University Air Squadrons

[Tankertrashnav]

On a day when the MOD is reeling after the Nimrod report, and 2 days after the Puma inquest,the RAF is subjected to further castigation in this article on an unnamed UAS in today's Times.

Top brass are failing our Top Guns | Melanie Reid - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article6892821.ece)

Would anyone who has had recent experience of a UAS, either on the staff or as a student care to comment? I suspect that it's a pretty unfair portrait, certainly when I was at Uni you didn't have to join the UAS to experience hard-drinking, which was pretty universal, but nevertheless there may be some truth in it. This is publicity we could well do without, today of all days.

[PhilIvey]

This is hilarious.

It is spot on, although at first I thought she was discussing an URNU.

My experience is exactly what this journalist wrote although it was with an URNU.

I could not really see the point of them. Waste of RN money (when times are tight enough). Less than ten percent of the yearly intake around 20 to 30 will go into the RN. Surely this money could be spent elsewhere? :ugh:

My time with an URNU did allow me to further my understanding of the mentality shift between civvie street and military whilst also allowing me to network with the right people in the RN. FAA CO's and Aircrew etc

UAS, OTC and URNU are all very similar.

We didnt do the bleep test once collectively as a unit. What a gimmick!!! haha

[flipster]

I know - what about giving the students some proper flying training with qualified flying instructors - RAF flying tuition that is top-notch and lays the airmanship foundations for their future careers?

Oh, hang on.....!

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I've been around UAS's for some time, although not as a student, and I'd confess that since the change in the system, the "drinking culture" does seem to have increased in some places. However, I never saw any "clique-ness" when it came to allocation of flying during term-time, actually I would have said the available slots were massively under-used compared to prior to the report. Not sure about PIFTs, camps etc but fairly sure the slots were doled out evenly.

What the reporter doesn't state though, although she does admit that the UAS is not representative of the rest of Crabair, is that a UAS is effectively a glorified student club, the same as the Uni Mountaineering society, or the Hockey club, or the rowing club. And in my experience certainly the latter 2 involve copious quantities of booze. IMHO the UAS would do well to begin to distance itself from such a reputation.

[BEagle]

flipster, how right you are!

Before UASs became adventure playground outfits, they were commanded by RAF aircrew and all officers were either RAF aircrew QFIs or FTRS aircrew QFIs. Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.

Then some idiot decided to grade UAS students. Totally absurd. Students, not being completely stupid, realised that continuity was essential if they were going to be graded fast-jet. So harboured their flying allocation until Easter and Summer Camp and used the term-time training nights for light relief.

Then things deteriorated still further with the current University Air Cadets scheme which is an utter travesty. One, maybe 2 RAF QFIs per UAS? Who supervises the students on Training Nights?

I know I'm out of touch, but the UAS methods of the 1980s beat the current nonsense into a cocked hat. And in the overall scheme of things, it cost SFA! In addition to providing excellent training for students, UASs gave novice QFIs an excellent opportunity to develop and practise their instructional skills. The RAF even owned and operated proper military training aircraft rather than renting them from some bank.

It seems that UASs fly around 33% of the hours they did 6 years or so ago. I know that students now have opportunities to do more adventurous training etc, but perhaps the devil alcohol makes more time for idle hands, now that there's so little flying?

[Runaway Gun]

Helicopters carrying Napalm? I gave up on everything she wrote after that...

[muppetofthenorth]

As - probably - the most recent UAS stude here there are certainly aspects of the article I can identify with. However, I'd have had slightly more sympathy for the guys involved if they'd stayed less than a year before deciding it wasn't for them. The article states they were disillusioned after a year and a half of empty promises? Tough. If things aren't being organised, then you take over and organise them yourself. Yes there are less staff about - perhaps 2 full time RAF personnel per sqn (one as OC, one GTI) and one or two RAFR as instructing pilots - but if you went to them and asked for assistance to organise an event, they'd drop almost everything and help out implicitly. If the guys in the article didn't have the presence of mind to do that, then the UAS was better off without, to be honest.
Of course, every UAS is different and some will be better than others - and students are still students - but whining because something isn't going your way when you have power to change it is absurd.

The UAS' are obviously doing something right, the most recent IOT course to start has about 60 cdts all hailing from an UAS, with every single one represented by at least one cdt, some with 5 or 6.

Those who want to can still get something out of the system, so it's not something to write off yet.

[Tankertrashnav]

You're not doing English at uni by any chance are you bangout? ;)

[Lyco360]

An informed, in depth review of the RAF based on second hand information gleamed from some friend's kids from when they went to a University Air Squadron! Top quality cafe gossip!

Maybe I can recognise the caricature of the Air Squadron I went to there. Its certainly a long way from the true nature of the squadron. There was a lot of drinking, but not to same level of excess of the sports clubs. There was a bit of pressure, nothing that couldn't be coped with!

A great deal of time and effort went into the squadron by the students as well as the Officers. There was a group of students closer to the heart of the squadron, including the APOs. They were in those positions generally due to getting stuck in more than the rest. No favouritism was attached to anyone when it came to assigning opportunities, be it flying or on expeds.

The flying training on the UAS is excellent, as is the equipment. Having paid top dollar at one of the best professional civilian FTOs: it doesn't compare to what was available in the UAS. Similarly the other opportunities available to Officer Cadets are far beyond what any of the non-forces university organisations can offer.

Most of the students in the intakes around my time went on to at least OASC. Everyone, to my knowledge, who got offered a place took it. A few ended up at Sandhurst, Dartmouth or the MoD. Two or three ended up in the Airlines. I don't think many of those that disappeared elsewhere were a great loss to the system!

