UAS 's to close (Merged)

[Dusty_B]

30 hours per year for every UAS stude, pilot or doctor and everything in between.

Excellent: That's more than they get now!

What about all the APOS doing EFT who used to be Off. Cdts??? £20+K p/a as opposed to £1500 p/a.

I think you're missing something ol' chap. There aren't any UAS Cadetship APOs any more. The APOs doing EFT are the DE who would have gone to JEFTS - they never were Off Cdts.

I think I'm going to have to start ignoring this thread for a while...

[Wholigan]

Well what I heard was that it is 30 hours per week and it is all solo. If you can’t manage 30 hours per week you will be chopped. There will be no QFIs on the outfit because you are only going to be allowed to fly solo and no duals will be permitted. After you’ve done 30 hours per week for 6 weeks you have to start to teach the air cadets to fly because all of the AEFs will be staffed by ground branch personnel who can only take photographs of aircraft and are not allowed to fly them. UAS bosses will be Royal Navy personnel so that they can lead adventure training courses at sea and they will have an SAS 2i/c to run the escape and evasion phase of the UAS course, to train students in the art of avoiding being caught doing anything productive between all the solo flights. All EFT will be done at Middle Wallop on gliders to save money on fuel. The instructors at Middle Wallop will be a mix of PPLs gaining hours and Rock Apes who have had 3 gash trips in the back seat of a Jaguar when they were the station Rock. The next stage after EFT will be done in Sarajevo to start to get people used to being shot at at an early stage in their training. Once you have received at least 2 bullets in the aircraft while airborne during training, you will automatically become Chief of the Air Staff and be trained to remove as much operational capability from the RAF as is humanly possible in your 3 year tenure. If you succeed in reducing the capability by at least 15% in your time in office you will qualify to be put in the hat with the leaders of the other 2 (3) services to be selected as the Secretary of State for Defence.

Well --- this makes about as much sense as the rest of the bollox guesswork in this thread so it could equally be true!!!

[16 blades]

Ah - to be on the outside looking in, eh Wholi? Somewhat akin to peering through a small slot into a shoebox full of mad frogs.

...except the latest review recommended reducing the number of frogs in the box by 20%.....

...yes, I HAVE finally lost it...

16B

[Wholigan]

:E . Just wish I WERE on the outside looking in! What job?????

[BEagle]

30 hours spread over 3 years.

Some of it will be 'Air Experience'

Rumours of using non-QFIs and the old buggers of the AEFs for some of it.

All utter nonsense; 'They' think it will give the poor unfortunates a NPPL with SSEA Rating. Which it won't - the current NPPL accreditation is based upon a known level of flight instruction and theoretical knowledge. If that is dumbed down as seemingly planned, a parallel downward reassessment will be required.

Don't join the UAS - there'll be no point. Join the OTC instead, then apply to the RAF in the spring of your 3rd year - if the airlines haven't tempted you first! Which, going by the industry indications, is increasingly likely.

More seriously, I heard an opinion from someone very close to the action that "The outcome of the report had been decided before the report had even been started".....

I hope that The Doc throws this load of utter rubbish out - as well as the idiot who thought it up!

[Alchef]

By APO's I meant Cranwell graduates. Not sponsored studes.

[kippermate]

Wholigan,

Haven't laughed so much for ages.

Thanks.

kipper


:ok:

[BEagle]

Wholi' - thou dost protest too much. For thou knowest that much of what hath been posted is true.

[Wholigan]

What Beags? Stuff like this you mean? :E

Have just heard on the grapevine that due to financial constraints all flying activities on all UAS's are being recommended to cease. Apparently, two "SUPER" flying units would likely be formed- one at Wyton and the other likely to be at Leeming!!!

One big difference between the AEFs and VGSs that is often completely forgotten is that the AEFs have considerably more funded, full-time support.

Have heard another rumour that the tutor is apparently to easy to fly and enough people aren't getting chopped so they are going to do EFT on the tucano; like they did with the JP for a bit; as they have spare airframes.

If the UAS go, the AEFs will go too. The gliding schools will follow in due course. I can hear the accountants salivating already.

I hear a rumour that UAS students might be limited to 5 hours air experience flying only during their entire time at University...

A letter was issued the other day listing AEF'S and UAS's that are to remain open,

The latest over the weekend from my squadron xxI was that by July all QFI's would be restreamed onto real a/c and back into real jobs.

30 hours per year for every UAS stude,

[BEagle]

No - but other snippets more closely indicate the actual proposals.

Allegedly.

Nice day for a bit of stunting and bunting today down in Scrumpy and Western land, ooh-ahrrr?

Enjoy!

[EESDL]

One of the more important aspects of the UAS has nothing to do with student recruitment but how about Instructor retention? It's one of the few 'flying' jobs where you can be sure of having 2 days off a week with some form of stability -
but hey oh, guess I'll get that hammer from the wall, you know, the one without the claw attachment, and take up coffin making as a living - it's quite lucrative in the Armed Forces.

[BEagle]

Not just instructor retention, but sound instructor development as well.

The cost of everything, but the value of nothing, as Oscar Wilde once said....

[Ranger5]

scrap the lot. ab-initio on the typhoon

[PhilM]

^Up we go^ ;)

It's gone a bit quiet on the romour front lately, I'm assuming nothing has changed?

Here's a question for you all, as a student doing Aerospace Engineering at University, I am obviously staying tuned to this thread regarding the future (whether there will be any UAS's to join by October for example! ;))

However, most UAS students were civvies and then join the UAS and then become part of the RAF VR. All well and good. However, how do things stand if that individual is a student, but already commissioned into the RAF VR(T)? Would it be possible to join the UAS? Or would that be a bar to entry? :confused: :D

[Ops and Mops]

As I understand it, such a situation would be seen as a conflict of interest and although it would not bar your from entry you would probably be asked to make a choice between the UAS and the Air Cadet Organisation.

The UAS would be looking for you to give a high level of commitment to them and for you to get as much continuity in your flying as possible. Dashing off to work with Air Cadets instead of progressing with your flying training would not go down too well. I think you would find the UAS would be more inclined to give the slot to someone who was prepared to commit totally to the UAS rather than someone who perhaps would not.

I'm not sure where you would stand regarding holding a commission with the RAFVR (T) and being a non-commissioned airman (with status of Officer Cadet) in the RAFVR (UAS). I certainly know of an VR (T) officer that joined the R Aux AF as an airman and was required to resign his commision. I suspect (as common sense would dictate) that it would not be allowed as a conflict of interest could exist.

Just my £0.02 and I may be "out of date" with my info!

[PhilM]

Thanks!

Confirms what I thought really.....however I don't think I am elegible for UAS Pilot training (not perfect eyesight.....good for WSO tho)....so commitment to flying may be out of the window there :( (Much as I'd love to)...

Be interesting to see what exactly does come of the UAS system, whether they continue with a EFT, or change to an "air experiance" style system.......obviously bound to affect the above.

:confused:

[Flik Roll]

You will have to choose you can't be both and you certainly wouldn't be made an officer in the VR on a UAS because you are a VRT officer.
Dump the VRT and become a CI if you are so keen on staying in cadets.

[Neeps]

I know of people that have done both, but as a CI not a VR(T). I'm a CI at the moment and although I do go to as many events as possible the ATC are quite flexible if I need time off, so I imagine it could be done with a UAS. Saying that though it really does depend on what happens with the UASs and the level of flying they will be undertaking.

[Dusty_B]

If you join a UAS and want to continue helping out on your ATC Squadron (or any ATC Squadron), you will have to become a Service Instructor: You cannot be a CI because you are not a civilian!
Basically if invovles an exchange of letters between respective bosses - Wing HQ will know the form, as will the station ACLO.
As a result, Air Cadets would become the equivelent of a secondary duty, and you would benefit from maintaining your status as an Officer Cadet while on Air Cadet duties (ie, the status of a junior officer, useful for messing while on camp etc!)

[PhilM]

Thanks for the input!

Well, with the future of the UASs being relatively unknown, and the present situation with ATC etc....I think I will continue my services to the ACO, give UAS a miss, as I am not an aircrew candidate anyway :(. (Plus I'd be a 2nd year student).

Always the VGSs for flying. :ok:

[Flik Roll]

Just because you are a second year and not aircrew isn't a reason not to give it a go! All my mates who are groundies are having a whale of a time, and there are second year 1st year groundies as well. They are going on SVA's they love the atmosphere and all the activities we do plus the insight into the RAF. At least a few are now dead set on RAF careers. It's definately something to do if you are considering or want an RAF career.

[The mother alligator]

So has there been any news about the UAS's at all??

[Arclite01]

Any news at all ?

[BEagle]

Absolutely top night at the premiere University Air Squadron's 70th anniversary cockers P last night in London. Well attended by ex-members from every decade - and the current students are also exactly as UAS students have always been! Except that some are very much prettier than the studes were when I was on ULAS as a student in 1969-73!

So if any bottom-feeding beancounter should ever dare to meddle with such a system of proven excellence, they should be strung up by their rather small bits from a very high place. The RAF is very, very lucky indeed to be able to recruit such top folk if last night was anything to go by - and long may it continue to be able to do so!

Just one question. What the hell was in that purple drink of which I quaffed a few last night? One felt rathy shabby today - until after a restorative Full English at the RAF Club, followed by a blast down the motorway to see god daughter dislodged the cobwebs!

There was more than one ULAS IN THE HOUSE last night.

And Roly P, I heard an interesting story about the fiery demise of a certain musical instrument from a mutual acquaintance!

[Red Line Entry]

Sorry to have missed it. Let's hope it'll still be around for its 75th!!

[Ranger5]

I joined a UAS as well as being an instructor on a VGS. This was immediately proving to be too difficult to manage with a degree as well so I left the VGS. I enjoy my time on the UAS immensely and wouldn't reccomend anyone trying to do both. Even if your degree is only two days a week like mine, you wont put in or get out what you want from either squadron.

[Green Meat]

One thing that interests me about some of the posts on this thread is the odd 'foot in both camps' attitude. All organisations need commitment and by spreading yourself over several activities you diminish what you can provide. Anyone in a managerial position will tell you that it is immensely frustrating not to be able to effectively plan because individiuals on whom you may rely, or for whom you have made arrangements for, have decided that doing their other activity interests them more at that point in time.

I would suggest that people unsure about whether to commit either give your time to the UAS or to the ATC, but not both. I would expect that ATC units would be glad to see you back as a guest speaker from time to time but I suspect equally that the UAS would not be pleased that you couldn't attend because you were doing an ATC activity.

Ranger5's experience is interesting to hear from the other side of the fence, and just reinforces the point that there always comes a time in life that you have to make a decision and perhaps move on.

[Dusty_B]

GREEN MEAT,

If you're in the VR, there is no foot in both camps: Your association with the ACO is one of a "secondary duty" nature. There is no conflict - UAS always comes first.

[Green Meat]

Which I think you will see was my point exactly! For the ACO, however, I understand from my sources that it can be a nuisance having people who come and go. Also, I have encountered a number of people trying to do VGS and UAS at the same time - perhaps not everyone understands the 'secondary' nature of the duty, and it would appear that Ranger5 was able to make the critical decision.

[BEagle]

Has anything official concerning the future of UASs been decided yet?

[kippermate]

Not as far as I'm aware.

But then, why would they tell me?

:ok:

kipper

[Not on Hercs]

'cause you're the boss of LUAS?

[EESDL]

Can't believe this thread is still going.........you lot must have been told by now.just ask Jackonicko!!

[Hueymeister]

So what's happening?

[kippermate]

We still do not know for certain. The details of the review still have to be ratified by government.

Still, at least my anonymity gone!

kipper.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

If you join a UAS and want to continue helping out on your ATC Squadron (or any ATC Squadron), you will have to become a Service Instructor: You cannot be a CI because you are not a civilian!

... I thought UAS Off Cdts were civilians when not on service units?

[BEagle]

Can anyone confirm or deny that some UAS student flying is planned to be conducted by non-QFI pilots under the new proposals?

I.e. by 'Staff Pilots' without any formal or current instructional qualifications such as some (though not all) AEF pilots?

[Trainspotter]

Beagle,

The version I have heard suggest that some of us ex-QFI AEF pilots will provide EFT(to PPL standard) for free..i am sure some career minded officer costed this in to the investment appraisal to do away with the cheapest recruitment system ever...doh!!!(as allegedly the Simpson's say). The total dismemberment of a brilliant organisation that is about to occur is the final cut as far as I am concerned, best wishes to all those that are still holding on to the light bulb!


p.s. kippermate you were optimistic to think the wings of steel could last as long as they have!!

Trainspotter sends, out!

:E

[BEagle]

"ex-QFI AEF pilots will provide EFT..."

