Unable to join University Air squadron because of childhood asthma [Archive]

Old-Duffer

9th Oct 2010, 16:40

If you are really mad keen, then seek a specialist opinion about your condition.

I learned a few years ago that some children had been diagnosed with asthma but they were living in areas where chest complaints were prevalent because of the general conditions and they did not have asthma but transitory problems which disappeared with age or a move to a different area. Unfortunately, having once declared the asthma, it remained a devil's own job to get it recognised for what it really was (medics reluctant to counter other medics views).

This probably won't help in the short term but might be useful if you decide to persue an aviation career later.

Option 2 is to Lie! ;)

O-D

Pontius Navigator

9th Oct 2010, 16:44

I had mild asthma from the age of 1 to 13 which I have since grown out of.

You are 18. You had asthma until you were 13. That means you had asthma in the last 5 years.

If you look at the following link you will see the significace of the 5-year test:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/405176-oasc-candidates-wannabes-please-read-thread-first-new-thread-17.html#post5924425

I have chosen 2 extracts:

(1) Candidates with a current or past history of asthma are to be made permanently unfit for aircrew duties.

and

(2) Have you had any asthmatic symptoms including nocturnal cough or exercise-induced wheezing in the past 5 years or since the age of 16 years?

(3) Have you used any inhaler (continuously or intermittently) for control of asthma or wheeze for a period > 8 weeks in the 5 years before application?

(4) Have you required oral steroids for asthma or wheeze since the age of 5 yrs?

So without more information these are stoppers for both air and ground branches.

RookiePilot

9th Oct 2010, 16:59

That's definetely the kind of thing you keep secret from the higher ups!
It doesn't sound very good, as it was after the age of 3 and was repeated proscriptions of inhalers. Sorry mate.

muppetofthenorth

9th Oct 2010, 17:07

PN, thing is, requirements to enter the UAS have long been different than those to enter the RAF. Indeed, the post you refer to is relevant to those going through OASC selection, which UAS candidates do not need to go through.

If everyone on the UAS had to pass fit enough for Pilot then noone would get on! My eyesight's appalling, but I was allowed both onto the UAS and to fly (and I had asthma as a kid).

Mr C Hinecap

9th Oct 2010, 17:17

If everyone on the UAS had to pass fit enough for Pilot then noone would get on! My eyesight's appalling, but I was allowed both onto the UAS and to fly (and I had asthma as a kid).

Things change. Rules change. If the entry requirements for the RAF are now different, then aligning the UAS with them is only logical.

dctyke

9th Oct 2010, 17:39

My daughter was not allowed to join Durham UAS because at the time she was 'to light' to be FJ aircrew! Never mind that she rowed for the uni and was in the athetics team. In a way I'm glad it happened seeing the way the RAF has gone..................... and that as a 30yr old she is on 60 thou and travels the world business class working for the oil industry.

BEagle

9th Oct 2010, 18:46

dctyke, a couple of questions:

1. Is she married?
2. A current photo?

;)

HRS1992

9th Oct 2010, 19:03

Pontius Navigator

9th Oct 2010, 19:52

HRS, the air cadets are not part of the military forces but a youth organisation for air minded young people. The thrust is quite different.

I agree that the ATC is an extremely useful recruiting tool but it is a disciplined youth organisation first and foremost.

You say flying isn't compulsory which reinforces my original thought that you only wanted to join the UAS while at Uni with no plan for a career in the RAF. I can't say why the medical rules have excluded you except perhaps because they have a one-size fits all approach (makes it simple for them).

davejb

9th Oct 2010, 20:53

My daughter was not allowed to join Durham UAS because at the time she was 'to light' to be FJ aircrew!

I suspect this is not to do with fitness, more likely to be a limitation regarding ejection seat/parachute.... perhaps somebody more in the FJ line would care to confirm or deny this...

Justanopinion

9th Oct 2010, 22:20

RookiePilot

9th Oct 2010, 23:30

This was enforced after a female (I think UAS student) was command ejected from a 2 seater Harrier in the 90's, the pilot Ashley Stevenson dragged her from the wreckage and saved her life. Before that time there was no minimum weight limitation.

Does anybody have any more gen on this? I've been researching it on t'interwebs but can't find anything. Do you mean Stevenson as in Commandant RAFC?