I'm pretty sure that things were much the same in the lesser, provincial, squadrons that existed too! :E

[airborne_artist]

The flying training on the UAS is excellent

But there is no formal flying training on a UAS following the recent changes.

[Ed Winchester]

Hopefully this article will not be taken too seriously, mainly as it second-hand, uninformed rubbish.

There is formal flying training, it is just not EFTS. There is still a flying syllabus. It is just different. Students achieve first solo, solo sector recce, solo aerobatics, solo formation, solo nav - how do you think this is achieved without formal flying training?

As has been stated above - students get out what they put in. There may not be dozens of QFIs on every UAS, but as usual we manage to do as much, if not more, with less. I am constantly amazed by the enthusiasm, time and effort put into the sqn by the students.

Flying Instruction, Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, Engagement. It all happens, and the UAS is not a sleepy backwater for any member of the staff. It is a pleasant change from an operational tour, but it is still 'kin busy.

Anyway, there's my opinion. But what would I know, I am only dealing with the facts every day, rather than reminiscing about the good old Cold War days and assuming I know everything about today's Royal Air Force and what is best for it.

[Tankertrashnav]

I am only dealing with the facts every day, rather than reminiscing about the good old Cold War days and assuming I know everything about today's Royal Air Force


Which is precisely why I started this thread - to get some up to date opinion from people who actually have some current experience.

On this matter, though, maybe I am hyper-sensitive, but there does seem to be an underlying current of sneering about ex-aircrew "of a certain age" on here. No-one can help their age, anymore than they can help their gender or race. You can't really blame old farts, whose daily lives are maybe somewhat dull, for reminiscing about the time when the Queen paid them to fly around the world in nice shiny aeroplanes, visiting foreign places that more often than not were neither sandy nor dangerous! (Although I did manage 6 months in Aden myself, and got shot at [he missed!]).

Interesting crop of opinions on UAS's - thanks - not much agreement though.

[muppetofthenorth]

So far, 99% of the animosity in this thread seems to devolve to the fact that UAS' no longer provide pilot training and that their raison d'etre is null and void. Anybody currently on the UAS, or having left one in the last 2 years has - more than likely - zero exposure to the 'old' system, so couldn't care less how things used to be. Yes, UAS' may not provide the RAF with ready-made pilots, but those who successfully complete 3 years with their local squadron will be far better prepared to be JOs. Ultimately, what's more useful? For every pilot there needs to be an IntO, a JEngO, LogO [or whatever they're going to be called], Provost, Doctor, Dentist, Ops, ATC and ABM, so why is training geared towards providing JOs sneered at?


Tankertrashnav, if you're after a consensus I reckon you're out of luck!

[Tankertrashnav]

Tankertrashnav, if you're after a consensus I reckon you're out of luck!

I reckon you're right. Anyway a PPrune thread with 100% agreement would be pretty boring. You've made some good points, as one who served both in a ground branch and as aircrew I have to agree that flying is not everything. However if I was a student in a UAS I'd be pretty disappointed if I never got to fly.

[idle stop]

I'm with BEagle on this. But then that's not surprising since we were contemporaries, as undergrads, on the same UAS. He speaks with authority as he went back later as a QFI.

'Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.'

How right. After reading the Times article, I looked at the RAF's UAS website and the Wikipedia entry. They don't tell you, but UAS were formed in the 1930s as RAFVR training units, with the object of exposing university students to the Service, and RAF in particular, ethos: on the basis that these people would go on to be in positions of influence in society as civil professionals. The 'carrot' was to teach them to fly, and the methodology for this was exactly the same as (then) EFTS. Fortunately, some of these chaps carrried on with their flying and formed the cadre of early 2WW pilots.
When I joined in 1969, our unit was about 90% RAFVR Cadet Pilots and the rest a few APOs on University Cadetships, plus 'parented' Medics. As a result of the 1970 decision by the Service Chiefs to make the default standard of Officer Entry those with degrees, the composition of UAS was gradually skewed, and, of course, there was a greater number of ancillary (non-aircrew) cadetship persons 'parented ' by each unit.
It is a shame that successive financial squeezes have so changed the purpose and ethos of UAS. The flying syllabus is much more restricted: I wonder how many manage to work their way throught the syllabus as far as PFB (the syllabus for which has also been downgraded) these days?
Did we drink? Of course. A lot. Work hard, play hard. But we managed our degrees and our flying too.
Most of the VRs in my intake either subsequently joined the RAF full time (I did) or went off to BOAC/BEA.
Amongst my contemporaries are (retired!) senior officers, (retired) BA pilots, and an eminent aviation lawyer and judge; two of us are graduate tps, and still working: where did we go wrong? Hang on, we're still flying!
I hope that in another 40 years' time a current UAS student today will be able to look back with fond memories and feel, like I do, that this was where it all started.

[miniwafu]

i don't suppose any of you have recently walked into the 16 Sqn students crewroom at Rauceby Lane? Or spent a night in Daedalus Mess at Cranwell. If you had you might have been suprised...
16 (R) caters for 1/3 of the RAF EFT students (many of whom come out of the UAS, but that is neither here nor there). To that end it is a constantly busy squadron and is often pressed by time and resources to finish EFT courses on time. It is slightly curious, then, that if you were to walk into the crewroom that houses usually 20 but up to 30 RAF students at one time, you could very easily mistake it for the East Midlands UAS crewroom. They share, but the amount of space there and in the mess that the UAS seem to occupy is odd, considering how pressed the RAF is. And they aren't just sitting around drinking (though do occasionally wake up those of us with jobs to do on return from the bar)... they benefit from an enormous amount of flying - contrary to some of the earlier suggestions. I've never been airborne in the area without hearing a UAS callsign - and perhaps the biggest question we should be asking is: "can we justify it??"