That's most interesting and, to some extent, what I feared. Any such 'instruction' carried out by pilots who are neither current QFIs nor civil FIs will not be viewed as valid flight instruction for either a JAR-FCL PPL or a UK NPPL. It will be viewed as 'passenger flying' only.

I raised this point with the CAA recently; current accreditation will most certainly be reviewed should any change occur in current UAS training standards.

[Jackonicko]

But surely getting a formal civil FI cat would be no more than a formality for the average AEF ex QFI?

Surely even re-qualifying and re-categorising such blokes as current QFIs would represent a cost saving compared to employing serving officers or paid (retired) QFIs?

With legions of ex-RAF blokes who would give their eye teeth to 'put something back' and to augment their civvy flying with a bit of light aircraft instruction, I've always been astonished that the RAF hasn't made more use of retired blokes on the UASs. There might even be a suitable resource in the shape of highly experienced PPL-holding, (perhaps instructor qualified) light aircraft pilots who have some service link (serving NCOs, Air Traffickers or engineers, for example) but who may have never worn a brevet. There was an Air Commodore Eng who kept his own light aircraft at Benson, I remember. These are just the sort of blokes who used to form the bulk of the instructors and tug pilots on the RAFGSA, and who might form a useful manpower pool for a cheap, slimmed down UAS system.

Don't get me wrong. I'm firmly of the opinion that UAS instructors should be serving, service QFIs, preferably fresh from an operational tour, who are able to give UAS studes a decent glimpse of the real air force, as well as some flying instruction. I also believe that the best operating location for a UAS is at a busy flying station, with a hectic circuit and a vibrant officers mess.

And UAS flying should be an extra, without streaming decisions at the end point, with sufficient 'flex' to be used instead of EFTS for students who get enough flying and who can get to BFTS without too long a gap. (And of course, in this 'gold standard' FTS system, all studes would do full BFTS on the Tucano before being streamed FJ, RW or ME.....)

But better a cheap, limited UAS scheme than no scheme at all, surely?

[BEagle]

"But surely getting a formal civil FI cat would be no more than a formality for the average AEF ex QFI?"

Such a person would first need a civil licence on which such a Rating could be included. If paid to instruct as a civil FI, that would have to be a CPL. Even if electing to instruct for no pay by including a civil FI Rating on a PPL, he/she would still need 'commercial level knowledge' or to meet FW accreditation criteria. After that, the requirements are clearly laid out in LASORS H1.8; for QFIs, the requirements are:

"Applicants without a CFS Standardisation Check in the
last 12 months are required to complete training at the
discretion of a FIC Instructor at an approved FIC FTO
sufficient to pass the relevant elements of a FI Skill Test
in a single pilot, single engine aeroplane with a suitably
qualified civilian FIE(A)."

For pilots who have never been QFIs, there are NO exceptions to the normal FI(R) requirements.

[The mother alligator]

Will someone please tell us the official verdict on the UAS's!!?!?!:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: :sad:

[BEagle]

Well, for a first ever posting, that's a fairly limited contribution.

Would you care to elucidate?

Edited to clarify - this was a comment made following a puerile posting from someone who has now been disappeared, and not a comment on Mummy Croccie's post!

[kippermate]

Trainspotter,

Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well. Perhaps it was too much to ask to remain, even slightly, anonymous.

Still, I have no doubt that when the outcome of the UAS review is finally concluded, the information will become available to those it concerns (and I expect still to be one of those). It will then, no doubt, filter its way on to these pages. It some form or another.

Thanks again, Not on Hercs.

kippermate is dead. Long live.............


:ok:

[PPRuNe Pop]

The foul mouth has been banned. Annnnnnnd...........if anyone else would like to test the foul water freel free.

[EESDL]

Kippermate
So who's going to fly you down to Crandlitz? Or are you allowed to fly yourself, holding your own collar.................

So we now have Classroom Assistants (mothers with time on their hands) who were rebranded as Teaching Assistants, who, wait for it, are now being allowed to 'Teach' without the supervision of qualified Teachers...............even though they haven't been near a University (or 2 studes in a bus shelter)

Non QFIs to 'teach' flying, all sounds a bit similiar to me.
All very well saying to baby wannabe - this is how I do it, have a go, but one feels that their 'instruction' may miss out the odd lesson learnt from decades of experience collected and passed on by CFS.

Tolerate this and your children will be next!!!!!!!!!!!

[Flik Roll]

Heard that there will be one QFI per UAS with the rest being AEF style instructors. The boss doesn't even have to be a QFI or pilot I also heard. I hate rumour control....the sooner we hear the better.

[teeteringhead]

But surely the cheaper (and more sensible) option for ex-QFIs would be for them to regain a CFS "tick" rather than attempt to gain a civilian endorsement, with all the extra hurdles to leap (of which BEags so lucidly reminds us).

Once the brand of the red pelican has been successfully applied, it should require only minimal effort to get back to (at least) C to I status. And if it should prove difficult or impossible (for whatever reason) to achieve C to I, do we really want such people instructing (or even "instructing") our ab initios ?

OK, I know the last was a stupid question ...........:( .... but speaking as an ex-CFS staff A2 (OK, as a QHI, but mutatis mutandis and all that), if I couldn't get back to a C to I, I would certainly question myself closely as to whether I should be doing the job!

[Hummingfrog]

I think we need to get away from the idea that this new form of the UAS will be there to teach undergrads to fly. From what I hear it is to give "air experience" to anybody who shows an interest in any branch of the RAF.

There will be some instruction from a couple of QFIs per flight but the rigid syllabus of the present UAS will go.

HF

[BEagle]

This thread has now been going for 6 months.

What sort of a message does it send out to the potential recruit that the RAF can't even sort out after over 6 months dicking around whether or not it can afford to give UAS students a few hours flying training in light aeroplanes which it doesn't even own....

Frankly, the whole thing is pretty pathetic. Without proper UAS flying training, there IS no UAS. Do they really think that future pilots will want to join with just the attraction of 3 years of adventurous training and muddy tents with a minor amount of Air Cadet style air experience flying? Many of them will probably have already done a fair bit of air experience flying int the ATC and will want to do something a bit more adult.

PSOs, please include this in your morning PPRuNe brief to your Airships!

[daveyp]

Are University Air Squadrons only really for people who want to join the RAF or are they for everyone interested in flying?

[Yellow Sun]

The boss doesn't even have to be a QFI or pilot

Well, that state of affairs was good enough for OCUs, so why shouldn't it be good enough for a UAS?

YS

[BEagle]

Because UASs are primarily Elementary Flying Training organisations. Or rather, they were.....

The day that someone who can just about tell his ar$e from his elbows starts trying to run a pilot training organisation will be the day that the lunatics have really taken over the asylum!

[Yellow Sun]

Because UASs are primarily Elementary Flying Training organisations. Or rather, they were.....

And an OCU is not primarily a flying training organisation? I worked as a QFI for QFI bosses, pilot non-QFI's and navigators. As long as the specialisation leader is competent there isn't a problem and I see no reason why this should not apply in the UAS environment.

YS

[Si Clik]

6 months of UAS thread

I look from the dark blue side of the fence where we recruit on the basis of an Air Experience budget 260 times lower than the RAF and think all this protestation is drivel.

The RAF get 7 times more applicants than they have places for pilots and therefore any numpty carrying out a cost benefit analysis would see the flaw in the current financial costings currently required to run the UAS system (which is about the figure the RN spends on all its' recruiting marketing).

Needless to say with an ATC and CCF flying budget that is much more cost effective and a desire to bring 18 yr olds rather than graduates in any UAS change was always going to involve a shrinkage in flying task.

The URNU and OTC cadets do not get any training that is not re-done in service and in fact in the case of URNUs Bursars cannot become full members.

About time this waste of tax-payers money recieved an axe.

Stands back........pin out.......BANG!!!

[BEagle]

Yellow Sun, no - an OCU converts qualified aircrew onto their operational type of aircraft as its first priority.

It is a very long way down the road to the frontline squadron seat compared to the UAS.

As for Si Clik's comments they are pretty fatuous with respect to attracting bright, well motivated undergraduates into a Service whose primary role is to fly. For if you don't promise them high quality flying training whilst at university, they'll probably look elsewhere. Such as, perish the thought, the golden rivet mob who bounce around the briny in little grey tin coffins which operate a small handful of clapped out old helicopters.....

[Yellow Sun]

an OCU converts qualified aircrew onto their operational type of aircraft as its first priority.

Well, my memory must be playing tricks on me in my old age. I seem to recall that when instructing on the conversion phase of an OCU I employed exactly the same skills and techniques that I used to use when instructing both DEs (a bit of elementary there) and GEs on the JP. The OCU bit did seem very like "flying training", but you may call it what you like. Funny old thing is that the applied/tactical pahse of the OCU seemed very like "flying training" as well. When I left there was another funny thing, you did a type your type rating with the company and it was carried out by the "Training Department".

I am still waiting to hear any cogent reason why the CO of a University Air Squadron must be a pilot/QFI.

YS

[Hummingfrog]

I think that the CO of the new UAS/AEF needs to be a QFI because he is the one who carries out the currency and annual flight checks on his pilots who are not regulars. He will also do what "instructing" is required by the new system.

This leaves the unpaid AEF pilots (who are all very experienced and not old duffers as BEagle seems to think) to give the air experience flying.

The present style UAS is not the recruiting tool it was in my day (Ex NUAS). The flying syllabus rules and puts pressure on undergrads to perform while still committing themselves to their Uni course. This is fine for those doing useless subjects such as media studies or politics, who only have one lecture per week!!, but is hard on those doing a real degree such as Engineering:ok:

In my day there was a sort of syllabus but if you turned up and there was an a/c you flew either dual or solo you didn't have to wait until the weather was suitable for your next sortie on the "syllabus". The camararderie was brilliant and it wasn't unknown for all 5 Chipmunks to be airborne at once with just studes on board - let the battle begin;)

The RAF has no problem recruiting pilots so the UAS has to develop back into its original role. This was to give the possible future influential members a taste of the RAF which they will carry into later life as a pro-RAF outlook. There also has to be recruitment of ground branches, who were always the poor relations on the old UAS.

Money is tight and so changes have to be made - this may be a good one but time will tell.

HF
(Bsc (engineering):ok: )

[Red Line Entry]

"As for Si Clik's comments they are pretty fatuous with respect to attracting bright, well motivated undergraduates into a Service whose primary role is to fly. For if you don't promise them high quality flying training whilst at university, they'll probably look elsewhere."

Ah, the normal BEagle technique of dispensing his view of the world with that unsubtle touch of insult and disdain for those with a different viewpoint.

Si Clik makes a valid point. We are and always have been awash with ab initio applicants. If these "well motivated undergraduates" are so keen, why would they be put off by not having significant flying training while at Uni? And if they are, then do we really want them?

I would be sorry to see the UAS structure dramatically altered; I had a ball on ULAS (a little bit after yourself BEagle). However, times have already changed and we need to keep focused on the proportions of graduates to non-graduates that we recruit. Squadrons packed with 25 year old first tourists holding BAs in Underwater Basketweaving is probably not what we want.

In addition, I think there would be much to be gained from moving UASs back to being outside the formal pilot training system. It would reintroduce much of the fun that existed before having to face the "proper" system.

[BEagle]

In addition, I think there would be much to be gained from moving UASs back to being outside the formal pilot training system. It would reintroduce much of the fun that existed before having to face the "proper" system.

I couldn't agree more....

In the 25 years between the time I was a student on ULAS and the time I was a QFI on ULAS, not much had changed; that which had was for the better. In the 10 years after I'd finished being a QFI on ULAS, a heck of a lot changed and none of it was for the better - it had all conspired to dumb down what had previously been an excellent system.

Why do you think there's a move for less graduates and more schoolkids? Easy - they're cheaper! And dress it up as you will, that's all that matters these days. All the bull$hit about 'younger, fitter people being more suitable for the TypHoon era' is just that - total bull$hit.

[AllTrimDoubt]

Quote: "the golden rivet mob who bounce around the briny in little grey tin coffins which operate a small handful of clapped out old helicopters....."

Would that be as opposed to a clapped out ex-QFI who bounces around the forums ... etc?

(Take cover Baldrick!!)

[skua]

Beagle talks a lot of sense on this issue, as ever (PS Beags I will be discussing this topic with Flatiron this evening).

I confess to being a beneficiary of the system (MUAS many moons ago). The current changes cause me a lot of grief and dismay. I would stress two issues:

The move to recruitment at 18 beggars belief. Sure I share concerns that BA’s in Underwater Basketweaving are of limited use to the military. But is anybody suggesting that Engineering, Economics, or Science degrees at our best universities have declined in quality in recent years?

The consequences of Bliar’s over-expansion of tertiary education are now becoming evident – holders of devalued degrees are finding it harder to secure decent careers. But if the RAF moves to abandoning graduate recruitment, where does that leave the leaders of the force in 25-30 years’ time? They will be trying to have a dialogue with MoD, BWoS, and the Government, all of whom will have had the benefit of university education, whilst they have not. Hardly a recipe for brilliant strategic thinking.

