience flying training to be conducted at UASs will be conducted by people who aren't even QFIs? Please clarify that, if you would.

[Wholigan]

The vast majority of flying training will be conducted by QFIs, although I understand that some of the latter sorties may be flown by ex-QFI AEF pilots who do a "C to I UAS" upgrade/refresher course. Those UAS cadets who only wish to do air experence flying may be flown by non-QFI AEF pilots.

[Crashed&Burned]

Tesco seems to do well when it opens a store 'near you'.

The UAS's are now on the opposite path; let's remove them from where the students are based.

We are so wonderful we don't need to promote the RAF.

Crazy...

[BEagle]

Wholigan, the reason I ask is that currently only flying training conducted by current CFS categorised QFIs on type or pilots holding valid civil Flight Instructor ratings may be counted towards civil pilot licensing requirements.

The status of such so-called 'C-to-I UAS instructors' is, by its very definition, uncertain. It will be necessary for their status to be assessed by the CAA's advisers before any credit may be given for any flying training flown with them. The basic guideline will probably be "If they held civil licences, would they meet the current military QFI to FI Rating accreditation criteria?" If yes, OK - it'll obviously count. If no, then the hours will most probably be considered to be passenger hours only.

Currently, the equivalence applies only to QFIs who have flown a CFS Standardisation Check in the previous 12 months and is:

CFS Category B2 will equate to a FI(A) with all restrictions as per JAR-FCL 1.325. For details of these restrictions and their removal, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.

CFS Category B1, with at least 200 hours flight instruction, will equate to a FI(A) without the Supervisory Restriction. All other restrictions will be endorsed and to remove the restrictions, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.

CFS Categories A1 and A2 will equate to a FI(A) with no restrictions other than single pilot, single engine aeroplanes.

Note that 'C-to-I' is not credited.

[Uncle Ginsters]

....which still raises the question of why a volunteer AEF pilot is going to offer himself for such QFI duties and the time-consuming extras (Bf, DBf, Admin, CFS Stds) when he's only out for some weekend flying for enjoyment.

How do these chaps become QFIs? I doubt that many can afford to spend a full course time at CWL. Do CFS start to 'roam' to train these guys? They'll love that! :cool:

Uncle G

[BEagle]

Presumably a survey was conducted to answer that question before the recommendation was made, Uncle G? Otherwise how on earth could the savings be quantified?

How many of these weekend fliers who currently just give joyrides to young cadets really said that they'd be happy to give up their H-o-P time to do some QFI-ing?

And what will the non-service ones be paid for QFI-ing?

[Grand Fromage]

Beagle,

Though I'm not sure (bit worse for wear due to sherbert!) I was under the impression that most "instruction"/pax flying would be conducted by AEF pilots (Ex-QFIs maybe? - but does that count on paper?) and certain trips e.g. pre-solos would be conducted by a QFI. I really don't know for sure how the instruction is going to work but that is how I understand it!

GF

[Michael Edic]

Beags (and others in the know),
completely off topic and purely for personal curiousity, what were cadet pilots? GD(p) bursars?
Cheers
Mike

[Jackonicko]

The rank given to ordinary VR members of a UAS, as opposed to sponsored blokes, who were Acting Pilot Officers.

[Michael Edic]

Jacko,
Many thanks. Looking at our squadron records though Off Cdts and Cdt Plts seem to co-exist. At the risk of appearing startlingly dull was the distinction between the VR members made on branch alone?
Thanks again
Mike

[BEagle]

In Oct 1991, the long-established rank of Cadet Pilot was abolished and replaced by Offficer Cadet (Pilot). Before then it was easy - those already selected for the RAF were Acting Pilot Officers (and paid as such), the rest were Cadet Pilots.

As an APO in 1972 I received about £1200 per year. To give you an idea how far that went, accommodation ('hall fees') were £6 per week, a fixed price lunch with waiter service in the Chinese restaurant opposite the hall was about 35p and an 18 month old MG Midget cost me £750.

There were no'bursars' in those days, that was another cheapskate scheme brought in later on. And it's worth what - about £1000 per annum? That's about 8% of what I was paid.

As has already been said, Grand Fromage, flight instruction will only count towards civil licences if conducted by a current CFS-catted QFI on type or a civilian pilot with a valid FI Rating. Anything else will be considered to be passenger flying.

[Elmlea]

Grand Fromage,

An ex-QFI can do a short refresher course to become CtoI (competent to instruct) on a type other than that they were a QFI on. Hence an ex Bulldog/JP/Hawk/Gnat/whatever A2 QFI currently on an AEF can become a CtoI Tutor QFI relatively easily; but it would probably still involve a 20-30 hour course.

To then "reactivate" their A2, they'd have to do a fair bit of flying with the appropriate standards people. I'm not sure if there'd be an hours requirement.

[Jackonicko]

Manning:

Before this fiasco, and since time immemorial, was it the case that each UAS was staffed entirely by A2 cat instructors?

Until the change, what proportion were serving officers? Just the CO and CFI, or more or less than that?

The change will reduce in a reduction of 21 posts. Who are these? How will the new UASs be manned? And where does it say this?

Basing:

There was a reference on this thread to SUAS 'ceasing flying' at Boscombe. Surely while EFTS flying is ceasing at the existing UASs they will remain in place at their established airfields, along with the various AEFs?

Cost savings:

Does anyone have figures that either support or disprove the HQ PTC claim that:

"a UAS-trained pilot who started Basic Flying Training had a higher chance of getting to a Fast Jet OCU (a 95% chance of success) than a non graduate 'Direct Entry' (DE) pilot with exactly the same aptitude test score. These DE pilots were calculated to have only an 85% chance of passing through Basic Flying Training, with an even slimmer chance of making it to OCU."

(This means that a UAS trained bloke had a 10% higher chance of getting to a FJ OCU than a DE bloke with exactly the same aptitude test results had of making it through BFTS.)

Or can anyone provide 'matching' stats - directly comparing the success rate of FJ and DE pilots at the same point in training?