Yes the UAS is a huge recruiter... and yes the ex-UAS students tend to cope with EFT very well... but is that fair? Fair on the guys who may dip out - the guys for whom the squadron and aircraft are really there. And is it fair on those without the flying experience? RAF EFT is competitive, there is no question of that... is the UAS a strictly necessary headstart or does it possibly allow students to perform better than they otherwise would, thereby taking up one of those precious linton spaces?

I'm only questioning! :ok:

MW

[Pontius Navigator]

Idle Stop, I wonder how many manage to work their way throught the syllabus as far as PFB

This throws an interesting light on my Nav Course. Of 7 students 5 were chopped pilots. Only one graduated as a Nav and he retired early. The other two were straight-through Navs and are both now wg cdr; they were the only 2 out of 6 UAS students to gain their PFB.

From what has been said earlier, they obviously applied themselves to both their studies and their UAS work.

[Wholigan]

However if I was a student in a UAS I'd be pretty disappointed if I never got to fly.

I only know about one UAS, never having been a UAS student myself. The guys and gals are first class people and most try their utmost to fit in and to achieve the best they can in their chosen way.

I am sure you are right those of you that say that UASs aren't what they used to be. But, even in my short time (9 years) in contact with this one, I have seen the goalposts moved quite drastically twice, and on both occasions for reasons that I can understand.

The first time was when it was decided that all EFT was to be conducted on UASs and that the old EFTs would close. I know the person who was ultimately responsible for the implementation of this decision, and I also know why he decided what he did. UASs were under dire and real threat from the purse-string holders axe, and the only way at the time to solve the problem was to be able to say "you can't cut UASs because they are an integral part of our flying training system and without them we would not be able to train our pilots". As they are still with us I can only assume that it worked! (It does make me wonder though whether the current system will now come under the same or worse threat in today's current climate of 'must make savings in defence'.)

The second time was when 'a study' recommended that the previous decision be reversed, but reversed without the funding being available to reinstate the old system as it was in its entirety. Therefore, some major policy changes had to be made to save money.

The money saving method chosen was to result in a major change of emphasis on how the UASs were to be run. No longer was the prime raison d'etre to be flying training. There was to be more emphasis on Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, etc (as has already been stated).

Flying was still to be available, but this was also to have a change of emphasis. Now, instead of 'flying training' being available solely to those who 'intended' to join the RAF as aircrew, flying is now available to all who wish to take up the opportunity to fly.

In order to make this available to all and to stay within the budgetary constraints, the core staffing of UASs was changed. Now the baseline 'standard' staffing is a boss and a deputy OC (basically the old CFI post). The remaining requirement for instructors is achieved by the OC of the AEF being a QFI (now a mandatory requirement for holding the post), and a number of AEF pilots who are experienced 'basic' QFIs renewing their cat and instructing 'part-time'. Some of these 'part-timers' put as much time and effort into their instructing on the UAS as I have seen in the past from one or two full-time QFIs on the 'old system', but that is primarily a function of individual personalities.

Given aircraft availability and weather being suitable, I have not known a UAS student/cadet who wanted to fly not being able to. Incidentally, each student has the choice of whether he or she wants to follow the formal training syllabus or just fly 'AEF' type sorties just for the experience of flying. It is possible for them to start in one of those streams and subsequently change over to the other stream. If they find that their degree is placing too much pressure on them for them to devote enough time to following the formal syllabus, they can change to AEF flying. If - on the other hand - they get to a stage of their degree course where they find they can devote more time they can change from AEF to the formal syllabus. Needless to say, there are some who have the decision of which stream they will follow made for them!

Also, each of the UAS members is entitled to 10 hours a year, regardless of intended trade/branch etc and even regardless of whether they indicate that they may or may not intend to join the RAF in due course. For this the UAS has a 'bucket of hours' which is based on that 10 hours per member. If some people are not interested in taking up the offer of flying or they are too busy for a time with their degree course, then those hours are available - for those who are interested - to fly more than this allocated number of hours. It may be just rumour control (but considering who told me I doubt it) I think the best achieved so far (not on our UAS) was 67 hours in the first year!

As far as the 'drinking culture' is concerned, of course they drink. But on the UAS I know, there is now no formal bar available at town nights. The bar is stocked and opened specifically for functions and - yes guess what - they drink at those functions. What a surprise! I bet that whoever said there is more drinking and a worse 'drinking culture' at some of the other university clubs is very close to being right.

As far as 'are they worth keeping' is concerned, I'm afraid that my vote is quite definitely for 'yes they are'. In my past (coming up to) 46 years in the RAF, I have met people all over the world who have a very fond memory of their time with the UAS. Many of these people (who did not join the RAF) are in positions of considerable 'influence' and have a warm and fuzzy feeling of how valuable the RAF was, is and will be. This can do no harm and is immeasurable in terms of the cost-effectiveness/value of UASs.

So that's my few 'facts' and - yes - I am an 'old fart cold war warrior' whose views you can dismiss if you wish, but I know what I see on a daily basis and what I believe about the value of UASs, whatever form they take and whatever 'flying training' they give.

[The Real Slim Shady]

and - yes - I am an 'old fart cold war warrior' whose views you can dismiss if you wish

Roj, sometimes change for change's sake is no improvement.

I was a UAS stude and subsequently had the privilege of being a QFI on a different UAS.

The ethos of the entire system, 70s and 80s was to foster good relations with the military: primarily the RAF.

The cost of the "old style" UAS hardly justifies their demolition: the benefits far outweigh the expenditure.