ExAscoteer

9th Oct 2010, 23:59

There is a fast jet minimum bang seat weight which i think from memory is about 60kg on the Hawk - the 'dial your weight' apparently alters the rocket angle to ensure the optimal trajectory on the way out.

This was enforced after a female (I think UAS student) was command ejected from a 2 seater Harrier in the 90's, the pilot Ashley Stevenson dragged her from the wreckage and saved her life. Before that time there was no minimum weight limitation.

Min weight on the MB Mk 10 as fitted to the Hawk was 65 Kg. As a lightweight at 55 Kg I could fly on the seat purely because the AEA put me over the minimum weight. This was being looked at well before the incident you mention.

It occurred on 25 September 1991. The passenger was a Cambridge UAS student, Cadet Pilot Kate Saunders. After a low level ejection following a birdstrike she descended into the fireball and suffered a broken leg, broken pelvis, crushed vertebrae, and 20% burns.

The pilot was Sqn Ldr Ashley Stevenson. He pulled her from the fire and was given both a Queen's Commendation as well as the Royal Humane Society medal as a result.

It was Sqn Ldr Stevenson's second ejection having punched out almost exactly a year before in Denmark following an engine failure.

SandyYoung

10th Oct 2010, 00:02

25 September 1991 - 2005 (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/project/year_pages/1991.htm#sep)

RAF Harrier T4A XZ147/S of 233 OCU. A female cadet was seriously injured after ejecting from a Royal Air Force. Harrier T.4 near Driffield, northern England. Cadet Kate Saunders, 22, suffered a broken leg, broken pelvis, crushed vertebrae, and 20% burns when her parachute descended into the fireball of the crashed Harrier. The pilot was uninjured and pulled student from fire. Saunders is the first female to eject from an RAF aircraft.

NigelOnDraft

10th Oct 2010, 07:23

The pilot was uninjured I think Ashley might choose to disagree with this :ooh:

T4 Accident Report (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC65C4FE-83ED-4336-B28C-0BFCF79488FC/0/maas91_06_harrier_t4a_xz147_25sept91.pdf) shows he suffered 'Major' injuries as well.

The GR5 accident (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3035FEFF-2565-4B9D-9183-DB53E774B122/0/maas90_02_harrier_gr_mk5_zd355_17oct90.pdf)

NoD

Mr C Hinecap

10th Oct 2010, 08:30

Flying isn’t compulsory in the UAS so I don’t understand why the entry requirements are so strict and how they can differ between different squadrons. I don’t see why the medical requirements should be any different to that of the air cadets.

Firstly - you don't sound like you meet the requirements for a Ground Branch, never mind the flying types - so you don't meet the lower requirements. The requirements are as strict as they want them to be and usually backed up with solid evidence and reason.
Secondly - those other squadron websites may not be the most up to date, so I'd not be using them in an argument. The official RAF website is often behind the drag curve.
Thirdly - you are making the step up from youth organisation to the adult world. You can't compare cadets to someone holding a military ID card. I'm sorry you don't like the answers, but there are reasons for all of them.

fly_surfbeach

10th Oct 2010, 21:14

Dude, I am a member of a UAS. Below is an extract from an RAF policy document of RAF medical standards at selection. Although I'm sure that these do not apply at UAS level. PM me and I will try to find out more to help your case, especially that you have excepted you are unfit RAF aircrew.

Regards,

fly_surfbeach

1. The medical standards for entry into the Royal Air Force (RAF) as an Officer or as NCA are very high and some pre-existing medical conditions may prevent you from a successful application. This leaflet is intended as a guide to some of the relevant major medical conditions that may affect entry into the RAF, especially as potential Aircrew. The leaflet is not exhaustive and, if you have any doubt, you should contact your nearest Armed Forces Careers Office (AFCO) who may, in turn, seek advice from the medical staff at the Officers and Aircrew Selection Centre.