Secondly, the rationale that UAS’s create a cadre of people with some knowledge of the military, some of whom will become opinion-formers or end up in positions of responsibility across the nation. This need is increasing not decreasing. The passing of politicians in particular, and the public in general, with wartime experience, or national service, has led to a yawning and obvious chasm of ignorance of things military.

Presumably the decision has already been fudged, the press releases massaged into shape. But I grieve.

Skua

[neilmac]

I have always thought that quite a high percentage of UAS students didn't actually end up in a flying career, Ive worked with a few in my ATC trade. It particulary annoys me when I ve worked hard as a serviceman to gain and fund a PPL and hear my workmates go on about their free flying hours in the UAS which then they could put towards a PPL! On the AEF side of things, I agree it is good to get cadets up flying but I believe nowadays when the recruitment isnt so much and those in the RAF are working damn hard and long hours during the week since our dwindling force is all over the world and we have to take the slack back at base, why should we then have to work for air experience EVERY weekend and even when the rest of station on stand-down, apart from a summer break! Surely maybe every 3rd week or so would be enough?( I remember putting in an HFOR due to long hours, called out at 1am for a service scramble and still being in work at 1715 after AEF finished, they weren't very helpful to me at all)!

[Skylark4]

nielmac,
I guess you are not staffed for 7 day operations then.

Mike W

[DK338]

IIRC Benson ATC IS established for 7 day ops to provide a weekend ATC service to support the AEF. Although I understand neilmac's sentiments I do not agree with them as I know that Benson ATC works no harder than it ought to. Inconvenienced maybe.

I have read with interest the comments articulated on this thread and the trend seems to be in favour of the UAS system. However the arguments in favour of UAS retention in my view are no longer valid. we all agree that the idea behind the UAS system was to attract educated young men into the fledgling Service and promote air mindedness. In the mid 1920's this was appropriate particularly when you consider that the RAF was hanging on to it's existance by it's fingernails and that among the traditional potential officer pool, the RAF was still regarded as very suburban and lower middle class, most young men still considered a career in the military in terms of Army and Navy. There were other reasons behind the UAS system too, membership then brought with it a commission in the RAFVR with a return of service which meant that there was a 'trained' pool of young men out there that could be called up in times of conflict and, hopefully, could be trained rather faster than an abo. This policy proved particularly useful in 1939.

The RAF today has no difficulty recruiting aircrew, indeed OASC host thousands of applicants each year, both graduate and school leaver. The real difficulty is recruiting quality motivated people into ground branches, something the UAS is not particularly good at or indeed really geared up for. I feel that the removal of the UAS system will matter not one jot in aircrew recruitment but the savings, they would be much better spent elsewhere. MOB infrastructure would be good. Always made my blood boil having to explain to the occupants of my barrack block that the works services budget had run out of cash or that the repairs to their block were not considered important enough for work so they had to continue living in a third world slum.

In fact it's not just the UAS system that is in question here in my mind, I also am beginning to wonder about the Air cadet Organisation too. How do you justify a budget of 24 million quid on a youth organisation out of the RAF's share of the defence budget? And don't bore me with the same old mantra that the ACO is now the public face of the RAF because I really do not subscribe to that tosh. Don't misunderstand me however, I believe that organised youth activities are important to the community and ultimately the future of society but in the present defence climate is that not excessive?

It is no longer appropriate to bang on with the same old introspective arguments, the system needs changing and the sooner the better. Society has evolved the RAF must too.

[Dusty_B]

DK,

Do you honestly believe that money saved by cutting UAS flying and ACO sponsorship would be reallocated to other areas?

The budget gets cut because we make savings, not the other way round...

[airborne_artist]

How do you justify a budget of 24 million quid on a youth organisation out of the RAF's share of the defence budget?

Interesting to note in Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm041214/text/41214w11.htm) the disparity between the services. RN gives £9.4m to Sea Cadets, RAF 22m to ACO, and Army £50m to ACF (2004/5).

[A2QFI]

May I suggest that that the RN contribution is low because there aren't that many recipients and no flying, or is there? The RAF amount is reasonable on the basis that they are running UASs and AEFs and the Army use a lot of money as they have a lot of cadets.

[Jackonicko]

It always used to be the case that the better success rate of ex-UAS blokes in the FTS system more than paid the cost of the UASs. UAS blokes who joined up saved precious and expensive Hawk (and JP/Tucano) hours being wasted on people who would end up being chopped, and in doing so more than saved the entire running cost of the UASs.

The UASs gave the RAF a chance to look at people in a bit more depth than is possible at OASC and to reject or recruit accordingly. It also gave individuals an opportunity to look at the RAF in a bit more depth than is otherwise possible, and to come to a more mature, more informed decision as to whether or not a military flying career was for them. And even those who said "No thanks" left with a clearer idea of what the RAF is about, and with a residue of gratitude and fondness for the service. And that has given the RAF a degree of influence that it would not otherwise have had, ensuring that the service's needs and interests receive the same sort of hearing as is accorded to the Navy and Army. And those who did join following UAS service knew much more about what they were getting into. Perhaps this is why ex-UAS blokes were less likely to PVR.

It may be that the RAF should be recruiting a different proportion of graduates to direct entrants - but few with any sense would want the RAF to cut itself off from graduate recruitment entirely - particularly as A-level grade inflation means that a Uni degree today is probably equivalent to A-levels from a few years ago as an indicator of intelligence and calibre. As society and parents increasingly expect kids to go on to University, and as a degree becomes a 'minimum fallback qualification' the RAF will increasingly cut itself off from the most talented potential candidates if it retreats from or reduces graduate recruitment. If the RAF went to recruiting only sixth form leavers as Direct Entrants, it would suffer real consequences.

I suspect that if the RAF attempts to ensnare graduates without giving them a real glimpse of the Service, it will not do as well as it does now, and if it does so without providing some flying training (as opposed to simple air experience) it will lose an opportunity to fire these kids imagination and enthusiasm, which would be a shame.

[McDuff]

I have come late to this topic but I thought that I would put what I think will be the state of affairs with UASs from Sep 05.

The Boss does not have to be a QFI, although I understand that around 50% will be. I am CFI on ULAS at present (only a stopgap measure as I am FTRS and don't deserve a position of importance ... ;-)), but I have volunteered to be the QFI on ULAS. I hope that the Boss will be a QFI as otherwise it is going to be hard work, even with all the QFIs currently manning 5 AEF at RAF Wyton

The flying will be to PPL standard by the end of their tenure on the Sqn and every student will be entitled to do 10 hrs a year. It still means that there will be more of the AT and lecture activity than at present - a great deal of organisation to be done during the year!

There are loads of details to be sorted out; the UAS paper left all that out of course. For instance, who will be the Boss of ULAS at 2 months' notice???

All this is secondhand information: I have read no papers nor had any formal briefing to back up these assertions of mine. I am waiting with bated breath, well nearly anyway ;-)

[50+Ray]

Oh dear, how thoroughly depressing. 10 hours a year of assorted air experience in Das Teutor will do what exactly for the student who wants to fly in the RAF?
Sad destruction of another example of my upbringing. RIP UAS.

[Flik Roll]

It's great for those that are there for a bit of a jolly and a giggle, but there are some of us who are there to do it properly and are now rushing to finish the syllabus before it gets stopped.
Anything going to change bursary wise?

[neilmac]

DK338 + Skylark4
Yes we are staffed for 7 day week, that encompasses though National Standy and Operational Commitments which of course means then we can 'support weekend AEF operations' Certainly not saying at all we work hard everyday or are busy 24/7 just the long hours which this modern airforce is undertaking to meet its commitments. Maybe some of the AEF gentlemen were in the Royal Air Force when it had considerably more personnel and planes of course. I just don't think the need to fly cadets most weekends is justified considering our own needs in a dwindling RAF and our recruiting numbers.

Bored of Basrah :cool:

[McDuff]

I expect that bursaries will continue to be available, but they are pretty small (£1000?) for pilots. Note that some students may well not take up their full entitlement, so others can take advantage of that.

I am still waiting to see how AEF QFIs are enticed to go through the niff and triv of instructing; and will they have to do standards and trappers etc...? I know at least one recent member of ULAS who is happy to do it, but that's only one so far ;-)

It is, I suppose, returning to the former shape of UASs, but it is still hazy and I could report back (not another secondary duty ;-)) when I know exactly is intended to happen ... which of course will be different from what actually happens!

[BEagle]

£1000 p.a.? Is that ALL? Back in 1972 I received £1200-ish as an APO, then because of my year as a Flt Cdt, that went up to £1800 a year as a Plt Off in my final year.

£1000 is utterly laughable and simply not worth the commitment.

Dear RAF - you have to pay to get the right people. Or didn't you know that?

And if you ever want me back as a UAS A2QFI, it'd be as a Plt Off on £100K!

[Mowgli]

DK338
society has changed, the RAF must too

Yes, society has changed, but for the better? Surely now more than ever our youth need organisations which can inspire them, and offer them some boundaries of decent behaviour rather than ASBOs after the event. Hence the ACO offers something to the community at large as well as an opportunity to fire the imagination of potential recruits. Also, the UAS system provides an experience to those who do not choose the military as a career which will stay with them in the future; some of them will become influential; others may even become MPs. How many of our current parliamentary representatives have any idea at all about the military? Who is going to lobby support for the defence budget? You cannot put a price on these things, and so they are difficult to justify in a budget orientated world. I appreciate the other imperatives, but I doubt that you would see more money in these areas, just cuts.

It's been said in this thread before, "the cost of everything, and the value of nothing".

[McDuff]

'£1000 is utterly laughable and simply not worth the commitment.'

The thing is, BEagle, that we do have the commitment from these youngsters and they have acceptance from the organisation that want to join. The bursary and their "rank" are labels of their acceptance.

The real crime in university education is that students are imbued with the culture of debt: not to leverage earning power, which would be a businessman's way of justifying borrowing to learn, but to provide better statistics in the Government's urge to get more and more people to university – for what reason I cannot fathom.

Of course the Bursars would like more money in their hands, but it would only reduce their debt; it would disappear into their bottomless pits of negative equity. In addition, it might give us the wrong people ...

[Capt H Peacock]

The UASs have been under ministry pressure for at least the last 20 years. The New Labour administration regards them as yet another bastion of privilege and patronage and would dearly love to see them closed.

Those of us who see them as a valuable and cost effective show case for the military will give testament to the calibre of men and women who joined.

Even now so many years after I left, I have long lasting and loyal friendships with my contemporaries, many of whom are not now in aviation, but continue to support the Royal Air Force in so many ways. At a recent reunion, I was delighted to see that the quality and breadth of membership is as good today as it has always been.

I cherish my time on the UAS, and think the budget should be doubled. Any sum is a trifle compared to the 30bn GBP of taxpayers hard earned cash and savings that New Labour have squandered on failed IT projects.

[Malissa Fawthort]

It'll be interesting to see if there are - indeed - any "savings" from the "new and improved" system! I'll bet a pound to a pinch of you-know-what that there won't be. Wonder how the Command Sec will sell that to the politicians, when the whole idea was to "save".

[McDuff]

'The UASs have been under ministry pressure for at least the last 20 years. The New Labour administration regards them as yet another bastion of privilege and patronage and would dearly love to see them closed.

...
'I cherish my time on the UAS, and think the budget should be doubled. Any sum is a trifle compared to the 30bn GBP of taxpayers hard earned cash and savings that New Labour have squandered on failed IT projects.'

I am not sure that I agree with you about the constant pressure Capt H. I worked in Air Plans for nearly 2 years (95-97 - ghastly job!) and I cannot remember hearing words against UASs from any quarter.

I agree with you about the wasted dosh. And what about the £19bn on consultants?

ULAS has just had a very successful Cockers P for its 70th anniversary. Judging from the TY letters to the Boss, everyone had a good time. It was a pity that the younger ex-members saw fit to have an excellent time (it took a fair while to clear up) but not bother with the TY letters. Notwithstanding this little snagette, the whole thing was fantastic fun.

\'It\'ll be interesting to see if there are - indeed - any "savings" from the "new and improved" system! I\'ll bet a pound to a pinch of you-know-what that there won\'t be. Wonder how the Command Sec will sell that to the politicians, when the whole idea was to "save".\'

I gather, Malissa, that the savings have turned out to be miniscule, just as you suspect. The study was so general and, IMHO, poorly thought-through that there were almost bound to be problems in its implementation.

[daveyp]

Hi

I am looking for some information on University Air Squadrons. How hard they are to get into, are they for people interested in all types of flying or just the Raf etc..

Couldn't find a topic already like this one so thought I would start one up.

Feel free to provide a link if there is another topic out there.

I would be grateful for any information whatsoever.