[Wholigan]

Yes mate I agree with you and I don't believe that I said anywhere that change for change's sake could be an improvement. In fact, I was careful not to say that and to try to explain just why the recent changes have come about. Because I 'explained' the reasons doesn't mean that I agree with them, but budget controllers are today the gods, like it or not.

[BEagle]

There was to be more emphasis on Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, etc (as has already been stated).

So, apart from OASC, join the OTC and do that sort of thing a whole lot better!

10 hours per year. Just not worth it - I suspect the VR pilots get more out of it than any of the students - or rather, the interested passengers.

Personally I think the current pathetic excuse for the UAS system may as well hand their plastic pigs back to the bank and go home. Either that or do things properly - with military QFIs (that's real QFIs, not just AEF pilots given a laying-on of hands) providing disciplined flying training to a defined syllabus.

idle stop - you'd barely recognise 'our' part of White Waltham these days. But you'd recognise the UAS scheme of today even less....:uhoh:

And why the hell are tax payers stumping up for UAS students to bog off to Peru or wherever for 'charitable work'? What's wrong with the UK for that?

[idle stop]

Wholigan: I'm re-assured by your long post. Thank you.

BEagle: I've been into WW a couple of times in the past few years and taken time for a quick shufti. I was surprised to see that the Mess (on camp, not the old HQ23 Gp one, on the MQ site) still standing, but surprised the more so that the old wooden F700 hut by the Fairey Hangar hadn't yet fallen down! The old ULAS/6AEF building and accommodation block are as stark as ever.
You really must try to make it to the 'oldies' reunion dinner. Was hoping I would see you on this year's list, but probably too late now as it's tomorrow evening at 128.

[Wholigan]

Once again BEags old mate, I must emphasise that I am not trying to justify any of the changes, merely putting a few of what I consider to be 'facts' into this thread that is naturally proving to be somewhat emotive. And also to state that I still think that they are worthwhile institutions, even if they don't match up to the idealistic requirements of many in here.

Simply put, I believe that it's better to have what we have, rather than the realistic current budgetary alternative - - - nothing.


Edited to say that as I have no experience whatsoever of OTCs, I do not know whether or not they do "the same only better". I do know that we have students who have taken the time and effort to become mountain leaders, canoe leaders etc and that the system puts a lot of effort into doing the adventurous training stuff. I also do know that even if they do do "the same only better", the OTC still doesn't provide the opportunity to fly as well.

Oops - sorry - that WAS almost a defence of the system.

[muppetofthenorth]

BEagle, you're starting to sound more childish than the pathetic charicatures of modern university students you're painting. So what if your rosey picture of PILOTS PILOTS PILOTS is no longer being painted? Yes, it's different. But, guess what? Different doesn't mean worse. I know you're getting on a bit and that concept might be a bit hard to understand, but it really doesn't take much to grasp the logic behind it.

And why is it better for people to do 'charitable work in Peru' at the Army's expense rather than the RAF's? Because I assure you they do them as well. Do a different set of taxpayers contribute to the Army's budget?

[Mr C Hinecap]

It is a shame that successive financial squeezes have so changed the purpose and ethos of UAS. The flying syllabus is much more restricted: I wonder how many manage to work their way throught the syllabus as far as PFB (the syllabus for which has also been downgraded) these days?

No it isn't. The current and future Air Force requires more Officers to have far more skills than flying small aeroplanes around the UK. If it is more inclusive and focuses upon the skills that transfer into most all Branches, then it is a better thing for the RAF as a whole. Regardless of what drives the changes, something that is more open to the development of individuals in an RAF environment but isn't flying is excellent and possibly a far greater return on investment.

[Wholigan]

I suspect the VR pilots get more out of it than any of the students - or rather, the interested passengers


I think you're way out of touch and out of line with this statement.

A lot of my guys would - in many ways - much rather come in and fly air cadets, where there is much less pressure and much less requirement to get everything right, rather than spend time preparing for their instructional sortie, briefing carefully and then instructing to the best of their ability (which in many cases is considerable), then debriefing and conscientiously writing up the sortie.

I also have to say that the students who follow the formal syllabus are definitely not "interested passengers"! They still need to meet the same standards for first solo, solo sector recce, solo aeros etc. Just because the system has changed doesn't mean that those individual standards requirements have been allowed to lapse. And they never will be!

[Wholigan]

It all happens, and the UAS is not a sleepy backwater for any member of the staff. It is a pleasant change from an operational tour, but it is still 'kin busy.



Correct!

It is particularly " 'kin busy", because all of those "secondary duties" that used to be shared between 5 or 6 QFIs now need to be done by one or two with some help from the AEF commander.

[Wholigan]

While I'm 'on a roll' ...................


(that's real QFIs, not just AEF pilots given a laying-on of hands)


Most of these 'just AEF pilots given a laying on of hands' have a huge amount of experience in flying training. Some of them are only recently 'out of the real system'. Some of them have more instructional experience - in between their 'real' jobs - than can even be imagined by the 'military QFIs' that you laud (a lot of whom are and were first tour B2s then B1s). A lot of the AEF 'QFIs' are ex-A1s and that is a skill and talent that is not easily lost, just as it isn't easily gained by the first tour B2s!

[BEagle]

I know you're getting on a bit and that concept might be a bit hard to understand, but it really doesn't take much to grasp the logic behind it.

.....there does seem to be an underlying current of sneering about ex-aircrew "of a certain age" on here.

Tankertrashnav, your point is well made.

Wholi', what fraction of the UAS hours budget is spent teaching pilot students these days? The 'interested passengers' I referred to being the non-pilot students receiving air experience joy rides.