It strikes me that the number of hours saved would not have to be great to pay for the UAS system. How much can a UAS student cost? 70 flying hours (£10,000), wear and tear on and consumption of issued kit (£1,000) and attendance allowance (?). Certainly less than two Hawk flying hours (£16,000 plus).

Has a total UAS running cost figure ever been calculated?

[Uncle Ginsters]

Beags,
Presumably a survey was conducted to answer that question before the recommendation was made, Uncle G? Otherwise how on earth could the savings be quantified?

That survey has been initiated - on 26 Sep 05 - a whole five days after the decision!

....and that, my dear fellow, is my point precisely.

Furthermore, AEF pilots are currently paid out of the ACO budget. How long, i wonder, before the ACO ask for a 'hire-fee' for their pilots?

The UAS manning plot is deemed to be 1 S/L Boss (any branch), 1 F/L QFI, 1 Sgt GTI and a S/L Adj as at present. Let's have a look at the Sqn workload and secondary duties?

Quart out of a pint pot? :hmm:

Uncle G

[Michael Edic]

Once again gentlemen thank you

[BEagle]

"The UAS manning plot is deemed to be 1 S/L Boss (any branch), 1 F/L QFI, 1 Sgt GTI and a S/L Adj as at present. Let's have a look at the Sqn workload and secondary duties?"

So - a couple of penguins Sqn Ldrs with absolutely no background of running a flying squadron will run this shambles, whilst some jockstapping Sgt will chase the lucky students around the sports fields?

Why do they need a S/L Adjutant, for heaven's sake?

Incidentally, do/will AEF pilots have current IRs on type? Or will they be restricted to day VMC operations? Not much chance of teaching S&L 1 & 2 in winter if you can't get VMC on top with a good horizon....

They did think about that, didn't they.....??

[tmmorris]

AEF pilots I've flown with have always told me they can't go IMC, but it was because of restrictions on the operation not licensing issues, so at least some have IRs.

Tim

[Uncle Ginsters]

So - a couple of penguins Sqn Ldrs with absolutely no background of running a flying squadron will run this shambles, whilst some jockstapping Sgt will chase the lucky students around the sports fields

Beags, again i think the major point of the changes here are that the UAS' are officially no longer flying Sqns. The AEF are the flying unit with one UAS QFI to assist when required - a sad situation, i think most agree.
So who's left to fulfil all of the secondary duties related to flying?

Beags & tmmorris - AEF pilots currently do not routinely hold IRs, hence the current VMC only caveat. Current TGOs state that a current QFI must have a valid IR - This is another factor which the AEF will have to consider to stay current, unless TGOs are changed.

As for your point on the GTIs, they have been an incredibly valuable asset to the Sqn's over the last few years of their existence. They are all fully trained and experienced ATIs (Adv Trg Instrs) as well as PDT professionals - this is where the focus of UAS trg is to be now! I feel it may be the Sqn Ldrs who are running round the sports fields with little else to do :ok:

Uncle G

[FrogPrince]

This seems financially-driven to an outsider, but as a management consultant with a finance background I despair at civil servants who can't do sums !

Back in the era 84-89 Leeds UOTC had Infantry, Artillery, Signals and Engineer Wings. Others had Tankie and REME sub-units. If the UAS have to evolve then why not adopt a similar structure: Int, Ops Supp, ATC etc. I'm sure that the relevant courses from Waddo/Chicksands and Shawbury could be modularised. Obtaining a FISO certificate whilst at Uni or doing a chunk of theory on P of F ain't the same as what you get at the minute, but it's still differentiated from Green / Dark Blue offerings.

Like the OTC, only a few DS would be Perm Staff or NRPS, a small establishment of officer/SNCO reservists could deliver the 'wider' training package. It doesn't have to be imitating the Rock Apes every weekend.

A bit of imagination, that's the key....:D

FP

[durpilot]

Does anyone know when these changes are going to be implemented?

Cheers

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Err, pretty damn soon, is the answer to that, I believe? It's not a "in 5 years we'll stop this", I think it applies to all UAS as of this years recruiting, so whether the 2nd/3rd/4th year chaps will finish their flying I do no know.

Btw, thought a hawk was 6k an hour?

On the course front, it certainly seems like a lot more effort could be put into the GT syllabus, but surely that's going to result from this? Bear in mind, however that part of the justification for chopping EFT from the UAS is that it puts a burden on students whilst at uni..... GTI's certainly seem to do a good job though!

Just as an aside, those pilots on an AEF who are flying full time can AFAIK get a valid IR and fly IMC (although I believe there might be a restriction about flying spaceys in cloud, though don't hold me to that.) The reason I say this is that a good number of holding chappies have been farmed out to AEFs recently, and I believe they have been allowed IMC, though I may be mistaken

[durpilot]

Cheers for that pda_target,

so in that case, do you think we have until christmas?

Many thanks

[Roland Pulfrew]

durpilot

EFT (for VR students only) on UASs has stopped - it stopped on the day of the announcement. As has been mentioned on this thread the 10 hrs per student per year has started - it started on the day of the announcement. If you are part way through the syllabus you will continue on the old EFT syllabus until the new syllabus is formally (ie not on PPRuNe) published. Then depending upon your progress you will continue on the new syllabus or get 'value-added' flying.

As an example if you have already done the nav phase there is no point working you up to the now non-existant FHT so you may be taught IP to Target runs, or if you have completed the formation phase you may be taught tail-chasing ie the 'value-added' elements that were sadly removed from the EFT syllabus when it was cut from 90 to 60 hours.

[Uncle Ginsters]

pba_target,
Some AEF pilots may have valid IRTs. As for Holding Offr Convexees, why waste the hrs giving them a rating (remember, ratings are type-specific)? For all AEF types, if rated, they would then have to keep the required currency (i.e. "Five hrs IF in the previous 6 months, including 2 hrs actual. Twelve instrument letdowns and approaches in the previous 6 months. Additionally, pilots should avoid long periods with no IF activity and are to achieve a minimum of 2 hrs IF (actual or simulated) and 3 instrument approaches every 3 calendar months ").