2. You must have been both off medication and symptom-free for the stated periods to be considered for Officer or NCA:

a. Asthma. A history of asthma/wheeze after age 4 precludes selection as Aircrew.

b. Hay Fever. If you have been symptom-free from mild hay fever (without wheeze) for 4 years, you may be considered for selection as Aircrew. Current, but mild, hay fever without wheeze, chest tightness or accompanying asthma is acceptable for Ground branches.

c. Migraine. A history of migraine at any age precludes selection as Aircrew, Fighter Controller or Air Traffic Controller. If you have been symptom-free from mild migraine for 2 years, you may be considered for other Ground branches.

d. Epilepsy. A history of epilepsy after the age of 5 years precludes selection as Aircrew, Fighter Controller or Air Traffic Controller. For Ground branches you may be accepted if you have only had a single fit and have been off medication for 4 years.

e. Current or Recent Injury, Illness or Operation. You will not normally be called forward for selection for at least 6 months after significant injury, illness or operation. Medical history that might only be a minor inconvenience in civilian life may well be a bar to serving in the RAF, because of the potential need to deploy world-wide, often with only basic medical back-up. As a rule of thumb, any illness requiring medication to keep you well is likely to be a bar to recruitment.

f. Visual Standards. The need for glasses or contact lenses may preclude selection for some Branches. The standards for Aircrew are high, particularly for pilot duties. If you are aware of a colour deficiency or colour blindness there may be a requirement to have a Holmes Wright Lantern Test to determine branch options.

g. Weight and Size. You will be expected to be reasonably fit and not be overweight for your height. Please note all Aircrew have to be of a certain size, especially for the Pilot and Weapons Systems Officer Branches. Only the taller females tend to have long enough arms.

EnigmAviation

11th Oct 2010, 09:49

Welcome to the world as it really is ! UAS's as a potential "lead in" to RAF service can afford to enforce high standards in every sense including medical. Whilst UAS flying training these days is minimal, nonetheless the standard is being maintained. Potential RAF entrants in every branch of the RAF can now expect to be subjected to rigorous selection in every sense, commensurate with the declining numbers required to top up the service, especially FJ pilots.

Even if you fully meet medical standards, you'll still have to perform at the highest levels in every other sense, so perhaps it may not be for you overall.

It's a hard old world out there - contrary to current schools teaching where everybody is made a winner !

Justanopinion

11th Oct 2010, 11:21

Does anybody have any more gen on this? I've been researching it on t'interwebs but can't find anything. Do you mean Stevenson as in Commandant RAFC?

Yes - he is the same Stevenson whom is Commandant at Cranwell

HRS1992

11th Oct 2010, 19:41

I could understand the UAS medical requirements if the UAS was only for potential aircrew, but it isn’t! I could potentially meet the medical requirements to be an engineer in the RAF but not the UAS. If I happened to be a medical student wanting to later join the RAF as a doctor I reckon I would have got past the medical requirement.
The interviewing officer did say that over 300 people would be fighting for 30 places, so I suppose they can afford to be strict in the medical requirments!
Thanks for the replies, I’ve taken them on board.

muppetofthenorth

11th Oct 2010, 20:09

I could understand the UAS medical requirements if the UAS was only for potential aircrew, but it isn’t!

Or indeed, solely for those who are going into the RAF after university.

It is a strangely exclusive requirement, but if they're not playing then they're not playing. Won't hold you back substantially, plenty of people join without having been on their UAS.

mary meagher

11th Oct 2010, 20:25

HRS l992, do you want to fly? or be in the military?

You don't have to choose the second to enjoy the first.....you would be qualified, after possibly a year of training, to fly a glass ship capable of l40 knots, and flights of up to ten hours or more, setting records of up to 750k in the United Kingdom, gain of height to 38,000', to compete on an international level, and to achieve the highest levels of airmanship and skill, with a knowlege of aerodynamics, met, flight planning, possibly moving on to becoming an instructor....and all this without bothering with an engine of any sort. And you get to wear a parachute. The kind that works.

In other words, check out the British Gliding Association Website, the opportunities are much much better than the military, if you actually want to fly. There are special deals for students.

It is highly unlikely that your medical record would preclude your gliding.

RookiePilot

11th Oct 2010, 20:45

I think Ashley might choose to disagree with this http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif

T4 Accident Report (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC65C4FE-83ED-4336-B28C-0BFCF79488FC/0/maas91_06_harrier_t4a_xz147_25sept91.pdf) shows he suffered 'Major' injuries as well.

The GR5 accident (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mod.uk%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F3035FEFF-2565-4B9D-9183-DB53E774B122%2F0%2Fmaas90_02_harrier_gr_mk5_zd355_17oct90.pd f&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F430109-unable-join-university-air-squadron-because-childhood-asthma.html)

NoD

Bloody hell, you're resourceful!
I want to ask him about it next time I see him in the bar, but given it's a rather traumatic experience I'll be sure to tread carefully.
Hope the girl is OK, wherever she is now.