How will the future UAS/AEF system be self-sustaining if it relies on retired aircrew so heavily, given that the available population is fast decreasing?

[Wholigan]

And finally 'cos I'm now off to bed to get up early for my worthless job:


10 hours per year. Just not worth it


Read again ...............

For this the UAS has a 'bucket of hours' which is based on that 10 hours per member. If some people are not interested in taking up the offer of flying or they are too busy for a time with their degree course, then those hours are available for those who are interested to fly more than this allocated number of hours. It may be just rumour control (but considering who told me I doubt it) I think the best achieved so far (not on our UAS) was 67 hours in the first year!

That must be 'worth it'!

[BEagle]

If some people are not interested in taking up the offer of flying....

In my time, they would have been outside the boss's door fairly schnell. If they didn't have the excuse of a demanding degree, it would have been a case of "Don't let the door hit you on the ar$e on your way out.... Good-bye!" He might not have been the most popular boss in the world, but once news of his 'nights of the long knives' (or 'wanquerre cull' as others termed it) hit the bazaars, even the most idle students started to turn up for flying.

If someone can manage 6.7 x the allotted hours, or about 2 x the allotted hours even in 'traditional' UAS days, one wonders what sort of a degree course he/she was doing.

By the way, no need to get up particularly early - haven't you seen the Met.....:\?

[Anonystude]

As a recent product of both the 'old' (EFT at UAS) and 'new' (post-Marston report) UAS world, I'll chuck in my tuppence worth...

Yes, it's a shame they've cut the flying. However, the cut tends to be more in beancounter terms than actual student flying -- of the people left when I graduated, probably upwards of 25% (60%+ in the higher years) have the 'new' PFB (roughly half of the EFT syllabus). Many of those have completed the 'expansion packages' or whatever they're called that bring their experience up to that of a completed EFT student. The flying rate of individual students certainly didn't change that much; there were enough Medics/Engineers not flying to give the rest of us all the flying we could hack (or desire!).

Some who have entered flying training (both RAF and RN, and one AAC) in my cohort, or in the years following, have well over 100 hours of Tutor experience. Is it fair? Probably not. Do I think that's a problem? Not really. Most of the DE aircrew I've been working with have performed just as well as the ex-UAS grads.

However, the UAS system changed (I believe) to reflect the changes in the 'real' RAF: the rise of Force Development and all the associated buzzword bingo to go with it being but one example. Whereas before UAS expeds were set with twin aims (getting drunk in foreign parts and having a bloody good time, whilst actually learning something about yourself, leadership and teamwork almost in passing), they now have to meet the whims of 'FD' and 'AT' (and now instead of drinking in bars various you get treated to evenings of IOT-style 'reviews' and 'Action Plans' and other such). Whilst this is a shame, I'll admit, it does produce 'officer cadets' who fit in better with the ideas and ethos of the modern RAF rather than the proto-aircrew wannabes that the UASs of old produced to terrorise the Flt Cdrs at DIOT/OACTU.

The new UAS system is still bloody brilliant (or it was when I left three years ago). Certainly, the flying isn't the same as the heyday pre-1992 or whenever it was that EFT on UAS arrived. It is, however, still rigorous flying training to the same standards as far as my experience recalls (admittedly, not that far). I know for a fact it stood me in good stead for my own flying training, and that view is shared by those I keep in contact with. This question of who QFIs is, in my view, a red herring: I had the priviledge to fly with some amazingly experienced and talented 'AEF' pilots (from whom I learned a hell of a lot); I also flew with some new B2 Tutor QFIs who would occasionally ask the more experienced studes for flying tips...

By the way...

If someone can manage 6.7 x the allotted hours, or about 2 x the allotted hours even in 'traditional' UAS days, one wonders what sort of a degree course he/she was doing.

That looks pretty close (if not identical) to the number of hours I flew in my second year (the first under the 'new' system): I got a first in Aeronautical Engineering from a certain well-known university... your point?

[Knight Paladin]

To echo Anonystude's last, he's not the only one - while I may be a product of the old UAS system, I cracked the old 90 hour syllabus in just over a year, and got a Linton slot and a First in Aeronautical Engineering from a reasonably reputable university. I'm sure we're not alone in this; you just had to manage your time sensibly.

[Flik Roll]

The article is rubbish as are some of the comments on here from people way out of touch with the current system.

The article seems to say to me that the boys could not be bothered to turn up to fly in the week and only turned up at camp - where flying is usually restricted by the number of studes, wx and airframes: and priority is often given to those who make the effort to show their face down the Sqn in the week to fly or organise AT/Sport/Town Nights etc.
It also sounds like they got chopped at their 18month pre-second year interview....!

I did the old and new system - 1 year pre-Marston and 2 years of this "10 hour" malarky with both new EFT + extension syllabus and then bog standard syallbus (the extension has been bought back in since) - however the syllabus by then was redundant to me and a others who already had done FHT.

I completed EFT in the first year before Marston so that was a good 62 hours in 9 months. I left with well over 150 hours and plenty of 'extra' flying that wasn't in the UAS EFT syllabus per se but was in the real EFT syllabus which the instructors were all too keen to teach (extra IF, IP - Tgt, extra formation etc.) and plenty of solo to boot. The 10 hour/year thing never happens purely because they can't just cut you off when you get to ten hours as so many students never make their ten hours or don't even want to fly.

There is still formal flying assessment it just doesn't count towards anything and you don't get a score but the tick sheets still show whether you are average, above av or below.

[Justanopinion]

What is the purpose of the UAS?

University Air Squadrons are training units of the Royal Air Force (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force) which primarily provide basic flying training and adventurous training to undergraduate students at British universities. These units exist to provide a taste of life in the Service and give experience to their members to take up a career as an officer in one of the many of the RAF's branches.