I am currently at Nottingham University so anyone in the EMUAS at the moment would be great if you could give me an insight into the Squadron.

Thanks

[nosewheelfirst]

I had an initial interview with them just to make sure you are not a time waster and should be medicaly OK. I was then invited back for a formal interview. The CFI and an officer from Crandiz conducted this and it went along the lines of the standard RAF interview. Starting off with about yourself, your education etc then moving on to current affairs and finaly onto the RAF itself. I was then sent upstairs to be measured for flying gear (not sure if they do this to everybody). About a week later all the successful appliants when to Cranwell for the part 1 medical and the pilot and nav aptitude tests. I actualy failed the pilot one (just) but was accepted into the squadron as a pilot member. Had a great two years in the squadron but ultimatley decided the RAF was not for me. Good luck.

[PPRuNeUser0172]

I think you will find there is a lot of info on UAS's on this website if you look, not only in the military aircrew forum. Eg, the one called "UAS's to close" or something of that ilk, you may see that you may not have an organisation to join.

EMUAS, I remember them but we definitely drank more beer and went to the bathroom less....

Regards

DS


Ps BTW, if you are asking the question, is it for all types of flying or just those interested in the RAF, then I guess with a username like that you shouldnt be too difficult to spot in the interview
;)

[GodisMyCopilot]

Mate if you can get on a UAS do so!! I had the best days of my llife flying with CUAS and the EFT course I completed has made me a much better pilot than the average PPL holder. However it may not be around much longer cos of this poxy goverment....

For the interview really gen up on types of RAF aircraft, roles, current operations, history of RAF and NATO. Also on current affairs. Show them you are keen and up for it and you should have no problems.

any questions PM me

[daveyp]

Thanks for the info guys.

I am really interested in the RAF and flying in general but I am not completely sure if I am able to pass the medical for the RAF thats why I was asking about whether it is JUST for those looking to join the RAF. I would love to join the RAF but not sure if my eyes are up to it. Is it the same medical to join the UAS as it is for the RAF?

[mercury86]

Im currently in the UAS and had my medical last year, where alot of candidates went out on eyesight and as far as we were told it is the same medical as the RAF so unfortunately if you do have problems, the UAS as a pilot will be out of your reach. However, if i were you i would still apply and see what happens, and if you do go out medically, you may still be accepted as groundcrew - fair enough you wont be doin EFT, but youll still get all the other benefits of the UAS including flying experience.

regarding EMUAS, i may not be from there but i know them well! all sound people up for a laugh, just a shame theyre at a scummy sqn but they cant help that!!!

[daveyp]

Ah right thats good then. If i don't get through the medical then I would still definitely be interested in joining as ground crew.

Is there a general forum for people in UAS's?

[Wholigan]

May I suggest that you wait a short time, when all will be made clear, including such things as medical requirements.

[BEagle]

Any more news yet?

[McDuff]

"Any more news yet?"

No, BEagle. Apparently the paper went before the Board last week; ministerial approval is next.

But when, I do not know.

[BEagle]

One hopes that the Board will ask "What idiot wrote this" and consign the paper to file 13.

Along with its author,

But sadly I fear that will not be the case.

And another part of RAF history will disappear for ever.

[flipster]

In the late 90s, the UASs were saved from closure because HQ PTC did a study to assess the relative success of the 2 recruiting streams - Direct Entry (DE) or Graduate Entry (GE).

HQ PTC discovered that a UAS-trained pilot who starts BF(J)T had a higher chance of getting to a FJ OCU (95% chance of success) than a DE person with the same OASC aptitude score. Sadly, DE guys only had a 85% chance of passing BF(J)T (although DEs are better in other respects - age v return of service and, of course, lots being pretty damn good pilots too!).

These stats saved the UASs from closure in 1996. Unfortunately, some 'visionaries' tried to fix what wasn't broken and introduced streaming on UASs/created EFT while greatly reducing the flying hours available for people to pass the 'dumbed-down' UAS/EFT course.

Those students destined for fast jet were not greatly effected, as they went on to do BFJT anyway. But those sent RW and ME had greatly reduced hours/experience before attenting AFT/OCU, as well as by-passing the first bit of BFJT on 'manly' aeorplanes.

As a result, the RW/ME studes lacked 'airborne time' and their airmanship suffered - a number were chopped unecessarily from AFT/OCU and Sqns - wasting perfectly good pilots. For most, their only major fault was to have had their confidence shattered by the 'rush-job' of the 'impoved' ME/RW fg trg system. How much money and effort was wasted doing this?

The present UAS system, although better than nought, is a shadow of the system that produced the stats that saved itself 10 years ago - so maybe it doesn't deserve to be given a thrid chance?

Unfortunately, the RAF will soon have to recruit pilots the in face of increased direct competition from BA, Virgin, Britannia, easyJet, Monarch etc - many of whom have 'cadetships by proxy' with training-partner companies - the competition for places is very stiff.

If the military want to recruit the high quality people they claim that they need, then they will have to go head-to-head with civil aviation. If they don't, the system will suffer.

Also, most teenagers worth recruiting will want a degree of some sort these days. Therefore, a 'traditional' UAS structure, as Trenchard originally envisaged, would be a cheap and effective way to get ahead of civvie aviation and recruit/train top youngsters while offering first-class instruction as the student gains their degree(great experience for young QFIs too). All of this, before the student commences productive service/goes to the airlines - the RAF would get 'em as young as possible. Yes, there may be 'in-service' degree but this may not be the panacea that our lordships think as 'youf' will always have a penchant for uni life!

If the Sevices don't compete more forcefully with civ aviation in the arena of pilot recruitment/training at university, then IMHO, they will not get as much of the 'right stuff' that they need to fly the C17, FSTA and A400M or Merlin - let alone Typhoon or JSF!

The UASs are a very cheap but effective way to do this, while also enhancing the standing of the RAF in the community - I don't see the Army or the Navy getting rid of the OTC or URNUs!

We must NOT lose the UASs.

[SCINHead]

:mad:

Rant on... Not one for venting on here - being a good company man, towing the line etc But I've had it.
Once again another deadline for letting the troops know what is going on/ making a decision has been and gone. But dont worry we're investors in people arent we!
Steady as she goes, it might not happen, but be prepared to implement the changes for september because its going to happen. So the decision for April is now the decision for??? . But we've moved the pilot medicals so whoever we recruit we cant get stuck into the syllabus proper until the new year; by which time the new high calibre students who we want to entice into our highly professional organisation will have got fed up with it and joined the rowing club.
Someone make a bl00dy decision and provide guidance. Morale in my house is low. I'm a QFI - GET ME OUT OF HERE.:mad:
Rant off

PS: I actually think the RAF has a lot to offer and I look forward to going back to the front line. There is still stuff in here for Wannabees to join for but this saga does nothing to promote the plus points.

Aaaaand relax:{

[McDuff]

Yes SCINhead, the postponing of the briefing is ominous for the making of a decision, but it could mean that we don't have to worry about it for a year or so. It was all getting too tight for an elegant changeover this year anyway. We can get on with recruiting and induction. cb

[NDB]

Good waste of money me thinks!!!!!

They do not provide anything but a few students something entertainment wed afternoons!

Save 80% of the money, and give the Air Cadet Gliding Schools 20% for a (Paid!!) full time staff position! There the ones who develope interest in aviation!

Who can remember there first Military Solo! Was it UAS or VGS?

[Dusty_B]

"Military First Solo" - My arse.

First solo aerobatics.....? Now you're talking.

[NDB]

Anyone can throw themselves around the sky!!!

[BEagle]

Neither.

RAF GSA at Merryfield in Summer 1967.

[NDB]

Sorry for SPAG!! I's got a cold hence being a bit short!

[tgarden]

The topic was raised in the Commons on Thursday and the exchange can be read in Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050721/debtext/50721-07.htm#50721-07_spnew2)

The Minister said he knew of no proposed changes to the UAS system. As Parliament is in recess now until October, it would be unusual for a decision to be announced before then.

[Dusty_B]

tgarden,

Is this a matter that could/would be discussed in the Lords if an oppotunity arose at a later date?

Given the UAS's original aims of raising "air minded" allies in industry and government, do you have any idea how many graduate MPs and Peers have benefitted from the UAS, OTC and URNU systems?

[McDuff]

The trouble is, tgarden, that that might have been an unsighted minister rather than an indication that it has not crossed the SofS's desk yet. The PQ is probably what prompted the AOC to call off the briefing, unless it really has not been past the SofS yet.

The Marston paper was full of holes, it seems to have been poorly staffed and it was subjected to the MOD circ maelstrom that has seen the demise of many a *decent* idea, much less the flawed ones.

Whatever the reason, the upshot is surely that Innsworth now have time to find people to fill OC UAS posts; and we have time for an elegant changeover rather than another rushed cockup.

NDB: gliding? schmiding! ;-)

[tgarden]

McDuff

True, but he was supposed to be making a statement in SofS's name on the various details of changes to the RAF.

Dusty_B

Yes, I think there are a number of members of both Houses who remember their UAS time with affection. I put down a question on what was happening to the UAS's, to alert members with an interest. It was also answered yesterday in
Lords' Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=univers%20air%20squadron&ALL=University%20air%20squadron&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=50721w16_spnew9&URL=/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50721w16.htm#50721w16_spnew9).

[Jackonicko]

Well done Sir Tim, well asked, and welcome to PPRuNe!

Who said that 14 Squadron's B(I)8 blokes would never amount to anything?

But while you're hear, would you care to comment on your party's well known proposal to cancel Typhoon Tranche 3? Would it really be better to pay all those penalty payments? Isn't the FJ force already over-stretched enough?

BEagle!

1st service solo does not include the RAFGSA, :rolleyes: even if you achieved it at the RAFGSA centre ;) , let alone somewhere out in the sticks:p. And UAS Solo Sector Recce :E or solo aeros :ok: had it over first solo, for me!

[McDuff]

I take your point Tim, and the cluelessness might have been contrived I suppose. I find it difficult to take much at face value with cette gouvernement.

Sector recces do seem to hit the spot with our youngsters, but not as much as early formation sorties, especially for those who can do it pretty well straight off. Good instruction I call it ... ;-)

[tgarden]

Jackonicko

Given our relative registration dates, I should be welcoming you.

As to Lib Dem policy, I make a point of never being political on the various military web forums to which I belong.

ps: It was 3 Sqn not 14 Sqn

[Recusant]

:ugh:

From whats happened over the last week, does anyone know whether the UAS re-organization nonsense will now be delayed until Sep 06?

[Flik Roll]

highly unlikely. announcement is next week.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Flik

Sorry to disappoint but announcement delayed (indefinately?) TFN!

[Flik Roll]

fair enough - was told last week that we would hear this week (but then next week always means in the next few weeks/months/years)



:suspect:

[BEagle]

So will UASs recruit as normal this autumn? Or hedge their bets against the announcement which has been on the cards for several months now?

[Pontius Navigator]

Now all beomes clear.

A briefing note on the future of UAS's was released on Tuesday and an automatic recall was sent. Next day a furthure recall notice went out.

Clearly someone jumped the gun. Now with the parliamentary recess . . .

[row333]

Hi,

I am in EMUAS currently and have just finished my first year on the sqn as a pilot.

They recruit during freshers week at the differnt uni's.. Nottingham (obviously!!), Trent, Loughborough, De Montford, Leicester and Lincoln. UAS sqns are interested in people who have a keen interest in probably joining the RAF, therefore the selection is much like RAF selection, in terms of quality, aptitude and medical fitness.

You are given a short pre intereview at freshers fair, which if you do well at, you are then offered another interview at the THQ (town headquarters). This is OASC style 45 mins. On this day you are also required to take Aptitude tests for 15mins or so (these aren't too hot in comparision to the ones at OASC, and most get through these because the computer programmes are broken!!).

If you are successful here you ar einvited to a Medical weekend, which is the full Pilot medical given at OASC, and Aptitude tests, if you have not already done them.

At the end of the weekend many people are filtered out and about 25 studes are chosen! It is tough competition for places, but fairly done. We had over 400 applicants ,last year, and only 25 chosen. Out of the 25 there is around half of the studes left!

EMUAS is awesome though, the best preparation advice I can give you, is to buy some smart clothes, start your drinking training (it IS a requirement!), and learn the words to Whitesnake: HERE I GO AGAIN.

WE ARE THE ONES!

Row

[PhilM]

Wholigan,

Is it safe to assume the decisions will be made in plenty of time before September/October's intakes? Or is it possible that the current rules may stand for the next intake?

Thanks

[Wholigan]

Sorry Phil, I genuinely don't know. I imagine that is one of the things causing furrowed brows in the hierarchy right now.

Question: "Hmmm ..... do we recruit for the new scheme assuming it will receive the nod from the Minister, or do we think there are - to quote the old song - 'more questions than answers' in the study and so the final decision will be delayed sufficiently that it would make sense to recruit for the old scheme?"

