Long time lurker, first time poster, so be kind please.
I am a member of a UAS and, having read through these comments, wish to perhaps update members on current practises and the reasons we are, at the very least, given for these.
Firstly, the purpose of the UAS is to develop capable undergraduate students through leadership training, whilst exposing them to the RAF/military in an attempt to recruit 30% of students to the RAF - that is the official quota the UAS aims to recruit to the RAF and takes care of itself, largely through the bonds made and the training we participate and, believe it or not, Adventurous Training is a huge part of this. Students today love the fact that if you join the military you could potentially spend a week in the Dolomites and get paid, or spend a week in the Alps and, yes, get paid. AT is one of the biggest recruiters.
On the flying side, this of course also exposes those with no flying experience to the joys of aviation and inherently recruits, too. But, there is no requirement/favouritism given to those wishing to join the RAF as aircrew. If you have zero desire to even join the RAF, you will have the opportunity to fly as much as someone who has just smashed their pilot aptitude and has their OASC date in the diary. In fact, we are openly told that OASC do not necessarily care if you have completed the entire syllabus and then some (however, I find this quite hard to believe). In other words, if you don't wish to join the RAF, wish to join in a ground role or have aircrew aspirations, you can all fly, and will do, as much as each other if you so desire. Where there is a disparity is in the case of Pilot/RPAS(p) bursars; in an attempt to help them succeed during their flying training, they will be offered to progress through the syllabus as much as possible.
Furthermore, re kit. We have been told frequently that the next fatal tutor accident will end the UAS system. Of course, this is speculation, but you can hardly expect the RAF to send Uni students up in an aerobatic aircraft and, if the worst happens, to fail to have the opportunity to bail etc. And, if this was to prove fatal, how does that play out for the RAF in the public view? Also, no helmets? Really? There's a reason we still fly from the right hand seat - the point of EFT/UAS flying is to reduce the potential for failure when pilots get to the deeper stages of flying training. Why put a student up in a Tucano/Texan/Hawk/Typhoon/F35, where the flying would be much more demanding, and make them get used to having a big old, restrictive, helmet on? They are having to get used to increased G, speed and complex flying, so why increase the likelihood of accidents etc at a later stage? Prepare them during EFT.
Also, the UAS does train EFT pilots and we also offer decent holds for post-wing pilots in which they still get to fly. Helps the AEF org, too. This is a win win; helps holdies keep their hands in, but probably doesn't disillusion them nearly as much as if it was an admin hold, for example, whilst helping AEF tick over nicely. EFT training at a UAS is swift; they, obviously, have flying priority and regularly fly more than one trip a day. The UAS can also help clear the RPAS EFT pipeline which also helps to 'recruit' more UAS students to RPAS - you get to form bonds with the RPAS EFT bods and learn more about their training and future role from the horses mouth. This, too, has to be good for the RAF.
Ultimately, the UAS, at the very least, makes a lot of students very sympathetic to the military and does certainly offer a very convincing recruitment tool, whilst helping de-clutter the training pipeline ever so slightly.