Do the RAF have a recruitment problem?

Not for Officers and especially not for Pilot training -

Is there any difference in the standard of pilots whom join directly rather than via the UAS?

AS ANSWERED BY A QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT

A direct comparison of University Air Squadron trained and Joint Elementary Flying Training School trained RAF pilots is seen at the point of streaming to aircraft type (fast jet, rotary wing, or multi-engine), which follows immediately after elementary flying training. At this point, there is no discernible difference between them.

A SNAPSHOT OF RECRUITMENT FIGURES UP TO 2008

7 July 2008 : Column 1144W
2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-08All RAF applications for Pilot
1,676
1,289
1,129
1,159
1,384
Initial Pilot Training (RAF)
167
92
121
133
148
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RAF)
75
51
46
54
46
All RN applications for Pilot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Initial Pilot Training (RN)
47
45
35
42
44
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RN)
7
9
5
9
11
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Initial Pilot Training
214
137
156
175
192
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Fast-Jet Pilot Training
82
60
51
63
57
n/a = Not available.


Data has been obtained from the TAFMIS (Training Administration and Financial Management Information System) computer system which was introduced in 2003. Recruitment data prior to 2003 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

IN SUMMARY
No recruitment issues to address
The standard of pilots between UAS and direct entrant - no difference

Perhaps closing all UAS is the way ahead as it seems that with a shrinking Armed Forces it is no longer required to achieve what it was primarily set up to do -

[Wholigan]

Wholi', what fraction of the UAS hours budget is spent teaching pilot students these days? The 'interested passengers' I referred to being the non-pilot students receiving air experience joy rides.


Sorry BEags, but I have no idea what fraction of the hours budget is spent teaching 'pilot students' Partially because there is really no such thing as a 'pilot student' these days, and partially because it doesn't really matter.

As I said, all UAS members are entitled to be taught to fly. There are medic, dentist, engineer, scribbly, rock ape, controllers, suppliers etc in the system who certainly reach solo sector recce, and in many cases a lot further.


In my view this is no bad thing for two reasons (both the same really). These 'non-pilots' will enter the RAF with a knowledge of the thrills of flying, and the difficulties and concentration/dedication required to 'meet the standards' required for flying. This has certainly not been the norm in the past and can only be good for the understanding and teamwork required to operate today's RAF to the best of its collective ability.


The converse can also be true. The 'pilot students' sometimes (frequently?) see some of the aforesaid 'blunties' doing as well as - and in some cases better than - they are. They also realise that in some cases the reason that these potential 'blunties' can not try to join as pilots etc is that fate has dealt them the bad hand of poor eyesight or some other limiting problem. Thus the future RAF pilots maybe have less reason once in the RAF to use the pejorative adjectival terms of - for example - f*****g or b*****d before the word 'bluntie', because they have seen that these people frequently have equal skills to theirs.


How will the future UAS/AEF system be self-sustaining if it relies on retired aircrew so heavily, given that the available population is fast decreasing?


I'm not sure how this is a major problem. At EFT and BFT and advanced and OCU and squadron levels, there are still lots of 'real RAF QFIs' serving. These people retire in due course (some earlier than others) and a lot of them will be more than happy to have a break from their long haul flights or their consultant jobs to teach UAS students.


I agree that the overall number of serving QFIs may be fewer than of old, but I think there should still be sufficient to continue to feed the system for a long time. The available population has doubtless decreased, but it should only have decreased while the overall RAF size was decreasing and while the initial changeover of policy to use 'part-time' QFIs was introduced.

Hopefully, we have now reached a level where there will be no further reduction in serving QFIs. I may be wrong (I frequently have been) but I think the system could now continue to be self-sustaining, if no further major changes are introduced.


Leave me with my dream! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[dogstar2]

The UAS organisation is one which can be easily maligned and yet provides the Royal Air Force with far more than can be captured by simple statistics.

The UAS is a fine organisation which has been a consistent recruiting ground for some of the sharpest people from British society. The organisation continues to recruit some of our finest air warriors who have proved their mettle in combat from the earliest days of the RAF and continue to do so today above Afghainstan.

The UAS allows students to gain an insight into the RAF and provides them with an opportunity to join the RAF, a path which they may not otherwise have taken.

I had not really considered the RAF as a realistic option when I went to university in the 1980s - the UAS gave me an insight into the professionalism and the pride in doing a job which really means something in this World where elsewhere values are often reduced to the size of pay packet and the type of mobile phone one uses. The UAS gives people a brief snapshot of what it means to serve their country. It shows them that the ethos of the RAF is still well and truly alive and that we are a real force to be reckoned with because of the traditions we have developed over the years which come from our proud service and continue to come from the proud service members of the RAF put in daily serving the country.

In addition to this, the UAS also has various intangible benefits for the service which statistics will often fail to identify or quantify. Firstly, those members of UASs who enjoy their two years on the squadron continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives. I have friends who still hark back to their Bulldog time and they now represent serious power around the country in various guises, both in the public and private World. With armed forces shrinking, having members of the public who are able to understand, in some way, what armed forces do is vitally important. Elsewhere on this forum I see people whinge about the lack of credibility and understanding MPs have for the armed services - UASs/OTCs and URNUs are real vehicles for this.

A for those who slate the organisations currently, it should be understood that UAS manning has been axed. That said, and having served relatively recently on a UAS, the standard of training on offer to the students today far exceeds what I received in the mid 80s. The UAS organisation has seriously reconfigured itself to deliver some excellent training both in the aircraft and on the ground.