This can be hard enough for current UAS QFIs (esp the 2hrs actual). Why would AEFs want to bother with this for very limited benefit to the current ACO flying, with a lot of IF time and practice required?

Uncle G

[Hummingfrog]

As far as I know on my AEF (the glorious 12th) nobody has a RAF IR although plenty of us have civilian IRs provided by the companies we work for.

There is no real requirement for us to hold IRs as the type of flying we do has generally to be done in VMC anyway as most cadets want to do aeros etc.

As has been said in an earlier post it would not be cost efficient or even practical to obtain and keep an IR current under RAF rules which are far more stringent than the civilian ones.

As an AEF pilot I look forward to the "New" UAS with interest and will hopefully be able to offer my services (unpaid) to the new system!!

HF

[Sadbloke]

Beags

Poor ole RAF must have been disappointed to pay you all that loot as an APO & then you drop out as a Fast Jet Mate! Could have got the tanker Dudes from the DE fellahs who cost nufink at Uni! Banter aside - suspect with the future size of RAF & numbers of young fellahs wishing to whizz around in Typhoons - UAS an expense Tony/New Labour can not afford. My 180 hours Bulldog in three years (doss degree - cadet pilot) in the late seventies convinced me to sign on. My ilk no longer requied methinks!

[BEagle]

Back then the RAF wasn't as 'fast-jet centric' as unfortunately it is these days! Of a typical RAFC Flt Cdt course, perhaps 2 or 3 would go to the Gnat, about 10 to the Varsity - and 1 might have to go to the Whirlwind..... It was only from about 1974 that the surge in pointy-head training and virtual cessation of ME training occurred.

[Yellow Sun]

Of a typical RAFC Flt Cdt course, perhaps 2 or 3 would go to the Gnat, about 10 to the Varsity

Nonsense. About 40% Valley, 50% Oakington and 10% Shawbury. Those figures held good until the late 1960s. Prior to that the percentage going to Valley was probably slightly higher with a number of Valley graduates going to V Force slots, I can even think of one from a slightly earlier period who went to Shackletons!

What period are you talking about Beagle?

YS

[BEagle]

Those were the figures quoted when I first arrived at RAFC in 1968. Over the next few years the Valley figures increased commensurate with the Harrier, Phantom and Jaguar coming on stram until it was closer to 50:50 in 1972/3-ish. We UAS studes had been briefed on the forthcoming changes by a visiting Wg Cdr from Cranwell - I distinctly remember asking him to repeat the figures as they were so different to what we'd all expected when we joined. He did so and explained the reasons. But then in 1974/5-ish there were no multi slots at all - apart from cross-overs. 3 guys from a 6 pilot group holding at the RAF Leeming BFTS did a strange course on the Andover before going to the Herc (the other 3 went to ATC etc - of whom one is now a very experienced C-17 captain!); people who hadn't done any ME flying at all did an 'asymmetric' course on the Canberra T4 before going to the Vulcan etc... To get a ME OCU place, you had to have made it as least as far as TWU before being suspended.

[Yellow Sun]

Those were the figures quoted when I first arrived at RAFC in 1968

Then you can take it from me that they are incorrect. I have had a look at the list for the entry I was on and the one before. The figures I quoted are reflected in those entries, which I have no reason to believe are atypical. This was only slightly earlier than than 1968.

But then in 1974/5-ish there were no multi slots at all - apart from cross-overs. 3 guys from a 6 pilot group holding at the RAF Leeming BFTS did a strange course on the Andover before going to the Herc

The cessation of ME training occurred just prior to the graduation of 13GE. How do I know?, because one of my students was caught up in the ensuing debacle. Those destined for Oakington were reassessed, a small number were sent to Leeming for a further 20 hours JP flying and were then reassessed with a view to their progressing to Valley. I think one of the group was judged suitable for a go at Valley and 2 or 3 more went the Andover route. Those who did not do the Leeming brush-up (including my unfortunate stude) were offered transfer to ground branches.

people who hadn't done any ME flying at all did an 'asymmetric' course on the Canberra T4 before going to the Vulcan etc... To get a ME OCU place, you had to have made it as least as far as TWU before being suspended.

This state of affairs persisted until 1982 when I had the first Group 2 Phase 2 student to be sent to the Nimrod OCU. Very hard work for both of us.

YS

[BEagle]

OK - so the only bit I was mis-briefed on was the output expectation when I was first at RAFC as a Flt Cdt on 99 Entry before we were encouraged to got to University if we could - and enjoy the excellent UAS experience.

The 13GE date I confirm - as I was on 14GE and all who graduated were sent FJ (some had to hold) bar a couple (I think) who went to RW training.

Yes, one of the 'Leeming 6' did go to Valley. Of the Andover guys, one (with whom I'd been on 99GE and at ULAS) sadly died recently after a long career in the ME world.

How did you view the 'SAFT' era of Gp 1 Ph1, Gp2 Ph2 etc? Personally I was very glad just to have missed it and to have benefitted greatly from a full UAS course, then a full JP3/5 course to 'Wings' on 14 GE, then Valley and Brawdy. But then I did the 'pre-Vulcan Buccaneer short course'.........

I guess the 'gold standard' of 90-ish hours on a UAS followed by a common-core full BFTS course for all to 'Wings' standard is just too expensive for our impoverished Defence Budget nowadays?

[Sadbloke]

The ‘Gold Standard’ of 90 hours then a full BFTS is, I suspect, rather too expensive (although an extra few ‘flex’ rides on Harrier/Typhoon OCU would probably pay fer 50 hours or so in a Tutor!). I rather favour the system of mid-eighties where uni students flew as they could at weekends with no pressure of an EFTS course. If they did ‘dossy’ degrees – ergo flew their butts off, they progressed to a ‘short’ BFTS which saved 15-20 hours over the long course. If they had done tough degrees then long BFTS was their destiny. Of my short course – all went fast jet bar one who opted fer rotary early on (weirdo!). My fear is that this new ‘Group Hugs’ UAS with a smidge of Air Experience flying and lots of team building bol…ks, will not recruit the kinda Dudes/Dudeess’s required. If the RAF is to be further shrunk however, you can probably recruit enough Rhodes Scholars to fill every Typhoon, without the UAS’s featuring – Sign of the times I’m afraid.

