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
kout, attitude, instruments' work cycle under such conditions and probably pick up 'Glance, hope, chase' instead...
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.