HRS1992

11th Oct 2010, 21:11

mary meagher,I like the idea of both. I wanted to join the UAS to fly but also to do all the other things they do. I’ve already got some flying experience, around 30 hours ppl. I can understand your enthusiasm for gliding, I went on a week gliding course at the Long mynd , really enjoyed it! Found it even more fun than powered flying, and much cheaper! I’ve joined the Uni gliding club to continue flying while at Uni.

Albanian Seahorse

11th Oct 2010, 21:52

Hello HRS1992,

The rule you were quoted about asthma over the age of 3 is bo//o<ks! If you are eligible for the RAF in any capacity, you are eligible for the UAS.

Likely scenarios for you:

You spoke to somebody that didn't know their facts. Often UAS's have their students at recruiting stand acting as a basic filter for those applying. They basically stop anyone unsuitable applying e.g. those in their final year (you join for 2 years initially). So, it's possible that when you mentioned asthma, you spoke to someone who misunderstood the asthma rules.

OR

It wouldn't surprise me if you were fobbed off, with the asthma medical reasons serving as a convenient excuse. As you said, there's about 10 people applying for every 1 slot, and part of the initial filtering process I mentioned above is weeding out those that don't give off the vibe of someone competitive. Perhaps it's possible that your first impression wasn't a strong one, although I'd hope that if this were the case, whoever you spoke to would've had the backbone to tell you straight!

In any case, your application was clearly more than just a passing thought (hence the posts on here!), so my suggestion:

Phone up, and try to arrange an interview. I'd suggest NOT mentioning your medical condition unless actually asked directly. This isn't an attempt to hide it, because before you are attested you will have to be medically cleared by Cranwell anyway (they write to your GP for info), so you may as well cut out any busy bodies that "think" they know and leave it to the pro's that really do!

If not, you can always apply next year, again letting Cranwell be the judge of the med stuff. Good luck!

minigundiplomat

11th Oct 2010, 22:05

Whilst my sister was living at Northolt, her son was diagnosed with asthma. The next posting for the family was Kinloss, and on meeting the new doctor he referred them straight to a local expert who reviewed my nephew, and reversed the asthma diagnosis pronto.

He reckoned most asthma cases were misdiagnosed due to pollution/local effects.

Don't know if this helps the OP, maybe he should register with a GP in Morayshire.

Aerouk

11th Oct 2010, 22:37

fly_surfbeach

12th Oct 2010, 07:59

Random Bloke

12th Oct 2010, 09:09

I have commanded a UAS and so can provide some balance to some of the comments made on here.
The RAF currently assesses all candidates (regardless of branch choice) who have a history of asthma as permanently medically unfit (PMU) for service, this is confusing because as has rightly been said the medical standard for flying on the UAS is the same as for the UK National PPL (ie HGV Class2). The UAS may well have been directed not to recruit students who would not be fit for service (this also includes residency rules – ie resident in the UK for the last 5 years); if so, this is a directive from a higher command authority and so whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.
So, Albanian Seahorse, your statement that ‘The rule you were quoted about asthma over the age of 3 is bo//o<ks! If you are eligible for the RAF in any capacity, you are eligible for the UAS’ may have been overtaken by events.
Fly surfbeach said “At least in these days everybody knew if they past (or should that be passed?) their degree, was still medically fit and passed EFT (or ground branch training) you would have a career in the RAF” This is not true now and while UAS students have a big advantage at OASC there is no guarantee that they will be accepted over and above a direct entrant; with recruiting figures well down OASC is simply picking the best person for the job.
HRS1992 – rather than the somewhat petulant approach of trying to phone up and book an interview when you have already been turned down (failing to mention any medical conditions) may I suggest a more mature approach? Write a nice letter to the UAS commander thanking him for his time at the Freshers’ Fair and explain that you are dreadfully disappointed but understand his decision. Mention that in the meantime you have joined the gliding club and over the next year you will see your GP and investigate whether you really had asthma in the first place (it is often mis-diagnosed in the very young). You will keep your eye on the OASC website for any information on changes to the rules for medical fitness and you will see him again at the Freshers’ Fair in 2011. Your letter will be kept on file and, providing the rules have changed, when you pitch up at the UAS stand in 2011 they will welcome the nice, polite, honest young man from last year.

mary meagher

12th Oct 2010, 11:11

HRS1992, way to go! All you need now after Uni is a proper job to finance your gliding! preferably one with flexi-hours, so when you see that 500k day forecast, the boss will be understanding of your priorities.....!