Sadly

Sadbloke

[BEagle]

OK - sorry. By 'full BFTS' I meant a common-core course such as we all did on the JP3/5 in the mid-70s. I think that it was around 140 hours, but if you had graduated from a UAS with PIFG/PFB that reduced to around 125 hours.

Whereas now only fast jet streamed pilots are trained at BFTS. ME pilots fly light aeroplanes only (EFT/MELIN) and then the King Air before reaching their OCUs.

90-ish hours of UAS flying training and with the only 'pressure' for UAS student pilots to be a mandatory requirement to achieve PIFG and PFB before starting IOT, then a common-core BFTS course would seem prudent. But allegedly no longer affordable, even though it had always been the norm for what, 2 or 3 decades?

[Crashed&Burned]

Roland Pulfrew takes issue with my earlier comment that when the UAS's go, so will the AEF's.

When the Bulldog was withdrawn, as an 'efficiency' measure the AEFs were assigned to share the UASs' aircraft and associated support, engineering, flight safety equipment, etc.

It stretching credibility to suggest that when the UAS's who are to be closed depart, their aircraft and support will still be available to the AEFs at their current locations. The cost per hour would be unsupportable.

So when I suggest that the AEFs (as we know them) are in danger, it is not unreasonable.

Are we to assume that AEF flying will be provided by local civvy flying clubs or are cadets to be bussed megamiles to the proposed superUAS locations?

C&B

[BEagle]

'Local civvy flying clubs' are not permitted to give joyrides. To do so they would need a full Aircraft Operator's Certificate etc. Not a simple or cheap undertaking.

They could, under appropriate circumstances, give 'trial flying lessons' with FIs - but a bus load of space cadets sent over for such would be stretching credulity!

This whole thing has been sooooo well thought through, hasn't it?

[Arclite01]

I just keep coming back to this thread..................... it's compulsive viewing

Ultimately the real cost of the UAS is not the aircraft or the manpower but the real estate.

Cut the UAS, cut the aircraft costs, cut the manpower cost and then finally cut the real estate = huge savings

It's not difficult to see the mindset is it ? - ultimately the RAF needs far less airfields to accommodate less aircraft (even allowing for RLG's)

yet another big and quick win for the Accountants at PTC.

:*

Arc

Oh - and yes it'll be goodbye AEF's for sure

[Wholigan]

Is it possible for people to read the posts preceding theirs before they hit the "Submit Reply" button.

Let's start again. AEFs are in NO danger whatsoever. Not only has their task of flying air cadets gone up by 25%, but they will now be flying the UAS students as well. UASs are NOT "departing", they are continuing AT THE SAME PLACES under a different guise.

There are NO "Super UAS locations". EFT will be provided at 3 EFT bases, Cranwell, Wyton and Church Fenton. These will have NOTHING to do with UAS flying.

You will note (before you start shouting at me) that I am NOT defending OR supporting OR criticising OR bad-mouthing the new system, I am merely stating facts rather than wild-ar$ed guesses about what is happening in the near future.

[serf]

so is Glasgow UAS staying in Glasgow?

[Wholigan]

Yes .

[Roland Pulfrew]

Crashed and Burned

I will state it again C&B, although Wholigan has beaten me to it, THE AEFs ARE NOT UNDER THREAT. In fact their task has just increased by 25% NOT including the additional UAS task that they are now expected to undertake (once their flt cdrs and a chosen few regain their Q (and for BEagle) FI qualifications).

Furthermore there will be an AEF established at St Athan (currently without one) and at Glasgow (where technically there is one but it operates from Leuchars)!

[Uncle Ginsters]

C&B,

......and furthermore, the AEFs are funded not by EFT, not by any UAS org, but by the ACO - who in themsleves are a surprisingly powerful organisation. There will, however, be a separate study into AEF operations, as stated in the MoD press release.

The best reasoning that i've heard for this whole thing came from up high - the UAS re-org is to separate EFT and UAS. Allegedly none of the MFTS bidders will operate an EFT, so splitting the UAS and EFT now means that the UAS is fireproof from that side of things as and when it happens - made sense to me (and that was from ACFT) :ok:

Uncle G

[hangar lemmie]

The Tutor aircraft used by AEFs (and formerly the UASs) are provided by VT Aerospace under the LAFT contract. The RAF is committed to 35000 flying hours per year at a certain cost per hour and may use more hours at a reduced rate.

Should the RAF renege on its contract it would still be liable to VT Aerospace for the cost of 35000 hours yearly until the LAFT contract expires in April 2009. It therefore makes sense for the RAF to continue to operate the AEFs until then. After that the future for the AEFs will become much more uncertain. One hopes that the study into the future of the AEFs will report in good time.

Hummingfrog - St Luke Ch 10 V 7 - 'for the labourer is worthy of his hire'.

Expect more long days under the new system, waiting for the weather to clear so the UAS students who have travelled a long way to fly can do so when the weather is suitable for effective instruction. The AEF pilots/instructors/QFIs will be replacing well paid RAF QFIs in order to save the RAF manpower and money. If you end up with many 0800 to 1800 days you should be adequately rewarded.

Be careful what you commit yourself to.

[McDuff]

Should the RAF renege on its contract it would still be liable to VT Aerospace for the cost of 35000 hours yearly until the LAFT contract expires in April 2009. It therefore makes sense for the RAF to continue to operate the AEFs until then.

Not if the RAF does not want to. There is plenty of precedent for 'reneging' on contracts in the public sector. Just look at the hash that many IT contracts get into.

After that the future for the AEFs will become much more uncertain. One hopes that the study into the future of the AEFs will report in good time.

I'm not sure that this study will be any more useful than any previous studies have been. If the answer is wrong, another one will be commissioned. If the answer is right, the authors get a few years paid flying ... ;-)

[Crashed&Burned]

Calm down, calm down.

So, let me get this straight...

The UASs are staying where they are with the aircraft they currently have? If so the AEF's won't be affected.