Certainly there is a real need for guidance on that question very soon.

(Wonder how long I can hold my breath.) ;)

[teeteringhead]

I would guess that now Parliament has gone off on its long, well-deserved :rolleyes: summer hols, an announcement is unlikely before they get back. Certainly the UAS I share an airfield with is planning to recruit "normally" from next year's freshers ...

[McDuff]

I'm not sure that it makes any difference to daveyp as to whether he tries to enter under the new rules (whenever they come into force) or the current ones.

Give it a go; learn all you can about the RAF and the UASs, have a story to tell and be ready to tell it at interview. Dress smartly for the interview, make sure that your shirt is ironed and that your personal hygiene (ahem ;-)) is up to scratch. Tidy hair would help ...

This advice, freely given (;-)), will work for any organisation, military or civilian.

[BEagle]

Did anyone manage to see the Briefing Note before the recall arrived...??

At the premier UAS yesterday at London (Wyton) aerodrome, no-one seemed to have any firm knowledge about the future plans for the UAS world.

But if whoever it is who plans to dumb down the UAS world to a pale imitation of its current state (in itself a poor imitation of its pre-1996 state) had been there yesterday, I would have liked to have seen him to try to explain the idea to the old-timers (some dating back to the Second World War) who were there.

I don't think he would have survived.....

[SSSETOWTF]

Beagle,

I got a copy of it the BN on email, skimmed through it and deleted it I'm afraid. The only part I remember with any clarity (getting old) was about number of flying hours cut to 10 per annum per student, and a greater focus on personal development aspects. Wish I hadn't been so quick on the delete button now - sorry.

By the way, I'm sure the premier UAS was and always will be Cambridge, being several days older than those Oxford whippersnappers...?

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

[BEagle]

10 hours per student per year? That'd be worse than useless...

And WTF are 'personal development aspects'? Muddy games with pine poles plus jolly jockstrapping?

Who is the author of such utter bolleaux?

[SSSETOWTF]

Well, they may change their minds.....??

My first thought was, how do they divide that flight time up? I mean, do you do nothing all year, then go off on summer camp, get your 10 hours in some sort of PPL syllabus, then forget it all over the course of the year? Or do you get 1 flight a month of AEF type flying, and learn very little at all? Frankly I can't decide which is worse. Presumably, at most you'll only need 1 or 2 QFIs on the permanent staff, if any at all, so there'll be a lot more ground branch people as staff.

Alternatively, it may be a cunning plan to increase the 'ground branch' membership of the UAS - bump up the membership a bit, budget for 10 hours each, but only fly the same number of students as you do at the moment, who still get their 30 odd hours a year. Maybe I'm clutching at straws.

I assume the rest of your (non-flying) time is spent along the lines of the OTC, though I have to confess, I have no idea exactly what they did/do all day. Do they have a tripod-building fetish? Do they practice marching up and down the square? Or do they concentrate on sailing/diving/skiing/climbing/canoeing trips etc? None of the above have any strong correlation to a day-in-the-life of the average JO as far as I can make out, but maybe they're good for recruiting (?). Anyone out there have any OTC mates who can shed light on what they get up to, and are they a good recruitment tool?

[Spotting Bad Guys]

I read the same brief and IIRC, the points were:

1. Current system not working as planned and not cost effective.
2. Primarily focused on aircrew to detrimant of other branches.
3. Flying/UAS commitment directly in conflict with increasing Uni/education workloads.

Solution:

1. EFT removed from UASs and re-established elsewhere.
2. Flying reduced to 10 hours per year per student.
3. UAS opened up to all branches.
4. Personal development training (Force Development/air power? can't remember - sorry).

I also seem to recall that there was a shift of pilots to the AEFs (may be mistaken here) and also that UAS Cdrs may be drawn from branches other than aircrew.

I think that was about it; if I can find the BN I'll post it.

Cheers

SBG

[McDuff]

Yes, I wonder how we are going to find enough to occupy them, especially with the minimal level of staffing that is apparently in the plan.

Still, most of the kids make it worthwhile; and they keep me young. I have a carpet burn from a new slant on tug-of-war which a fellow staff member (who had 4 stone the better of me) managed to inflict on me ... ;-)

[FiiS]

[BEagle]

1. Current system not working as planned and not cost effective.

The plan was bolleaux, so it's hardly surprising it doesn't work!

2. Primarily focused on aircrew to detriment of other branches.

Means that they're desperate for people such as engineers. Who, if they've any sense, won't want to work in the RAF, because neither the rewards nor the opportunities can touch those available in the real world!

3. Flying/UAS commitment directly in conflict with increasing Uni/education workloads.

Well, quelle b£oody surprise! That's what those who've been around for more than a couple of tours have been trying to tell the idiots who introduced the streaming idiocy!

The real solution? Put it back the way it was in around 1994. And fire the idiot who wrote the paper.

Incidentally, if things do change, you can most certainly expect a review of credits for UAS flying towards civil qualifications.

[RowT8]

Who wrote it?
A little research into the name being associated with the study shows just one group captain fitting the bill.
An RAF pilot since 1972, he trained on Chipmunk, JP and Hunter, and flew Harrier and Jaguar operationally. A PPL holder and BGA instructor, he was a QFI on Hawk and Harrier (A2). He spent 8 years in the elementary flying training business, 4 as wing commander EFT and 4 as Director EFT/OC 1 EFTS, overseeing the first stage of pilot training for all of the UK armed services (and probably comparing the UASs to other ways of achieving the aim).
It's a shame they couldn't find someone properly qualified to do the job!

[BEagle]

It's certainly a shame they didn't choose someone with direct UAS QFI experience...... With all the peripheral activities that involves.

Was he a student at a UAS? Or one of the commissioned schoolkids who never made it to University?

What I find really concerning is the allegation made by a UAS boss of my acquaintance:

"The outcome of the report was decided before the report had even been written. It's a total stitch-up!"

[daveyp]

Thanks a lot guys!

I'll be sure to take ur advice and i will definitely be applying come September :D

[Pontius Navigator]

Beagle see PM or add a few characters

[BEagle]

Very interesting!

("....or add a few characters." Sorry, don't understand you.)

[Pontius Navigator]

the number of characters added was to get round the short message limit which is counter productive as it only adds more!

[BEagle]

Ah.

[The mother alligator]

I take it this means that all bursars do EFT after IOT (seeing as though "EFT will be moved elsewhere"), therefore losing time on the font line? Surely guys on SSC's will only be seeing a limited time of front line service - extended IOT, EFT post IOT, holds etc.... How is this cost effective?

Most graduates are going to be pretty old by the time they finish training! With current morale they're surely going to grab an airline at the first opportunity?!

I know for a fact that a lot of guys (especially ground branch - ironic that they're trying to focus more on them) are probably going to leave the UAS for the OTC - and why not?? Get paid more, and are obviously more active ground training wise.

[McDuff]

"I take it this means that all bursars do EFT after IOT (seeing as though "EFT will be moved elsewhere"), therefore losing time on the font line? Surely guys on SSC's will only be seeing a limited time of front line service - extended IOT, EFT post IOT, holds etc.... How is this cost effective?"

Well I suppose you could reduce the holds somehow and thereby make the system more efficient. But hang on a moment: would that not make EFT on UASs more cost-effective in that you are not losing so much proficiency waiting for your next course?

cb

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Surely EFT on a UAS is more cost effective as you don't have to provide salaries for the students?

They might have some thought that EFT will now take the place of an immediate post-IOT hold during which you'd be paying them anyway, but I'm sure that adding an extra course won't decrease holds...

The idea of "EFT-for-all" after IOT seems alright; there's always been comments about disparity between JEFTS and UAS during my time through training, with syllabi not matching, worries about report writing etc etc. It's just a shame that UASs have to die completely to provide this. I'm sure the die-hard wannabes will still troop to substandard UASs, but I'm sure there're a lot of guys in the RAF now only there due to the deals the UAS offered them.

[McDuff]

I don't subscribe to the idea that UASs will die 5F6B; the system seems merely to be reverting to occasional flying. I don't believe that we will lose many unless we make a mess of the organisation.

But it is entirely possible to do that now (for instance through poor leadership, indifferent reporting standards or an unattractive ground-branch activity timetable) and therefore to lose members. It would be invidious to provide any examples ...

[Pontius Navigator]

UAS used to focus on aircrew. We need more non-aircrew than aircrew ergo the focus was wrong.

Not only that but it is better, cheaper and more productive to catchem before they go to uni.

[BEagle]

PN - that might have a modicum of sense were it not for the abysmally low educational standards of our schools these days. Where once a secondary education was a known quality, even a tertiary education is nowadays sometimes rather questionable....

Restore the pre-1996 UAS scheme and all would be fine....

But this rumoured new scheme will simply aim people at the Army, Navy or airlines....

Unless someone with half a brain cell $hitcans it, of course.

[Flik Roll]

I can highly recommend it there is so much to do and never a dull moment.

I can't speak for what EMUAS is like as I'm from the premier UAS

;)

Good luck!

PS, if you are super keen, it may be worth contacting the Sqn before Freshers to get some info.

[Pontius Navigator]

Beagle, I could not possibly comment but check your mail box.

[BEagle]

Well, no EFT at UAS and just 10 hours 'voluntary' flying per year? The rest of the time being spent on 'Force Development/Leadership and Personal Development' eh?

That should get them flocking to join.....the OTC. If they want to do such things properly and get paid rather better!

If what I've had sight of should ever come about, perish the thought, it'd be more cost effective to shut up shop altogether and to send people to flying clubs to get 30 hours' training.

I see BA's shares are up today. Did you know that they've been recruiting people from places like Oxford and Jerez who haven't even completed their CPL/IR courses yet!

Is there no-one sufficiently testiculated to be able to put a stop to this stupid idea to dumb down UAS flying training? Or will they all roll over on what is tantamount to wanton destruction of our heritage?

[airborne_artist]

Beags

They won't join the OTC - if they have any sense they'll join the RNR/TA/RAuxF - as they can't be mobilised before they graduate (by which time they've got their BRNC/Sandhurst/Cranditz offer and left), and the experience they get is far better, plus they get good day rates, annual camp, courses etc.

If I had my time again that's what I'd do, anyway.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I don't know if the 'Terriers' etc can be forced to deploy before they graduate, but I heard of one such fellow (from Exeter I think) sat his finals in Iraq! He was, I believe, in the OTC but with a TA commission.

[BEagle]

Much of the benefit of the old UAS system to students was being able to talk to experienced pilots and learn about what they had done on their previous tours. We had people who'd flown V-bombers, Canberras, Belvederes, Seafires.....all had interesting stories to recount. Many of my colleagues who wouldn't otherwise have thought about joining the RAF only did so after meeting such people during their flying training on Chipmunks. It was also the reward of flying training which kept many of us going at University; double thermodynamics on Friday mornings somehow didn't seem quite so bad when you knew that you'd be off to the aerodrome for the weekend a few hours later.....

This sort of life carried on at UASs for the next 23 years; the Chipmunk went and the Bulldog came in. The syllabus changed slightly, but it was still the goal of all students to gain their PIFG and later their PFBs...

Then some utter ar$e decided to meddle with the system and introduced the ludicrous notion of 'streaming' students for BFT depending on their success at UAS. Complete and utter nonsense - and everyone on any UAS knew it. But still it went on... How do you combine a degree in something like Aero Eng with the demands of sufficient currency to progress satisfactorily at UAS whilst trying to pay off a student loan? Impossible.

Then 'they' decided that they couldn't even afford a few lightplanes of their own, and the Rental Air Farce started using Das Teutor with all its civil register limitations. Unbelievable. But still the students are a well-motivated bunch enjoying excellent flying training, albeit much of it conducted by rather ancient FTRS officers.

But what of the future? Would anyone really be sufficiently motivated to join the RAF after running around playing pine pole games and listening to boring Air Power lectures for 3 years in their few hours of spare time? With a mere 10 hours of flying per annum? I very much doubt it. Not when there are better alternatives around to attract quality people from universities. Even 90-ish hours seemed mean, 30 is an utter joke.

In the 'traditional' UAS era, we'd just have finished July's Summer Camp at an operational RAF station. But even that is beyond the reach of the RAF of today; those few operational stations left have insufficient accommodation and the beancounters won't stump up for anything else.

I sincerely hope that the questions raised by Sir Tim Garden in Parliament will have positive effect and that the current threat to the UAS system is consigned to the rubbish bin of history where it rightly belongs.

[tmmorris]

In the 'traditional' UAS era, we'd just have finished July's Summer Camp at an operational RAF station. But even that is beyond the reach of the RAF of today; those few operational stations left have insufficient accommodation and the beancounters won't stump up for anything else.