The only problem will be to find a girl who also understands your priorities....

Wander00

12th Oct 2010, 11:40

MM- 2 good points, but in reverse order!!

BEagle

12th Oct 2010, 11:51

....as has rightly been said the medical standard for flying on the UAS is the same as for the UK National PPL (ie HGV Class2).

The Medical Declaration for NPPL flying is similar to the DVLA Class 2, but can only be signed by a UK GP who has full knowledge of the applicant's medical history.

I do hope that UASs survive SDSR; however, if they really have degenerated to the levels some have stated on ths thread, then sadly it would be very difficult to justify their continued existence.

RookiePilot

12th Oct 2010, 11:58

After SDR I believe the UAS's will be either chopped or serverly poorly funded by the RAF budget. When they stopped the formal OASC selection processes to get into a UAS, the UAS's went down the pan! At least in these days everybody knew if they past their degree, was still medically fit and passed EFT (or ground branch training) you would have a career in the RAF.

UAS's now days are glorified drinking/(not a lot of flying) club. Many people I personally believe are in it for the wrong reasons. There are some however who are determined to be successful with a military flying career after university. I have actually known some people who are fully determined for an RAF career leave the UAS as they felt it was not worthwhile, but still joined the RAF after university.

I'm not going to reveal which UAS I am a member of as this problem is UAS wide!

On the other hand, the UAS can be a challenging and simply a fantastic place to be! Flying (minimal, but still challenging and fun.), adventrous training, sports and RAF station/ sqn visits.

Views expressed above are not the views of the UAS, RAF or MoD and are solely the views of fly_surfbeach

I too am pessimistic of the future of the UASs, whether they will be in the budget to continue after the SDR. Perhaps if they reverted to what they once were, with a stricter EFT syllabus, they would be more effective.
I think to call them "a glorified drinking club," may relate to your experience of them, but I would disagree. Yes there is drinking involved, but this is true of any social and/or sporting club at uni, however this one happens to be taxpayer funded, therein lies the issue. I would say that most studes get a great benefit from the flying training, ground military skills, and lectures given once a week at town nights. Some aren't interested in joining the RAF, and with the current climate of cuts, my UAS for example has begun to chop 'em.

blimey

12th Oct 2010, 17:20

They let me in in the 80s having had childhood asthma (almost certainly an allergic reaction to dust mites) and I spent 12 years going up tiddly up and down tiddly down. I'm sure the periods of forced breathing as a child left me with a very much better than average respiratory system, and I can still knock out 6 minute miles.

Albanian Seahorse

12th Oct 2010, 20:15

may I suggest a more mature approach? Write a nice letter to the UAS commander thanking him for his time at the Freshers’ Fair and explain that you are dreadfully disappointed but understand his decision.

Indeed, how mature.

But, in the mean time, life goes on: you miss out on a year of UAS life and you are overtaken by your friends in the same year of uni as yourself. So, if you are actually serious about this, I suggest the apparently "immature" approach of pushing for what you want a little, albeit tactfully of course.

Just one man's humble opinion, who doesn't need to annotate his posts with titles to add weight to his argument.

And again, only IMHO, my thoughts of UAS's:

- The flying is there for those that want it. Same for all other activities.

- The opportunities are definitely still there for the taking, it's just that not very many students make the most of it!

- Worth the public money? On balance, no. But only because in general, students don't make the most of the opportunities presented to them, which makes it a waste of money. Knowing what I know, and seeing what I've seen, I would find it hard to justify keeping the UAS's amongst these cuts...

- Of course, for those that do use the UAS system to it's full potential, it can be a life-changing, amazingly beneficial part of the university experience.

Biggus

12th Oct 2010, 20:22

Most students (at least the 18-21 year olds) don't make the most of the opportunities presented to them at university period...!!

HRS1992

13th Oct 2010, 18:56

Thanks for the advice, I will send a letter to the EUAS officer and try applying again next year. If I don’t get in, I will try for the University Royal Navy Unit.

Biggus

13th Oct 2010, 21:00

What makes you certain there will be any UASs next year?