To all the doubting Thomases, the flying syllabus now is not all that different from what was being delivered on the Bulldog back then - it is in a slightly different guise but spinning, low level, navigation, IF are all there and the kit on the aircraft is certainly better than when I was a student. It does differ from the period when UASs were used as EFTS, but lets face it was it really fair on the students who had heavy work schedules? The 10 hours per student is not really a problem as there is a natural flow of those who are very keen and those who are not so keen......those who are not so keen are often the students who are more focussed on other areas within the UAS and often join the branches which are crying out for people. In fact, in my time I saw a number of extremely high calibre students from excellent universities going into ground branches such as int, admin, eng etc. B under no illusion, we really need brilliant dynamic people to man those branches to ensure success in an organisation which is squeezed and where every person counts. We need people who have been studied closely for 2-3 years rather than gambles on people who drift into recruiting offices and pass a couple of interviews and test!! These kids have seen it and crucially we have had a chance to see them!!

The ground training programme is now quantifiable, checked and deliveres a broad range of training including military knowledge, leadership skills, teamwork, self awareness, drill, adventure training. It is a far cry from the drinking and flying club many on this forum seem to have depicted. I should state, however, that flying still comes very much first and also that socialising (including .....yes beer) is very much a part of the organisation. That said, there is no pressure on anyone to drink if they are non drinkers.....it is simply an normal organisation where some members do and some don't!!!! In fact, compared to the normal student haunts, UASs provide a sensible approach to boozing with people watching out for each other - how many students at uni have a 40 or 50 year old mentor who is approachable and who they can have a beer with who is not heir dad and who is looking out for them? The students on the sqn are really part of something which looks out for them.

Regarding the original article, there will always be some units which do not take thins as seriously as others. That said there will always be some students who do not take every chance offered to them. In my experience, when students wished to fly, the sqn moved heaven and earth to get them airborne - in fact the workload on the QFIs is now far more intense than it was in years gone by. 95% of QFIs take extreme pride in the quality of instruction they offer and in the service they provide to the students. I found the report very poorly researched and I am sure that had the reporter spoken with the RAF that she would have been allowed unlimited access to the hoard of students across the country who are UAS believers as well as the staff of UASs who could have given her a more objective picture of how they achieve their tasks with limited resources and oodles of very hard work.

My final note is that to ensure the success of the armed services in the future, the RAF should be sending its brightest instructors to the UAS World to take command of and inspire these crucial units (even if only for a short tour). They are our investment for tomorrow, they a vital link with the academic communities (so important as we try to intellectualise our force to deal with future threats), they are our link with the leaders of tomorrow and finally they are the only way of recruiting some real brains from our highest academic institutions; as we get smaller we will need to rely on excellence.

[idle stop]

Dogstar:
Thank you, a very reasoned and eloquent exposition. If only your positive comments, and those of Wholigan and one or two others, could find their way to the lady from The Times!

[Flying Lawyer]

dogstar In addition to this, the UAS also has various intangible benefits for the service which statistics will often fail to identify or quantify. Firstly, those members of UASs who enjoy their two years on the squadron continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives. I have friends who still hark back to their Bulldog time and they now represent serious power around the country in various guises, both in the public and private World. With armed forces shrinking, having members of the public who are able to understand, in some way, what armed forces do is vitally important. Elsewhere on this forum I see people whinge about the lack of credibility and understanding MPs have for the armed services - UASs/OTCs and URNUs are real vehicles for this.
Excellent post, and absolutely right – although, in my case, Chipmunk rather than Bulldog.

I was a contemporary on the University of London Air Squadron of people like Derek Reeh, Andy Sephton, BEagle and idle stop who went on to distinguished careers in the RAF and then in civvy aviation. I was a Cadet Pilot (VR) and, after a great deal of thought, eventually decided to keep to my original plan to become a barrister. (16/38, the only option available at the time, was too long for me.) I was proud then to be a member of a UAS and now, almost 40 years on, I’m still proud of it - and am very much in the category of those who “continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives.”

Having civvies who understand in some way what the armed services do is an important asset, even though it’s not possible to quantify. I believe many former UAS members make valuable contributions to debates about Defence, whether they are in positions of power themselves or because they are in close contact with those who are.

I didn't recognise the description given by the Times journo who got her information from a couple of students who appear not to have made the most of the wonderful opportunity given to them. My reaction was that it was a pity her contacts took up two places which others would have valued and put to good use.

FL

[50+Ray]

Agreed FL. I am still instructing, and hoping I can instill the enthusiasm for flying that I remember as the norm from those days I shared with you at ULAS.
Shame that the present crop do not get all the opportunities we had.

[artyhug]

If this wasn't a personal attack, I don't know what could constitute one!

They still aren't allowed.

[BEagle]

Yes, 50+Ray, we had some excellent times. Particularly those Summer Camps when we all decamped to a 'real' RAF station for our 2 weeks. Sadly, that no longer happens.

In fact the students during my QFI-ing time on the Bulldog had a grater range of flying opportunities than we did in Chipmunk days. A lot more navigation, formation flying and a little low level flying rather than all those trips down the free-lane to Twyford and Mapledurham, then climb when west of Reading, followed by a few aeros and stalling etc, then back to Woodley and a few circuits.....

I'm sure the students of today's strength-through-joy UASs are, in the main, the same sort of folk we were. But instead of drinking in bars various you get treated to evenings of IOT-style 'reviews' and 'Action Plans' and other such is a bit of a shame. No, I don't advocate a drinking club, but evenings of IOT style 'reviews' and 'action plans' sound rather depressing - surely that can wait until IOT?