Indeed. And there would also have been a succession of cadet summer camps where ATC/CCF cadets would have a taste of life in the RAF, giving them something to aspire to. Both, of course, still happen, but they are hanging on by a thread - operational stations are too busy to have much time for cadets, though they try like b*gg*ry to fit them in, bless them. This year we spent a happy week in tents at Odiham...

Tim

[1.3VStall]

BEags,

Your last post broughtback happy memories of three UAS Summer Camps - Thorney Island, Lindholme and Coltishall (Chipmunks flying out of Norwich Airport - formerly RAF Hoshan St Faith).

[foldingwings]

1.3VStall

Horsham St Faith, old Boy! Horsham!

[1.3VStall]

FW,

I meant to put Horsham - it's just that I have fingers like pigs t*ts!

[flipster]

Summer Camps at Leeming, St Mawgan as a stude - top stuff! Then, Laarbruch, St Mawgan (twice) as a QFI - magic times indeed.

Beags - I am with you on this one and am wishing that 'them with egg on their hats' stop screwing around with our heritage and return UASs to something approaching their former glory. If the RAF does not compete for the 'top guns' at uni, we will lose them to the airlines and the aforementioned seniors will have egg on their faces!

Maybe you should bid for doing the RAF's UAS Summer Camps for them. Buy/lease some Chippies, 'Dogs or similar. There must be a whole host of good guys who'd do a week or 2 for you - meanwhile, we could be on 'perpetual camp'. All the studes would get the benefit of proper fg trg as well as the 'old and bold' stories. Their airships certainly seem not to care very much about the 'ethos' the UASs help generate - so think how much they could save by binning the whole UAS system?

[StiffNose]

1.3VStall

Sounds like you were MUAS 1968 - 1971. Moi aussi!

[1.3VStall]

SN - Looks like I'm rumbled!

[Malissa Fawthort]

So what would you think if – hypothetically – the new system came into being and – hypothetically – it was supposed to save some £3M by saving on the number of QFIs in the system as a whole and – hypothetically – it was decided that the numbers of QFIs saved would have to be reduced because it was realised that – hypothetically – they needed more QFIs on each AEF to provide the training for the UAS students which would – hypothetically – include solo sorties and, therefore – hypothetically – the savings were not as great as expected because the BM “report to end all reports” had not taken this into account?

And what would happen if it was – hypothetically - recommended in the BM “report to end all reports” that it was necessary to reform No 1 AEF at St Athan because – hypothetically – it was not possible under the new system to have a UAS without an AEF. How much do you think it would cost to persuade DARA and VT Aerospace to – hypothetically - change to 7 day operations because you can’t run an AEF without operating at weekends because (guess what) that’s the only time that ATC cadets can fly because they are at school during the week and St Athan currently only operates Monday to Friday (except during the winter period when they do work on Saturdays). I wonder if that would erode some of the “savings” and I wonder if anybody has started contract negotiations with DARA and VT Aerospace to cater for this added requirement?

Oh – and I wonder what extra savings would be accrued by increasing the Adventurous Training budgets on the UASs to try to give SOME reason for Uni students to join the UASs? I also wonder what would happen if those Uni students who had taken the time and effort to become qualified as “leaders” (mountain, canoeing etc whatever) were told that they would be expected to “lead” expeditions as much as was required but that they would not be paid more than the thirty-something days per year currently permitted, even though the UAS would remain within its total pay budget by paying them whenever they were required to “lead”. Do you think they would decide to continue to “lead” AT detachments because they loved the life or would they say “sod you – pay me for when I work or I won’t work more than the days you pay me”? If the latter, who would “lead” the extra AT expeditions that will have been funded?

Just a few interested questions you know - hypothetical of course.

[BEagle]

And what if, hypothetically, your plan to save on the number of QFIs, also requires that not only will more 'volunteer' pilots be needed, but that ex-QFI AEF members will be 'encouraged' to qualify as AEF QFIs.

One wonders sort of 'encouragement' would be on offer? Hardly likely to be financial, I would venture! And it would be a very brave QFI who would send someone solo if they had only flown 10 hours in that year....

Does 'volunteer' mean 'The RAF won't pay more than travel expenses'?

You don't make omelettes without breaking eggs!

[Jackonicko]

How many hours were UAS blokes getting immediately before the misguided conversion of the course to an EFTS syllabus with streaming at the end?

And how many on the EFTS course?

My own UAS days are long ago, and as a lazy, lecture-skiving arts student I got more hours than most, but dimly recall that VR blokes officially got 30 hours per year, with 20 in the first year (or the last, can't remember).

[flipster]

At the turn of the millenium, the allocation was about 30hrs - ie 90hr course (as you say) but the average could be higher because of the monthly 'Essential Exercise'/currency trips.

Then someone had a brainwave to reduce the EFT cse to about 70 hrs by taking out most of the confidence-building solos and capacity-enhancing fun trips like tailchasing and LL Nav and composite sorties towards FHT.

Consequently, it is more difficult for QFIs to assess the studes potential capacity (this from the horse's mouth on numerous occsaions). Therefore, streaming is a bit of a lottery for the studes.

This hardly makes the system more efficient - both streaming at UASs and the introduction of EFT on UASs were large backward leaps.

[Jackonicko]

And does anyone remember when the EFT fiasco came in?

And did that mark an official end to recruiting VR blokes who might not be committed to the RAf after Uni?

So many questions, so little brain!

[Not on Hercs]

Flipster


The 70 hours you alluded to is actually only 59:15; 12:05 solo and 47:10 dual.
There is scope for incidental allowance to take care of essex and weather etc and up to 5 hours flex for lack of ability. Therefore a good competent student attending monthly could possibly complete the syllabus of 60 sorties in less than 60 hours or if attending less than 31 days between trips, up to 80!

[Wholigan]

Jacko, not sure exactly when doing EFT at UASs actually came in, but my sources tell me that the decision at the time was taken to protect the UASs. It seems that the stark choice then was either do EFT on UASs or lose UASs. This info comes from about as high up the food chain at the time as it was possible to get.

I have to say that I have never liked the situation where somebody who was completing EFT over 2/3 years was compared with somebody doing the same EFT over a few months (with the consequent vast improvement in continuity) when streaming decisions were made. When you consider that the course is only about 60 hours anyway, that system seems to me to be inherently unfair. When you also consider that – not THAT many moons ago – streaming decisions were made at the end of a 160-ish hour course flown in about 11 months, the current system seems even more unfair. I know the current plot allegedly saves money, but I firmly believe that it only saves money from one pot, and actually places a bigger expense further down the stream, because the real decisions have to be made whilst or after flying aircraft that are more expensive to run. If I had my choice (not that I ever will), I would elect for all students to fly EFT over a short course, then ALL STUDENTS to fly BFT on the Tincan, with streaming taking place after that. The bean-counters would never permit that though because it would “cost more” on the surface and they are not interested in the real down-stream expenses incurred by streaming after 60 hours.

But what do I know --- I’m not a QFI!

[BEagle]

"Therefore a good competent student attending monthly could possibly complete the syllabus of 60 sorties in less than 60 hours or if attending less than 31 days between trips, up to 80!"

Assuming that the weather is fine, the student can afford the time to travel the distance to the UAS and that it won't affect his degree....

Surely it's time for someone in the RAF to dig in against yet more erosion of values and the forthcoming total implosion of the RAF? How long before all those earnest 'Air Power' and other doctrinal folk begin to realise that all their hot air theorising is worth absolutely nothing without the assets to turn theory into practice.

I heartily agree with Wholi' about all pilot students doing a common-core BFTS syllabus on the Spicano - but UASs should return to the 30:30:20 pattern of flying to a common PIFG/PFB state without ANY streaming assessment!

As for a syllabus which is actually defined to '12:05 solo', well, that just about sums it all up. $odding beancounting which totally ignores the airmanship value of solo consolidation.

[Elmlea]

The hours issue wasn't that bad; arriving at a UAS to do EFT, I had a 90 hour course ahead of me rather than a 60 hour course for a JEFTS mate. On top of that, I had all the "essential exercise" currency ticks that made sure I left my EFT after three years with slightly over 100 hours. I was still compared to a bloke with better continuity, but at least that bloke only had 60 hours, and I had a PIFG, had done IP-tgt runs, and been immersed in life on a front-line base for the duration of my degree.

The decision to drop the UAS EFT syllabus to 60 hours, matching the direct entry one, and then introduce DE flights on UASs was the one that shocked me. Nothing brought home how up against it you were than pitching up to fly one of your token 60 trips, while watching another guy fly the same trip as one of three that day on Fg Off pay, with no degree to worry about. Then you'd pitch up 3 months later and he'd be finished and off to Linton.

A common BFT course does make sense, and those beancounters saying "no" might like to have a look at Linton nowadays. A fleet of 80-odd Tucanos; loads of QFIs leaving, and barely any starting; too many pilots in the RAF nowadays; and complaints about the streaming point. Seems to add up beautifully to wheeling out the full fleet of Tucanos, keeping the squadrons there at their full complement of QFIs, and sending EVERYONE there.

We own the aircraft, we have the pilots, and there're plenty of QFIs there sitting around wishing they had more hours to fly. Why not?

[DeaconBlue]

Elmlea - just cause your mother wouldn't let you go direct entry don't take out your issues on those that do...

[Elmlea]

Eh?

I was quite content doing UAS EFT, and didn't want to go DE at all. I was happy as a sponsored stude, doing the 90-hour UAS course, and didn't think for a second about how I'd be compared to JEFTS blokes during streaming. I certainly have no issues with them; there weren't DE flights while I was on a UAS!

My point about UAS studes doing 60 hours now alongside DE guys is perfectly valid; and is one of the thrusts of this whole thread! The fact I was getting a degree at the same time was countered by an extra 30 hours at least. Now, the guys get nothing extra; they do the same course, to the same standards, and have their reports written by the same QFIs; so they struggle through with poor continuity and no pay, knowing their entire career path rests on their performance?

Anyway, if you disagree with that, there're enough posts on the pages above discussing that. I don't think it's right to send a uni stude through a course part-time, unpaid, and during uni over three years that he'd otherwise polish off as a full-time job, on full pay, in 4 months.

I like the idea of a common EFT post-IOT; but I don't like the idea of UASs disappearing. From what I've seen, we used to have it right; a short EFT course for non-flyers, and a free-for-all UAS course. Afterwards, everyone does a BFT Tucano/JP course, with a slightly different start depending on your background. Stream after a few hours there, then keep the FJ guys on to do more.

[BEagle]

"Afterwards, everyone does a BFT Tucano/JP course, with a slightly different start depending on your background..."

Which is precisely what used to happen in the early 1970s. Ex-UAS did 125 hrs on the JP3/5, DE did 140. You were then awarded wings and streamed to AFTS; FJ to the Gnat at Valley, ME to the Varsity at Oakington and RW to the Whirlwind at Ternhill.

It worked very well indeed.

Then the rot stared with all the SAFT Gp 1 Ph 1 nonsense - and flying training never really recovered....

[Jackonicko]

BEags: SAFT?

Everyone else: Can anyone name any distinguished ex-UAS grads - historic (like Richard Hillary) and recent (MRAFs, CASs, CinCSTCs, etc.)?

[pr00ne]

JN,

SAFT

“Systems Approach to Flying Training” I think, but I am LONG out of this training scheme!

BEagle,

Wasn’t it about the same time that the term Fast Jet was coined as Group 1? I dread to think of the comparative standard of airmanship of the average ME stude bowling up at AFTS or even at OCU, especially if they are ex UAS with all the hassle and spread of flying involved.
The RAF used to have a training system second to none, now I have no beef with leases or even contractor owned training aircraft, but I have a real worry about hours and overall airmanship, are we seeing a real dip in experience? Add that to reduced hours at the front line and this is only heading one way.

BRING BACK BFTS FOR ALL.

[BEagle]

SAFT - Systems Approach to Flying Training. Scribbledegook w@nkwords for 'cut backs in Flying Training' circa 1974-5?

Sir Tim Garden is an ex-UAS mate......http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/biog/tgbio1.html

[teeteringhead]

Can anyone name any distinguished ex-UAS grads ... ACM Sir John Day, ex C-in-C STC (London UAS); AVM David Niven, ex Cdr JHC (St Andrews UAS?); AVM Tony Nicholson, [IIRC] ex ACDS OR (Air) (Cambridge UAS); AVM Steve Nicholl, also [IIRC] ex ACDS OR (Air) (Oxford UAS).....

..... there's a total of 9 stars for you Jacko....

..... and only 7 are rotary (but not streamed that way at UAS!!)......;)

[Pontius Navigator]

What I have to say below proves something but I leave it to others to decide.

Of seven nav studes 5 were chopped pilots, two had the preliminary flying badge. Six were ex-UAS. Two wanted to be navs not pilots.

Guess who got the preliminary flying badges.
Guess who graduated as navigators; one made Buccs, one made GR1s.
One ex-UAS, failed PF, chopped BFTS, made it through to Canberras.