If the UASs, eg at Woodvale are leaving, it is inconceivable that the AEF there will survive.

I'm confused, and yes, I have read the thread.

C&B

[Jackonicko]

UASs and AEFs will stay where they are.

In most cases, the UASs will do considerably less flying training, and the flying that they do achieve will be for Uni undergrads, and not EFTS flying for DE pilots. (Three UASs will continue to provide EFTS flying for these pilots).

It is expected that the excess flying will be absorbed by AEF flying, including AE flying on the UASs for 'ground branch' UAS members.

For the time being.

[Crashed&Burned]

Thanks, J.

You guys are such believers. I'm not. If a politician sez something is going to change, I assume it will be for the worse....

C&B

[FiiS]

Uni recruitment thus far ... has been good! People love the idea of an insight into forces life with some flying thrown in too. I suppose the general public don't know what they are missing out on. As for studes like myself, part way through the course, I can now continue just without assessment. It's a pain, but I know I plan to continue using the trips as instructional flights and not freebies. However, in years to come when our QFI staff leave I don't know what will be on offer. It just happens that we have two QFIs still here who fit into the new squadron structure. If I was a first year I suppose I'd want instructional flying but with no syllabus guideline on offer it'd be difficult to organise! Although there is talk still of an NPPL course?

[Wholigan]

Just a couple of points of fact.

Three UASs will continue to provide EFTS flying for these pilots
They are not actually "UASs", they are essentially Elementary Flying Training Schools, and they will provide EFT for DEs and for graduates.

but with no syllabus guideline on offer it'd be difficult to organise

I refer you to a previous post which said:
Familiarisation 0:45 (dual)

Effects of Controls 1 & 2 1:00 (dual)

Straight & Level 1 & 2 1:00 (dual)

Climbing & Descending 1/Medium Turns 1:15 (dual)

Climbing and Descending 2 1:00 (dual)

Stalling 1:00 (dual)

Stalling 1:00 (dual)

Consolidation 0:45 (dual)

Circuits 0:45 (dual)

Circuits 0:45 (dual)

Circuits – First Solo 0:50 (dual) 0:05 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Circuits - Dual/Solo 0:30 (dual) 0:30 (solo)

Forced Landings 1:00 (dual)

Forced Landings 1:00 (dual)

Sector Recce/Consolidation 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH/Sector Recce 1:00 (solo)

Steep Turns 0:50 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Basic Instrument Flying 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Basic Instrument Flying 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Navigation 1:00 (dual)

Solo GH 1:00 (solo)

Navigation (Landaway) 1:15 (dual)

Navigation (RTB) 1:15 (dual)

Navigation 1:15 (dual)

Solo Navigation 1:15 (solo)



This is an outline syllabus and may - of course - be amended with time. Who knows?

[6Z3]

been away for a few days so well behind the drag curve, so apologies for catching up on stale posts.

Beags, you stated way back.....

"The 13GE date I confirm - as I was on 14GE and all who graduated were sent FJ (some had to hold) bar a couple (I think) who went to RW training".

Well, I too was on 14GE - and a fine bunch we were, though I can't place you from your posts. I was one of the 3 who were destined for ME at Oakington, which was closed down some weeks before our Cranwell Graduation.

The 3 of us were sent to Leeming to do a 20 hr Kill/Hack/Maim/Napalmbabiesburn/Eatrazorbladesforbreakfast/binairmanship Course, Otherwise known as the No1 Fast Jet Lead in course (there was only one course). Two of us passed and went to Valley, where I was subsequently chopped alongside hosts of other guys.

As I recall, the RAF required the same number of pilots, they just all had to be FJ; and so with no increase in P scores, shedloads of us got chopped on the Gnat. A situation very similar to what we now have approaching us under MFTS with the numbers required for SS FJ increasing.

[Jackonicko]

What really grips is the way in which officialdom, from the Minister to the RAF News are breathlessly presenting this as 'exciting good news', that 'students prefer', 'widening opportunity' and all the rest of the tired spin-doctored bol.locks.

Why can't some senior officer tell the truth and say that:

"At a time of increased pressure on the defence budget, we must prioritise our spending carefully. The whole flying training system is on the cusp of the most far reaching changes it has ever seen, and we have reluctantly decided that we can no longer afford the UAS system in its present form, which in any case urgently needed major structural changes. Therefore....."

[BEagle]

6Z3 - I was the other chap who passed No 1 FJLIC - and after 1 trip the 'Kill/Hack/Maim/Napalmbabiesburn/Eatrazorbladesforbreakfast/binairmanship' staff apparently said to Cranwell "WTF hast thou sent us these peeps - they're OK for Valley as it is!". Still, we had a good time - although the chap who failed was pretty obviously never going to make it, I thought. Not ex-14GE, of course!

But sadly my QFI who had a penchant for low-level aeros (and scared me witless with some unorthodox low flying one fine day in LFA17 by rolling inverted and pulling over a bleak Yorkshire hill without warning....) later killed himself in a Jaguar - doing unauthorised low level aeros over a beach in the Mediterranean.

Did you go to Sea Kings eventually?

Weasel?

[Max R8]

If all this comes to pass it will be the end of the UAS ethos. Up til now the squadrons were run by current aircrew of mixed backgrounds in FJ/Rotary/MRA/AAR/AT with loads of frontline cred. For some of the ground branch cadets it would be the closest they ever got to being on a flying squadron (and in many ways with a better squadron spirit than found on some Op units).

With the best will in the world I find it hard to believe that with an "anybranch" Sqn Ldr OC, an SNCO PTI, RO ex-SL adj, one possibly FTRS and certainly overworked QFI/CFI and AEF pilots who don't do training nights, it isn't going to feel like a proper flying squadron or a fun place to be.

Is this just going to be the ATC for undergraduates?

[BEagle]

'University Air Cadets' - I said it before, mate.

You are so, so right in everything you say!

[FrogPrince]

The UAS becoming 'ATC+' is a risk indeed.

Surely, either the PSI / GTI establishment has to rise or else the RAuxAF has to furnish P/T instructors & DS? [But then that would eat into the planned budgetary savings from the changeover.]