Pontius Navigator

13th Oct 2010, 21:55

The Services still need graduate officers. They need to engage with potential officers before they graduate and a University unit is a good and economical proposition rather than trying to recruit them through adverts etc.

muppetofthenorth

13th Oct 2010, 22:55

The Services still need graduate officersCollectively, yes. So is there potential for some purple unit instead?

Having new jnr officers with experience/practical knowledge of all the services, beyond that they get taught during IOT/equivalent would only be beneficial to the Service they then join...?

Pontius Navigator

14th Oct 2010, 08:08

Motn, indeed that is a good idea. I started in the Army cadets and never forgot the field craft etc that I was taught. Our officers were all ex-military including Para and our mentors were the Border Regiment.

airborne_artist

14th Oct 2010, 11:51

Schools with CCF sections have at least Army, often RAF and less commonly Royal Navy sections, with Royal Marines sections not unheard of.

No reason why URNU/OTC/UAS could not do the same, with a common first year, and then blue/green/light blue options for each of years two and three.

BEagle

14th Oct 2010, 14:00

Who would ever wish to join such an organisation though?

The more I hear about the way things have changed at UASs, the more glad I am to have had my time as a regular RAF QFI whilst things were still good. We still gave students high standards of flying training and deployed to a Summer camp at another RAF aerodrome. No 'strength through joy' nonsense - and a good time was had by all. The students had a much more demanding syallabus than I'd know as a student in the early 1970s and it was a pleasure to have worked with them. But even in 1993, the end of the University Cadet programme was forecast - 'bursaries' and 'bounties' were worth a fraction of the generous pay scales we'd enjoyed as APOs immediately after the 'military salary' scheme had been introduced in 1970. Because I'd done a year as a Flt Cdt at RAFC before going to university, I was a substantive Plt Off in my final university year and was paid about 3 times the amount of money a civilian student on a maximum LEA grant received.

How did we ever let things slide to the current nadir? To be honest, there appears little worth saving......

Biggus

14th Oct 2010, 14:21

We are broke enough to be selling the family silver, so how do you justify the cost of UASs, even if it is small..?

First of all, in terms of graduate recruitment. What proportion of graduates currently joining the RAF were never in a UAS? Presumably there is no evidence to suggest, especially after the new enhanced 30 week IOT, that these non-UAS graduates go on to be worse officers than their ex-UAS contempories. How many universities are actually covered by the current UASs?

I thought I had read somewhere that the RAF was looking to recruit a higher proportion of pilots at 18, to get more years out of them when they are fitter, have higher g- tolerance, better eyesight, etc.. Maybe that was boll*#ks though....

You could argue that people who want to join the military will find their own way into it without the UAS experience, and with a drastically reduced military the recruitment numbers required are much smaller anyway.

muppetofthenorth

14th Oct 2010, 14:45

Who would ever wish to join such an organisation though?The same masses of students and young people who still grow up wishing to join the air force you so frequently bash and deride.

Yes, it's not the same as the one you went through.
No, we don't care.

Why should we care what you did? It has zero relevance to what we do.

How did we ever let things slide to the current nadir?

Look no further than people of your generation in Government who decided to rape and pillage their way through the budgets over the years.

Pontius Navigator

14th Oct 2010, 15:18

First of all, in terms of graduate recruitment. What proportion of graduates currently joining the RAF were never in a UAS?

Good question, Miss PN was one of them. However the UAS 'captures' some undergrads who might otherwise 'escape' if they didn't go to a UAS.

How many universities are actually covered by the current UASs?

Good question.

I thought I had read somewhere that the RAF was looking to recruit a higher proportion of pilots at 18, to get more years out of them when they are fitter, have higher g- tolerance, better eyesight, etc.. Maybe that was boll*#ks though....

No, quite true. They are also more maleable (gullible) than a graduate.

You could argue that people who want to join the military will find their own way into it without the UAS experience, and with a drastically reduced military the recruitment numbers required are much smaller anyway.

True, but as I said earlier, UAS may capture high quality candidates that might otherwise go elsewhere.

It is just one of the options. Is it an economic one is a different question.

Biggus

14th Oct 2010, 15:27

PN,

Thanks for at least taking the time to respond to my comments/questions!

airborne_artist

14th Oct 2010, 15:39

I thought I had read somewhere that the RAF was looking to recruit a higher proportion of pilots at 18, to get more years out of them when they are fitter, have higher g- tolerance, better eyesight, etc.. Maybe that was boll*#ks though....