[BEagle]

Can't be ar$ed to draw the Venn diagram. Please state your conclusions, PN.....

[Jackonicko]

Thanks Teeters!!!

I'd add:

Leonard Cheshire, VC
Geoffrey Page
Arthur Aaron, VC

Brian Burridge
Tim Garden

Sir Charles Masefield
Colin Chapman (Lotus)
Tim Yeo, MP
Dr Nicholas Patrick (astronaut!)
Stanley ('Handling the Big Jets') Stewart

[Pontius Navigator]

The UAS FT was a waste of money as they put unsuitable candidates forwad for pilot training and only one of them even qualified as a nav and then only on the then 'nav trainer.'

Curiously the two who wanted to be navs at the outset had better piloting skills, both went muds and both, last I heard, made wg cdr.

[BEagle]

I guess that was pre-1968 before the massive increase in University Cadetships, Pontius? Quite probable that things weren't quite so tight back then, regarding pilot suitability.

We had a few (very few) people who couldn't manage the Chipmunk when I was a student in '69-'73; however, when I went back as a QFI in 1989, the CFI used to hold staff meetings and we'd root out those who clearly weren't pulling their weight. There would be a queue of people outside the bosses office later in the week who would thn be given the bad news.... But people would have to be pretty awful to be chopped for lack of flying skill on the Bulldog. (Of course if they could tell their ar$e from their elbows, they could always join as a navigator :p)

And that was before this streaming nonsense started!

[McDuff]

Wholigan

Apparently the EFT element of UAS flying started around 7 years ago. The undergrads started doing the same course as the DE around 2 years ago.

And I hope that your quip about your not being a QFI was not a jibe. For us who came late to "trimming" it is a matter of pride you know ...

[BEagle]

Morning, PSOs!

When did the stupid idea to 'stream' students based on their UAS flying begin? Doubtless it was introduced by someone who had no idea of the time management pressures faced by undergraduates at many universities.

If they're content with a degree in 'media studies' or similar, they can probably make sufficient progress to be marked up as having 'fast jet' potential. Whereas if they're doing Aero Eng at Impossible College and have to get to Wyton to fly.......

If the increased workload of the EFT course on undergraduates combined with the demands of their degree courses puts them under unacceptable pressure - well, it was hardly the fault of the undergraduates that such a course was introduced! To say that this then makes UAS flying non-cost effective is a facile comment; and 'access' to a mere 10 hours flying instruction per annum is hardly going to attract many folk, I would venture to suggest. If a student arrived at a UAS, as I did, already in possession of a JAR-FCL PPL, then 10 hours wouldn't even be sufficient keep it valid in its second 12 month period if revalidating by experience!

I understand that this daft new proposal was supposed to commence in September this year - is that still the case or has the whole ridiculous notion been rightly $hitcanned?

Of course as mere civilian filth it's none of my business (apart from a burning desire to see the UASs survive), but go back to unstreamed, 30:30:20 at UAS, then BFTS for all pilots on the Tucano after IOT, I say! It worked well for about 30 years......

[Elmlea]

Apparently the EFT element of UAS flying started around 7 years ago. The undergrads started doing the same course as the DE around 2 years ago.

I started around 8 years ago, and the EFT stuff was well integrated by then. It must have been in the first half of the 1990s that they started it all up.

Certainly in 1997 the final year chaps and chapesses had been doing EFT for long enough to finish it.

[idle stop]

Pontius N:
I really must take issue. I was a contemporary of BEagle on the same UAS, when a RAFVR Cadet Pilot. (BEagle was an esteemed and well funded Cadetship chap!) Of my RAFVR colleagues around that time, nearly all of us ended up in professional flying, either BA or the RAF, and one became a very well known aviation Barrister. Of the whole intake, the attrition rate through the flying training system was, so far as I remember, quite minimal. Subsequently several of our number went on to be succesful operational pilots, QFIs, QHIS, QWIs etc and 3 of us graduated as tps. There were even a few 'Career Officers' that did rather well. I would not have been recruited to the RAF if it wasn't for UAS (though some might say that would have been a good thing!)
Glorified flying club? Amateurs? No training value? Sorry, not in our day; and having seen the pressures on my son when he was on a UAS more recently, things didn't change.
Incidentally, having been involved in BFTS/AFTS and conversion training now for 25 years inside and outwith the military, I heartily endorse BEagle's views on streaming, or the lack of it, on UAS. I went through UAS and 160 hours of JP flying before I was streamed and the benefit of that experience when hitting the Front Line has to be incalculable, particularly when the further through training the higher the costs.

[Wholigan]

McDuff - And I hope that your quip about your not being a QFI was not a jibe.

Nope - not a jibe as such. However, the fact that I'm not a QFI (but I am or have been a PAI, TI, IRE, CIRE, FWI, IP,QWI on 3 different aircraft) means that I lose my job when the new system comes in!!

Fun eh?

[Pontius Navigator]

Beags guessed wrong. I managed to evade Nav School, other than frequent refreshers, until the late 80s. The sorry tale I relate refers to about 1990 as FIP was being phased out. My lot all got it until 4 got wiped out.

[BEagle]

A whisper reached me to the effect that some UASs have already lost their QFIs in anticipation of the stillborn announcement..

The change of emphasis in the UAS scheme being proposed is alleged to free more time for Force Development, Leadership and Personal Development Training (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) with, allegedly, 'obvious benefits for both the RAF and wider society'

Bollocks.

How will that encourage anyone to join the RAF?

Catch 'em young - or lose 'em forever.

[McDuff]

Wholigan

Bad luck old bean :-(. And I didn't know that you had *all* those letters after your name. I am not sure that I will have a job when the sky cracks as I have only until Oct 06 for a contract.

But, I am looking at other avenues ...Nope - not a jibe as such. However, the fact that I'm not a QFI (but I am or have been a PAI, TI, IRE, CIRE, FWI, IP,QWI on 3 different aircraft) means that I lose my job when the new system comes in!!

Fun eh?

I started around 8 years ago, and the EFT stuff was well integrated by then. It must have been in the first half of the 1990s that they started it all up.

Certainly in 1997 the final year chaps and chapesses had been doing EFT for long enough to finish it.

Thanks Elmlea, I stand corrected.

[flipster]

The f-ing stupid steaming at UAS started when we got back from Summer Camp in 1995.
All the paperwork was waiting for us in a load boxes on our return -the boss was fuming and the qfis quipped

" what a load of bolleaux!"

Still true!

[BEagle]

Plus they can't even manage to arrange Summer Camps anymore...... Partly because the imploding Air Force is too small, but no doubt also because some beancounter decided that they were too expensive.

Anyone who ever served as a UAS QFI back then knew that it was only during Summer Camp that the First Years started to work as a team rather than as a collection of individuals.

I gather that change of command and recruitment of UAS members under the new process was intended to commence in September 05. That's only a couple of weeks away now; has the absurd notion that 'access' to a mere 10 hours flying training per year will 'nurture recruitment' to the intended University Grunt Squadrons been challenged successfully?

[daveyp]

Is there anymore news yet on the status of the UAS's? I have looked around on various websites but this thread still seems to be the most up to date. With the University terms drawing ever closer and only 2 weeks away at some Universities, surely if there were any concrete changes then they would have been announced already? Will the UAS's just carry on the same as last year for the time being?

Any reaction would be appreciated

[Ridgerunner]

Hi,

I'm going to be applying to St Andrew's University Air Squadron in a few weeks and was wondering if anyone has experience of being in one of the University Squadrons and could give me some advice on how to succeed with the application process.

Thanks,

Matthew

[phatz]

Rumour has it on the street that the changes to the UAS system will allow all members to do some flying.

I have heard (on fairly good authority) that on the flying side of things, it will become more like AEF flying, with 10 hours a year being allocated to both groundies and pilots alike, with the intention to get most people to first solo. But the present EFT syyllabus (sp?) will not be followed by UAS studes. Which is both good and bad. It is difficult trying to juggle EFT with a degree, and the lack of continuity in flying generally results in worse marks than DE pilots. - Meaning you might not get streamed the way you want to go. But as i have done nearly 60 hours in 18 months, the 10 hours a year will be a significant cutback - but will allow me to concentrate more on my final year at uni.

So whether or not you get in as pilot or groundie, the allocated flying hours will be the same. - Good luck in the interview, just don't be intimidated by the questions that they ask.

[Dimensional]

I can't speak for what EMUAS is like as I'm from the premier UAS

Never knew you flew from RAF Flatmarsh, Flik, how comes I've never seen you there? :p

On a more serious note, as I understand it the new system will provide for some flying for *all* members (none of this Pilot/Ground Branch divide), but is likely to be without syllabus. I can see it being a set amount, to be flown during Uni holidays, since there's little continuity anyway, let alone if you're restricted to 10hrs or so spread throughout a year. In which case, have The Powers That Be thought how this will mean the world and his wife, dog and three kids all trying to fly during eight weeks in the summer -- UAS summer flying, AEF summer camps and the new DE flights desperately scrambling to get their studes through in good weather as currently happens -- with the subsequent ramp in activity? Or how badly a few weeks of bad weather could put back *all* the flying activity that summer (cf. the Tutor grounding last summer)?

[skaterboi]

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

[daveyp]

Good luck in the interview, just don't be intimidated by the questions that they ask.

Thanks a lot. What sort of questions they ask? Thinking of doing some preparation beforehand to give myself every chance of getting in.

Cheers for the help:ok:

[BEagle]

Perhaps it might be an idea to merge the other 2 UAS threads with this one?

[daveyp]

Good idea go ahead

[Wholigan]

BEags - merged 2 of them but left the other as it is a specific question and will be answered in due course, I'm sure, by a link to one of the 3000 other threads on the same question from the past.

[BEagle]

Thanks, Wholi'!

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Wholi,

You're far too clever by half. Are you certain that you were never a trimmer?

:ok:

Duncan

[Angels 99]

News cometh from On High regarding recruitment:-

All UAS's informed yesterday that Sept 05 recruits WILL NOT be subject to an aircrew medical or any kind of aptitude testing, only the general RAF medical will be performed. Deduce from that what you will.................

[Jackonicko]

I'd deduce that some f*ckwit hasn't worked out that whether it's ten hours p.a or 30, it's worth making sure that the recipient has the aptitude and fitness necessary to be of interest to the RAF at the end of their time at Uni.

Otherwise they might just as well give me ten hours per year. Or my mother in law.

[daveyp]

Damnit I reckon I'm gonna fail the eye tests on the medical as my eyes aren't great :{ . Hopefully I can still get into ground crew or something and mayb pick up some flying somewhere :confused:

[joe2812]

All UAS's informed yesterday that Sept 05 recruits WILL NOT be subject to an aircrew medical or any kind of aptitude testing, only the general RAF medical will be performed. Deduce from that what you will.................

I'm going for the Sept 05 intake and have been preparing for interviews, aptitude (where possible) etc... is it 100% correct to go there thinking i'm now only subject to a medical? :confused:

[Squirrel 41]

Heard on the grapevine that this grand plan, fully and successfully implemented, is intended to save less than £4m a year. (Oh, and that's before the cost of additional QFIs, and Adv Trg, and actually not getting the savings due to over optimisitic forecasting.) If true, probably not far from cost neutral then.... whilst hacking lots of people off. Cracking plan! :rolleyes:

And from what's been posted, not clear on how this is supposed to link with the great PFI MFTS thingy (of which there seems to be a degree of silence, along with FSTA and other rental agreements) in 200X? :hmm:

Any ideas anyone? Obviously I'm too dim to understand all of this.

S41

PS To potential UAS-studes: it looks great, and go for it- but if you end up at Southampton, pls learn how to run a BBQ! :D

[Edited for typing... ]

[6Z3]

Let's not get on to the subject of MFTS and its boundaries (UAS in/out, AEF in/out, Grading in/out, DHFS in/out, left leg....), we wouldn't want to confuse the bidder(s) just ahead of CSD proposals

[BEagle]

Sod the business-speak w@nk words - but why should the Mightily F*cked-up Training System bidders be interested in Constant Speed Devices?

A once proud RAF will soon be nothing more than a Rental Air Farce. Still, it'll get a few thrusting tossers promoted onwards and upwards to the stars they all crave, no doubt.

[Crashed&Burned]

Take it easy BEagle. Retired Air Marshals have to have sinecure jobs to go to after all and private UAS/AEF companies fit the bill nicely.

C&B

[Ranger5]

There is nothing wrong with a Southampton BBQ...

[Elmlea]

I thought this thread might be worth a bit of a bump. I'm not in touch with any UASs, and I'd like to know how the new system's working; assuming it is! What about all the studes on the old system? Is anyone still doing EFT? Are DE studes still being sent to all UASs, or just the "big three?"