However, there is alot of stuff I could teach at UAS level on the Ops/Int side that my ATC cadets are not sufficiently mature or intellectually capable of appreciating or absorbing.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Sounds like ATC for over 18's to me. Rumours abound that they will lose 'their' VGS's. I feel like a grumpy old man but what made this country great is being eroded little by little each year.

WWW

[Grand Fromage]

If anyone is ‘in the know’ about this, I have a question...

From what I understand, it is now fairly well established that instruction will be undertaken by the UAS QFI, AEF QFI or AEF C to I people. Air experience flying will be provided by AEF pilots.

In order to fulfil this task, more AEF pilots are to be recruited – a job which can be done by a regular officer, post Linton holding for Valley.

At the moment there are about 7-8 months holding either side of BFJT. Could this be changed so that all the holding comes after BJFT with the aim to gainfully employ holdees as UAS/AEF pilots for 14-16 months (hopefully less) and then not have to shell out extra attendance pay/FTRS to “recruit” the required number of AEF pilots?

Ok, so it means longer between the Tuc and Hawk, but there is a scaled refresher scheme anyway and surely 100+ hours P1 on the Tutor can’t hurt? Also, it will rectify the "Ghost Town" which Linton is said to be at the moment.

GF

[28 Ft Wingspan]

Sad times indeed.

I can see the logic, really I can; save money where there is no empirical evidence of benefit for the RAF. So why have an organisation which costs money for relatively little perceived output? Guys will always queue up to join the RAF to fly, UAS or no, and in this day and age there are few enough cockpits anway.

But I for one would probably not have joined the RAF were it not for the appeal generated by the UAS, both in the flying and camaraderie offered (by camaraderie I mean boozing).

During my time at Colt (5 yrs) I can think of 5 QWIs from SUAS alone. I cannot speak for those guys but I wonder how many would have joined had the UAS offered nothing more than an adult ATC.

Alas, it would appear that unless a definite financial value can be accorded to something it is line for the chop. It makes one wonder how much influence the Air Ranks actually have in the face of the balance sheets of the Treasury.

[tgarden]

I have had an answer to my question about the UAS review, which may be of interest to readers of this thread:

Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 21 July (WA 323), whether they have completed the review of University Air Squadrons; if so, what were the conclusions of the review; and what changes are to be made to recruitment and training standards. [HL1580]

Lord Drayson: The review of University Air Squadrons has now been completed and I refer the noble Lord to my Written Ministerial Statement of 10 October 2005 (Official Report, cols. WS 8-9). (Hansard Link) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=university%20air%20squadron&ALL=university%20air%20squadron&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=51010-42_spnew2&URL=/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51010-42.htm#51010-42_spnew2) There have been no changes made to the standards of recruitment and training, although the focus of the University Air Squadron has shifted to provide more emphasis on leadership and personal development training.



I was somehwat surprised that recruitment and training standards will be maintained and have put down a further question on this.

[BEagle]

As a tax payer, whilst I considered it an entirely reasonable use of the Defence Budget for flying training to be provided for students at University Air Squadrons, providing them with 10 hours of annual joy-riding seems an utter waste of the tax payers' money.

"What if any flying training will henceforth be given at University Air Squadrons - and by whom will it be conducted?"

[boringoldfart]

as an ex UAS CFI - I remember we justified our existance same as ATC - it wasn't just the ones we recruited but also the future leaders of the country(!) who would foster fond memories of the RAF (*uke!)etc etc etc

[Roland Pulfrew]

BEags

What was the point of your question? This topic explains very clearly what the flying training will be and who will be able to carry it out. Which bit do you want clarifying?

ALL students will be able to undertake 10 hours instructional flying per year. It will be on a syllabus that will closely mirror the NPPL, and students will still have to do the old (and already accredited) Crit Point system. The instruction will be done by current QFIs or AEF pilots who have previously held a QFI category and who will (after a period of training) be given a C to I on the UAS/Tutor syllabus.

All of this is explained above.

With regard to recruiting and entry standards - all students will still have to get an RAF MES - this is a minimum requirement to enable a student to participate in AT and sports etc. The MES will be the same as that required by the old "ground branch" members of the UASs. This is higher than that required for an NPPL but not as high a standard as the RAF Pilot entry requirements.

I will refrain from commenting on Lord Tim's "training standards" as it is probably too early to comment.

[50+Ray]

Pardon the belated intrusion from one far away in the sunshine, but the proposed syllabus jars with my experience of over ten years EFT teaching experience. In my student years continuity was a major problem. When teaching at JEFTS the students only had the weather to cause problems. ASIs stated that these current, selected, medically approved and fully groundschooled students had to fly two hours solo circuit bashing before continuing onto off circuit work. In the new, let them all have 10 hours, we will find someone who can teach it scenario, it sems that the student will need less supervision and practice :hmm:

[BEagle]

Quite so, Ray.

I suspect that the 10 hour people (poor $ods) will end up hoarding their hours in an attempt to have some continuity. Nothing until after their summer term exams, then 10 hours, then the the 10 for the following year immediately afterwards before starting the following autumn term.... As for the final 10....

Are these 10 hour people supposed to do either air experience or 10 hours joy-riding? Or will they be allowed to do some of each?

Only that flying training conducted by a QFI or holder of a current civil FI Rating may be accredited; presumably the air experience joy-rides won't be recorded in the passenger's log book?

And incidentally, Roly, my question was phrased in a manner which others may wish to ask officially. I have been given conflicting accounts of what the 'flying training' will consist of; the CAA are aware of the fact that UAS flying has changed and until the emergent UAS syllabus has been studied, advice to NPLG will be to accredit only that UAS flying conducted prior to 21 Sep 05 pending further information. Hopefully this will all be resolved before the 2006 ANO amendment pertaining to the NPPL becomes law.

[deltahotel]

The problem is that no-one really knows how it's going to pan out yet. The intention seems to be to give the studes instruction if the available staff are suitably qualified and it's what they want, otherwise it'll be AEF. My guess is that the UAS will be given a pot of hours to fly (x studes @ 10 hrs) and then the keen beans will do plenty and the others somewhat less.