[ShadowFive]

Particularly those Summer Camps when we all decamped to a 'real' RAF station for our 2 weeks. Sadly, that no longer happens.

I beg to differ - I know of at least one northen UAS that detaches to ISK three times per year for several weeks at a time - with aircraft.

As for the town nights, "action plans" etc may happen occasionally ,but, in my experience it is the norm to have varied talks, breifs and lectures from various units and branches with the RAF and further military. For example, one night may contain a capabilities breif of the harrier force or indeed on one occasion the apache (all given from the horses mouth so to speak by visiting crews), another night may contain a breif from an IntO or EngO etc on their career etc etc. Senior officers occasionaly visit to keep us up to date with what is happening at top level in the service. Town nights also regularly have OASC prep and leadership exercises with them too - students are free to leave after these activities (which normaly last several hours) - whether some choose to stay and imbibe an ale or two is neither here nor there, however it is not a case of "turn and get lashed", like some people like to imagine.

I have no need to defend the flying syallabus aspect as this has already been justified by others in previous posts.

That article from The Times made my blood boil as it was pure utter gossip with very little backing up of facts other than "my friends son said this..." and just goes further to deepen my mistrust of the press.
Read the above and make your own mind up.

[The Real Slim Shady]

I had the privilege of seeing the UAS from both sides of the fence: as a Cadet Pilot at UGSAS and subsequently as a QFI at YUAS.

Whilst some of us, and then 15 years later, some of my students, elected to join the RAF, Flying Lawyer's regard for the Service, was a major aim.

Perhaps it is time, in this climate of cutbacks, to look at ways of retaining the UAS, the OTC etc and where possible combining resources to make savings.

Although there may be some dilution of tradtion by combining the 3 Services into a single University unit it would be better than losing one, or all.

[Big Sand]

Beagle,
Thank you for setting the record straight. Changed days indeed since 'arguably' the halcion days of the UAS in the 70's and early 80's are over.

In those days I remember the balance of 'work hard play hard' was more in tune. There was an opportunity for instructors and students to teach and learn flying properly and to respect one another. Afterall many QFI's also had been UAS studes themselves.

Yes, indeed there was a lot of 'messing' too but the memories are those of 'working hard and playing hard'.

I meet ex UAS studes in all walks of life and have yet to come across many who have not positively benefited professionally and personally from their experience. That said, I am slightly fearful that the very limited flying sylabus that is offered now inevitably restricts the core reason for the UAS and also fear that it may very sadly start the ultimate demise of the UAS that so may of us have loved.

That would not be the GREATEST Air Force's finest hour.

Long live the UAS.

Big Sand

[ShadowFive]

the very limited flying sylabusAs said in previous posts regarding the flying syllabus - it is not as restricted as people seem to think. Granted it is no long EFT, it does still offer plentyful and formalised flying training to those who seek it. It is not terribly unusual for students to leave with 100+ hours. The syllabus covers everything from first solo, to IF,(solo) medium/low level nav, (solo) formation, (solo) aerobatics and so on. Much the same content that is covered by real EFT. They term non-assessed flying just means that you cannot be "chopped" for failing to reach flying standards - the flying is still very much assessed and each individual sortie is written up and reported upon.
I will argue with anyone who says that the flying syallabus is pointless, and in my experience, certainly not "very restricted" - weather aside of course.

[Wholigan]

you cannot be "chopped" for failing to reach flying standards


Before anybody jumps on this statement with "there you are, I told you the standards had dropped and the whole new system is therefore sh1te", I'd like to say that this statement is slightly disingenuous, and I'd like to clarify the situation.

UAS students may well not be 'chopped' for failing to reach flying standards (ie taken off flying permanently), but this is where an earlier statement of mine would kick in:

Needless to say, there are some who have the decision of which stream they will follow made for them

If a student who is following the formal flying syllabus is not achieving the required progress or safety standards, he/she will be moved on to flying air experience sorties. This will happen after the 'review' process that you all know and love.

[BEagle]

It is not terribly unusual for students to leave with 100+ hours.
:confused:

Is the UAS flying training syllabus still only 30 hours over 3 years?

If so, for someone to leave with over 100 hours, there must have been a significant number of others who didn't want to learn to fly. This could easily give the impression (probably false) of an 'inner circle' who 'get the trips' as alluded to in the Time article.

If indeed There seemed to be very little supervision or organisation of the students by RAF officers. at that particular UAS, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Even back in my QFI-ing time, a certain UAS which was on Summer Camp at our aerodrome whilst we were away was panned by the Stn Cdr for its lack of student supervision. Their staff were all accommodated off-base in an hotel living the life of Riley, whilst some of their ill-disciplined students caused mayhem on base. It was therefore ordained that the UAS would provide an evening Duty Officer to keep an eye on their little cherubs - who would be obliged to stay on base overnight. Something which the better run UASs did anyway.....

[Wensleydale]

Perhaps it is time, in this climate of cutbacks, to look at ways of retaining the UAS, the OTC etc and where possible combining resources to make savings.



Far too long ago when I was on a UAS (check the age), we ran an "unofficial" exchange with the University OTC. They took us to Warcop Range where we banged off a few rounds from weapons various, while the UAS took the army for some Air Experience Flights. It also gave us the local army barrack's mess for a few sherberts on the odd night because the UAS was in a base over 40 miles away! Admittedly, this exchange takes some resources, but would certainly give some experience of "jointery" for military minded students if done today.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I'm not far past half your age, but my UAS did the same. A bit of shooting and some running around in the mud for half a dozen of us, and some pax flying for half a dozen of them to reciprocate.

We did a couple of joint training nights too, to give us the opportunity to visit each other's messes and see what they do. Very easy to organise, valuable and fun.