But when ba starts sponsored training again - as assuredly it's going to have to - competition between the RAF and the airlines will be direct. And on current showing, the RAF is going to have to find something pretty substantial to offer....

Seeing this quote from earlier in the thread worried me. Many years ago, I had a pair of letters offering me cadetships from both organisations mentioned... I took the one that lands me in the "military aircrew" forum rather than any other, and I do often wonder if that was the smartest move in my life...

[STANDTO]

bin the Reds. Keep the UAS's but open up their remit a bit to include more interested youngsters. Indeed, some pimply fifteen year old rubbing shoulders with someone telling him/her how good Uni is might even have an unintended positive effect on their educastion prospects?

[jindabyne]

Not wishing to open up another pointless chestnut or go off-thread, but I'd speculate that the Red Arrows are the 'cause' of more youngsters entering the RAF than UAS's.

[McDuff]

The new EFT Sqns don't formally "stand up"* until 1 Apr 06, so it is possible that some UASs still have the DE courses. I suppose my UAS still does even though we have already split, physically if not formally, into UAS and EFT Sqn. As for how it's working, well the PDLT seems to be working fine, but the flying has tailed off quite a bit. It's just as well as I feel really busy trying to work out a calendar for the New Year (how to run a PIFT or Summer Camp for instance), but I should like to think that it won't be only the mad keen new 1st years who will come flying. Of course it could be that my "presence circuits" need recharging and I should offer special incentives to the studes: how about an extra 10 mins aeros per 3 sorties flown before Easter? http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif
I thought this thread might be worth a bit of a bump. I'm not in touch with any UASs, and I'd like to know how the new system's working; assuming it is! What about all the studes on the old system? Is anyone still doing EFT? Are DE studes still being sent to all UASs, or just the "big three?"
Seeing this quote from earlier in the thread worried me. Many years ago, I had a pair of letters offering me cadetships from both organisations mentioned... I took the one that lands me in the "military aircrew" forum rather than any other, and I do often wonder if that was the smartest move in my life...
*Ghastly Murcan expression now unversally adopted it seems; why can't we have our own expressions, and what was wrong with the Bingos and Joker the way we have had them for years, moan-moan-moan ... http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Uncle Ginsters]

But why the low fg rate? It's that way here too - and at all other UASs i've spoken to. We've tried portray this interim period to the studes as it is - an effectively unlimited time (no 10hr limit til 01Apr06!) to get as far as possible - and yet our SCT is pretty much all that's keeping the dust off of the ac.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the students lack of flying?

Could it be that the system has already backfired? The aim of taking away assessed flying to bring back the 'fun' element could also be reducing the sense of achievement for anything beyond solo....or are we QFIs just so bored that we've started to read too much into things? :bored:

Maybe we'll be offering free flying at our next Christmas Draw to remind them that it's still a University AIR Sqn!

Uncle G

[Flik Roll]

IIRC...
There are no DE's on UAS's at the moment other than YUAS with the foreigners
Next EFT streaming board is in Sept this year IIRC, last one was Dec 05.

[Flashdance9]

I think the new system needs a while to run before any serious comment can be made. What is positive is that it is now an organisation which opens the world of flying/aviation to young people- just as Trenchard originally envisioned. None of this we have to get X numbers of people up to OASC or X pilots finishing EFT. Just openly and honestly a ‘look see opportunity’ into flying and the military (and with the lower medical standards etc).


I was on a University Air Squadron and left once the new changes took effect in November. I had an awesome time on my UAS, probably the best 2 years of my life.

Having said that, I think it's obvious that from now on it's all down hill. My biggest issue with the system is the fact that whilst students lose the pressure of 'flying' and EFT whilst at university; even more pressure is put on the senior students to make the squadrons run effectively, now that staff numbers will have dropped from about 6 to 1! Organsing activities, camps, sports, adventurous training; transport, town nights and the list goes on………….

As a senior student you’re likely to be in the last year at university- which often counts for the most towards your degree; consequently you want to do the best you can. Now that EFT does not exist, neither does the mentality of focus on flying (get good scores = streaming) and settle for a 2.2 (pilots degree). For those of us who are not Bursars and faced with the poor intake at OASC, we have no guarantee of a future with the RAF. Therefore attaining nothing less than a 2.1 becomes the new priority, and remaining on a UAS is no longer productive.

The changes for me illustrated here, on the UAS level the changes/downsizing future of the RAF. For me this has a negative impact. I just cant see the future that I originally envisioned a few years ago.
All you have to do is read the comments in the 'why are people leaving in droves' thread.

The UAS system will sadly be gone within the next few years - or redistributed amongst the other services; university naval units etc... It only survived the 2005 chop through the skin of it's teeth.

I cant see how the bean counters can justify the UAS system under the current climate. It is a great recruitment tool- but the RAF doesn’t need to recruit pilots- it will always have a steady flow of wannabes to it's doors without UAS's. What they need to do is focus more on the ground branches like engineers. They should never of changed the system in 1995.

Referring to the comments of students becoming attracted to other careers like airlines BA etc – very true. I’m very sure that current bursars are planning for a career change after 12/16 yrs! But I think ultimately you have to look at the bigger picture of why are high quality students attracted away from careers in Aviation and towards business, finance & IT??
I did leave as I do now see entrepreneurism as a more attractive future.

I hope that UAS’s stay, mine did me very well. I wish that other students will be able to experience many of the opportunities which I have been so fortunate to receive.

But are they financially viable? (political persuasion just wont work, not in today’s climate)

[McDuff]

Not wishing to open up another pointless chestnut or go off-thread, but I'd speculate that the Red Arrows are the 'cause' of more youngsters entering the RAF than UAS's.
ULAS has a DE course running at present. As I wrote earlier, the EFT Sqns do not start, formally at least, until 1 Apr 06.

[MrBernoulli]

Well, knock me down with a feather! As a former RAF officer, pilot and UAS/CFS QFI, I am glad I am not there anymore. To have to put up with the bollocks that is now going on in the RAF, including this meddling with stuff that is ultimately a drop in the budget pot, just makes me sick.

It pains me to say it but I sincerely believe that the RAF will be in a serious manning/capability crisis within the next 5 years. Yeah, thats apart from the manning/experience problems it has TODAY but which it won't admit to.

[BEagle]

Well said, Mr B!

Apart from everything you've said, where the hell will new QFIs learn their craft once the UASs have gone? Ah - of course. There won't be any need for them because the Mercenary Flying Training Scam will be upon the RAF.

Whose QFIs will come from....where, after the first few years?

[BEagle]

Utterly appalled to have learned from an official source that future UAS students "...will never fly solo aeros" during their UAS time.

Just what lunatics are running the asylum these days?

How can things have sunk so low?

[Flik Roll]

Yes...they have

Unless you already had done spin aeros and remain current

:E

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

Chaps,
With the number of aeroplanes the RAF will have you needn't worry about where all the QFIs are going to learn their trade. We just won't need as many studes or instructors going through the system as pilots.

[Monty77]

Problem with that is that, given the very early streaming to rotary or ME, you reduce the pool of QFIs who have the 'stunting and bunting' skills required for Tucano and beyond.

MFTS when it comes in will have 5-10 year's grace of supply to provide ex-mil QFIs with the right experience (provided they choose the 9-5 stability and lesser salary as opposed to more money but crap family life of the airlines.) Most FJ beefers will be sent to Valley or the OCUs. The closer you get to the frontline, the more 'blue-suited' it will get, and quite right too. There is a dwindling number of the qualified people and supply will dictate demand. I believe there was talk of strikes at Shawbury recently from the ex-mil QHIs. They have the skill sets that not many possess now, and hurrah for them.

Whichever company/consortium takes on the problem will face a certain problem in a few years time - where do the next generation of QFIs of the same standard come from? I've got a ATPL(A)(H)IR,FI, VD and Scar, and the latter 2 were as easy as the former. The road to QHTI and FWA2, let alone ISS was a lot harder.

Don't get me wrong - their airships, like us, would like a massive air force, bags of good kit, good pay and quality of life. Unfortunately, the Treasury see things differently. Thank God for the pension.

[tgarden]

I thought this letter, which I have received from Tom Watson MP, the MOD minister, about the review on UAS estate options might be of interest:
You may recall the recent RAF review to determine the form and function of the University Air Squadrons. As you will be aware, the review concluded that the value of University Air Squadrons was reaffirmed and their future assured, but that the focus had subtly shifted with more emphasis on other aspects of the RAF apart from flying. Training for undergraduates now focuses towards wider personal development and leadership training, and whilst members continue to have structured flying training available, they are no longer required to undertake Elementary Flying Training. In addition, the review identified that in some areas current flying levels of activity would change and, as the new system developed, there may be opportunities to consider greater estate rationalisation.
I am therefore writing to inform you that, following the successful implementation of the main review recommendations, it is now timely for the RAF to undertake a further study on the options relating to the estate. This new review will undertake more detailed work to determine the optimum number and preferred locations of the University Air Squadrons and Air Experience Flights. Air experience flying is a core activity for the Air Cadet Organisation cadets and is currently provided by light aircraft established on Air Experience Flights embedded within the University Squadrons. Any proposals to change the provision of flying by the University Air Squadrons would take account of the effect on Air Cadet Organisation's air experience needs.
The review is due to be completed in August and the aim is to inform interested parties of the outcome by the end of the year.
MPs, MSPs and AMs who have University Air Squadron flying undertaken from airfields in their constituencies have been written to in similar terms.

[McDuff]

Thanks for that tg. It complements the correspondence that I have seen regarding my own airfield, except that the Defence Estates message was distintly ill-informed, along the lines of "...some units refuse to move to airfields in different parts of the country ..." (I paraphrase). Since the UASs are so well rationalised already, owing to the pressures that have been on them for the past5-7 years, it is difficult to see some units surviving much longer.
I was a direct entrant in the mid-70s, not having attended university (I was chopped from Chartered Accountancy anyway :-) and I held no brief for UAS for 25 years of my career. Now that I am part of the system I cannot see how it can be so little regarded. Unless the whole of the RAF is in serious danger, that is ...http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

[SaddamsLoveChild]

The AEF's at least give some incentive to cadets to see the air force operating (colocated at MOB's), and for those who dont have the ability to fly to at least get a taste of what the RAF is all about prior to serving. In complete contrast the UAS generally harbours freeloaders who, only in recent years have had to perform or be thrown out. They slum around the station, sleeves rolled up, hair down, trying to impersonate aircrew, are hardly ever in the bar contributing to the mess, and when they do they act inappropriately because they all want to go FJ and believe that arrogance is the key. Dont get me on about them at Sleaford tech because as an ex flt cdr they were the bain of my life with their 'when i was on the UAS' stories.

I know I am not going to be popular here with this and I dont mind a slagging but in the big scheme of things the money saved might just go somewhere useful. QFI's will always have somewhere to cut their teeth, producing something a little closer to the front line who has at least completed something military and possibly shown they have some mettle before starting to fly.

Ever tried to get any of your troops on an exped but couldnt because it had UAS students on it, very frustrating. How many of them go OOA, stand on the gate, go on exercises and actually need the down time? What did/do they contribute to the service to get the reward and what do they give back?

Free up the hangar space now........be gone damn spot.

Kevlar on and battle rattle ready.

[LFFC]

They slum around the station, sleeves rolled up, hair down, trying to impersonate aircrew, are hardly ever in the bar contributing to the mess, and when they do they act inappropriately because they all want to go FJ and believe that arrogance is the key.

..... em. It wasn't (and I'm sure isn't) always like that. In my day we spent a lot of time in the bar!! :)

If you're right (and I'm not convinced that you are), where do UAS students take their example from these days?

Maybe a few more AEF instructors conducting UAS flights might do the trick. I wouldn't like to call some of them by their first name!! :ouch:

[McDuff]

There is a good spread of generalities there, SLC. It's a pity you have had such a bad experiences of UAS students, but as I said in my last post, I have been converted to the UAS and its benefits, not having been that route myself. Certainly they are gauche and sometimes arrogant, they are youngsters after all. And if they are still like that after a couple of years on the Sqn they are "let go" and they have to make their own way to the Service if they wish. And what's wrong with ambition to be a FJ jock? Many of them, like me, are Good Chaps :-).
It's "bane" by the way ...
[QUOTE=SaddamsLoveChild]The AEF's at least give some incentive to cadets to see the air force operating (colocated at MOB's), and for those who dont have the ability to fly to at least get a taste of what the RAF is all about prior to serving. In complete contrast the UAS generally harbours freeloaders who, only in recent years have had to perform or be thrown out. They slum around the station, sleeves rolled up, hair down, trying to impersonate aircrew, are hardly ever in the bar contributing to the mess, and when they do they act inappropriately because they all want to go FJ and believe that arrogance is the key. Dont get me on about them at Sleaford tech because as an ex flt cdr they were the bain of my life with their 'when i was on the UAS' stories.