Instruction will (should) be fairly accessible at some places (eg cranditz where there is a good QFI stock), less so at others. I'm sure that CFS are looking forward to doing the C to I s that will be required and then the maintenance of those quals!

[Uncle Ginsters]

Beags,
I suspect that the 10 hour people (poor $ods) will end up hoarding their hours in an attempt to have some continuity. Nothing until after their summer term exams, then 10 hours, then the the 10 for the following year immediately afterwards before starting the following autumn term.... As for the final 10....

I agree...that's what the sensible stude might do. The problem is that with only 1xUAS QFI and 2 gusting 3 AEF C2Is, there simply won't be enough slots on the FlyPro to fly 80 students x 10hrs in that time frame (when you take into account all other factors). NB also that the AEF guys are not going to be full time so how and when will they provide their hrs? Still a big issue to sort out.

The staffing means that student fg (instructional) will happen as and when the QFIs are available. If this is spread evenly over the course of a year, then each hr airborne wll be at least 30 mins 'rust-shaking' - so each stude effectively gets 5hrs (instructional) per year - doh!:uhoh:

Most studes don't fly their full quota as it stands so this may not be an issue...we wait with baited breath.

Uncle G :ok:

[BEagle]

Just out of interest, but is there any specific incentive for an AEF pilot to regain a C-to-I interim QFI category?

[Uncle Ginsters]

is there any specific incentive for an AEF pilot to regain a C-to-I interim QFI category?
Erm.......but for the good of the nation, old boy :ok: ?!?

Not as yet....looking for some extra income, Beags? :D

[BEagle]

No thanks, Uncle G!

Just wondered what the incentive would be to persuade part-time joy-ride pilots to go through all the extra hassle of QFI refresher flying, instrument rating tests, standards etc etc......

[Uncle Ginsters]

That's what a lot of people are wondering. At the moment it seems to be relying on the good will and character of those former-QFIs.

The CAA hrs limit is a factor for some - especially when the stude will actually be in control for most of that time (sortie dependant). The extra triv - brief/teach/debrief/write-up/currency/CFS...
It's not just a Sunday afternoon bimble with a 12yr old now!
At current, AEF pilots do not get paid year-round. Only at the AEF camps (Easter+Summer) does that happen.

Not all AEFs have the specific manning to make this viable - although some do. Will be interesting to see just how many are available

[BEagle]

Presumably a properly structured Training Needs Analysis and assessment of available assets was conducted before the conclusions of such a fundamental report were accepted?

If the number of AEF C-to-I QFIs fails to meet the business plan, how will the shortfall be resolved?

Also, with such a system the number of regular RAF QFIs must surely reduce. So what staffing assumptions have been made which will ensure that the revised UAS system for flying training is sustainable over a period of years?

[Roland Pulfrew]

BEags

Accordong to the man from PMA, they are very worried about having enough QFIs in the system to sustain the frontline OCUs. This cut may be a cut too far and may result in more of those FI :yuk: creatures on the OCUs!

[BEagle]

But by reducing the UAS/EFT QFI manning requirement, apart from gaining a few QFIs into the front line in the short term, the replacement of those front line QFIs in 2-3 years time will be achieved....how? Because there won't be any at the UASs....

Or will it be a mess which the universal panacea of MFTS will be expected to resolve :rolleyes: ??

As for non-Q FIs at OCUs, I agree with you. Back in the days of shiny 10, they were not allowed to instruct ab-initio pilots during their initial conversion - and that was also the view of a senior CFS bloke I flew just before I left the mob.

Also, the loss of UAS QFI posts means that the chance of a 'rest tour' away from desert camping and all the other joys of overstretch will be somewhat diminished for the front line ME folk. Yet another 'push factor', methinks?

[hangar lemmie]

A meeting at Cranditz on Wednesday for AEF commanders and other interested parties will examine these questions but whether they will be resolved, who knows? Look forward to hearing the outcome.

[Wholigan]

A few things.

The meeting on Wednesday is at Cosford.

AEF pilots do get paid for Easter/Summer camps, but only up to a maximum of (hmmm - brain f@rt - can't remember but pretty sure it's) 28 days per year.

I had 5 ex-QFIs who showed a little interest in resurrecting their instructional status ---- until the terms were explained. I now have none!

Requirements (as explained to me - and depending on when they last practised their art full-time etc) are:

a. 15 exercise refresher. Refresher at this time of year could take up to 3 weeks at Cranwell. Quote - "not necessarily all in one go".

b. 20 instructional hours per year.

c. 2 day EFT Standards every year.

d. One CFS Exam Wg ride every 2 years.

e. It will be up to the individual person to negotiate time off from their airlines for the refresher etc. It will also be up to them to sort out what their airline thinks of them flying instructional sorties - which may or may not (nobody seems clear on this) count towards their maximum of 900 hours per year allowed by the CAA.

f. They will NOT be paid.

I am not yet clear (and I will be asking on Wednesday) if the guys will be expected to maintain an instrument rating (pretty useless for much of the year without one). It is also not clear yet whether or not there will be any relaxation of the requirements of simulated, actual and approaches etc. Part time pilots may find it very difficult to achieve the requirements.

Time will tell.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Wholigan,
Time may tell - and so hopefully will the meeting on Wednesday. Although i think we'd better check our sources - i too thought it was at CWL...better cx as me + 1 from our unit were planning to be there!!

Given the hours/currency you quote, it is even more difficult to see how your line AEF C2I QFI will afford the time (unless they're a ret'd Air Rank still on the Queen's shilling:uhoh: )

....and if that will maintain the stds of teaching, albeit in a reduced syllabus, i'll be highly surprised. No offence to the AEF, but if you want to change a tyre, you don't use a flint axe (even a reconditioned one!).

Beags - we should still have QFIs at the EFTSs (50 or so) - but what of MFTS in a couple of year's time? Another total reshuffle that will doubtless beg the question "Why the '05 changes?".

