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.