Another fairly large question is what should be the prerequisites for the UAS QFI? He needs to be suitably self-supervising (B1+ ?) Yet young enough to pass on the true military ethos and enthusiasm and get stuck-in with all the AT/PDT.
The supervisory answer may be to spend 2yrs or so on an EFTS before transferring. But what pilot will want to go (at the 2yr pt where most beg only of a return to the front line) to teach little more than ccts at a glorified outdoor pursuits centre (fun though it may be :ok:)

Uncle G

[Trainspotter]

Once again Beagle has hit the nail on the head…and now that Wholigan has filled in some of the detail that has been lacking with regard to the C to I scheme words simply fail me…

I joined the AEF to give back a little of the enjoyment that I gained from my 20 years in the Service. Even if only one or two of the numerous cadets I have flown are sparked into considering the RAF as a career then everyone is a winner.

Now, the Service that I knew and loved turns more daily into a management speak exercise and those that run it clearly need to learn some fundamental lessons. As they say up here ‘there is ‘owt for nowt in this world’ so please how can people be expected to give up significantly more of their precious free time, put themselves under the professional microscope again on a frequent basis and yet not even be remunerated? ( and hand on heart who can really maintain quality QFI standards on 20 hours a year?)

For such basic and flawed assumptions to have been made only adds to the weight of suspicion that this whole exercise has been driven by individuals with their own sad agenda…and if there is a spot of truth in one rumour I have heard then I guess this is the penalty of allowing non-aircrew 2* officers fiddle with things purely because their time on a UAS was felt to be non-PC towards blunties.

This thread runs to several pages now and yet nowhere have I seen anyone give an estimate of just how much this ill-thought out staff work is going to save….from a budget that let’s face gave the RAF a super recruiting machine for what in the big scheme of things was not much outlay.

Ah well, where is that tax credits form that I forgot to fill out…
:ok:

[BEagle]

So what assumptions were made concerning the availability of AEF C-to-I QFIs to meet this new UAS training plan?

Teaching circuits at a 'glorified outdoor activities centre' without even being paid for such joy? Doesn't sound particularly attractive to me - unlike giving enthusiastic Space Cadets some weekend aeros!

AEF C-to-I QFIs without IRs will be severely limited when teaching early exercises. For example, the other week there was a gloomy overcast at 1500 ft, above which it was clear as a bell. How would an unrated QFI attempt to teach a combined EoC 1 /S&L 1 exercise in such conditions? Bloggs would be unlikely to learn the essential 'L:ooh:kout, attitude, instruments' work cycle under such conditions and probably pick up 'Glance, hope, chase' instead... :mad:

How can such a fundamental report have possibly been accepted if it failed to present a fully accurate picture of the TNA conclusions, media assessment and asset availability? Of course there will be cost savings if volunteer unpaid C-to-I QFIs were to replace regular RAF QFIs - but unless that availability of such unpaid C-to-I QFIs has been reasonably assured, the whole report must, ipso facto, be fundamentally flawed.

[Wholigan]

Uncle Ginsters

Sorry - you are right. I was given "duff gen" by somebody who shall remain nameless but will be there with me on Wednesday! :E ;)

[hangar lemmie]

'Cosford' - nearly had me going then!

Another factor to be brought into the cost of this scheme is the amount of SCT to be allocated to the AEF C to Is, which should be much more than the current allowance, if the numbers in TGOs are anything to go by.

This will effectively mean they have to turn up more often or they may be available for fewer instructional sorties.

[blagger]

I still haven't figured out who will do all the work on the UASs (leaving aside the flying element, i.e. organising and supervising sports, AT, town nights, balls, summer camp training etc.. etc..) - from what I've read, at best a UAS will be left with an OC, 1 QFI and a Sgt PTI. Are they expecting the AEF pilots to get involved with non-flying UAS activities as well? From what I remember of my UAS the 5 QFIs were maxxed with non-flying workload back then. I think your average ATC squadron has at least 4 staff for about 40 cadets, yet alone a UAS with 80+(?) students...

[Elmlea]

Regarding manning, one thing no-one seems to have thought about are current QFIs devoting some time to UAS flying; or about-to-retire QFIs jumping over?

At my base, there're a lot of A2 QFIs about to head off for pastures new in various airlines. All were keen to get an AEF slot to maintain a little bit of "hands-on" flying for fun. With all of this going on, they've found that instead of being at the bottom of a long list, they're now being invited for convexes and have places available for them at local AEFs.

Also, there are quite a few QFIs around who like the idea of giving something back; they're happy to give up the odd weekend to do a little bit of flying, and I'm sure they could be pulled into the manning plots for camps/UAS flying with relative ease as well.

So if older, current AEF chaps don't fancy the hassle of becoming CtoI; perhaps at some places, there're enough current/not-long-to-go QFIs to take up some of the slack?

[Uncle Ginsters]

Elmlea,
All always in the RAF there will be those with the 'can-do' attitude to make it work. Your post contains too many 'perhaps' and 'the odd bit' of commitment to be expected as a steady-state plan for the future of all UAS/AEF fg. It may work in some cases because the right manning happens to be around.
As BEagle has already said, this is another step in the downward spiral of the number of QFIs in the RAF...how long before there are not enough ex-QFI AEF types and the whole plan has to be re-thought? We may even be at that point now, if the right questions were asked :(
Would be interested in seeing the national figures for available AEF QFIs - i know at least one AEF that's struggling....

Uncle G

[BEagle]

And what if 100% of the new-style University Air Cadets all say "To hell with joy-riding, I want to be taught to fly!". The sole UAS QFI had better not break an ankle farting about with all that jolly adventurous training.....or even catch 'flu.

Presumably the business plan made an initial assessment of the UAS air experience to flying training demand ratio? If not, how can any accurate assessment have been made of the number of unpaid 'volunteer' AEF C-to-I QFIs needed, let alone actually the number actually available.

[Crashed&Burned]

ATC cadets can remain in the Corps until they are 22 if the reach Cadet Warrant Officer rank. Under new regs they can even go out and get p*ssed on ATC camps, so why join a UAS if they are university students?

The 'new' UASs don't offer much more, it seems...