They'd love to, but my guess is that many of the bright ones already plan to go to university.

Ms AA looked at the 18 y/o entry for the FAA (with in-service degree) but realised that if she got chopped/medic'd out she'd have to start all over again to get a degree, which would be tough, if perhaps you left aged 21. Far easier to go to university, and apply in the third year, or apply for a bursary in/before first year. Since she got 3 x A at A-level she had a wide choice of universities, too.

Mr C Hinecap

14th Oct 2010, 18:57

Because I'd done a year as a Flt Cdt at RAFC before going to university, I was a substantive Plt Off in my final university year and was paid about 3 times the amount of money a civilian student on a maximum LEA grant received.

Hard to see why that was such a good idea in the big scheme of things. Not exactly VFM on that expenditure.

Pontius Navigator

14th Oct 2010, 19:07

Mr C H, mmmm :)

The same was obviously considered true of flying instructional pay pre-90s until they realised it was a recruiting incentive to the willing who would possibly have paid to be trained :)

Certainly when I joined, pay was so low we needed that extra 6/- per day. :)

airborne_artist

14th Oct 2010, 19:12

BEagle - in the 70s and early 80s the Services pissed money away.

I well remember GL (X) Midshipmites (Sub Lts in third year) being sent to do a three-year degree course at City University on lodging allowance for the entire time. They had more cash in their pockets than you could imagine, as they were on full pay too.

We live in straightened times, I'm sorry to say. I'm still certain that I had a higher disposable income as a 2nd year Mid with flying training pay (post '79 pay rise) than I have ever had since.

rm2808

14th Oct 2010, 22:43

Yeah he's a top bloke, did my IOT grad a few years ago and he mentioned he enjoyed banging out of the odd harrier! As with the Asthma case I had an inhaler sporadically on my med records till the age of 15 and after alot of determination I forced my way to pilot, if you dont try you won't get!

Albanian Seahorse

15th Oct 2010, 13:24

The Services still need graduate officersNot a reason! UAS's provide the RAF with very few junior officers each year (typically 4/5 per UAS) and over half joined the UAS as bursars (i.e. were "in" before even arriving at the UAS).

The only benefit to the RAF I can see is the idea that the sort of people you currently find on a UAS are the sorts of people that, in time, may well end up as some of life's "high flyers". So a positive experience on a UAS for those people will leave a positive attitude and improved awareness of the forces among "tomorrow's leaders".

But how do you measure that? To me it's highly ambiguous and very questionable if it's worth ALL that money...

How many universities are actually covered by the current UASs?They all are, technically. It's just some you must travel further from to attend Town Nights, the airfield, etc. And some are simply so far away that it's basically impossible.

Anonystude

15th Oct 2010, 14:17

UAS's provide the RAF with very few junior officers each year (typically 4/5 per UAS)

But a better question might be: what proportion of RAF officers were members of a UAS? I'd take a stab in the dark at about 50% or so. And I can think of at least four or five people who are now RAF aircrew officers purely because of joining the UAS I was a member of (i.e. no interest before joining), all of whom have done exceptionally well in flying training (that is, not just dross who couldn't find a job outside). The RAF has done exceptionally well in recruiting them.

(Full disclosure: I'm not one of them. I was a bursar.)

over half joined the UAS as bursars (i.e. were "in" before even arriving at the UAS)

I'd have thought the £3-4k per person to 'snag' them and ensure they're committed to joining after graduation is peanuts overall.

ghostie

15th Oct 2010, 15:38

Just my few pennies worth....

When I was an Air Cadet, back in the eighties, my CO told us that a study had shown, that pound for pound, the Cadets were much better value for money in recruiting future FJ pilots, than the UAS' were.

Admittedly, he had a case of jealousy towards the Bulldogs the UAS were using, while we were still using Chipmunks.

Anyone remember this study?

To play devils advocate, scrap the UAS and plough half the money saved into the Air Cadets. A boost for them, and may well help some youngsters in deprived areas make something of themselves.

airborne_artist

15th Oct 2010, 17:51

he had a case of jealousy towards the Bulldogs the UAS were using, while we were still using Chipmunks.

Which is odd, because ask anyone who has flown both which they'd fly again now, and I can't see too many asking to fly 'Dog before the Chippie.

ghostie

15th Oct 2010, 18:13

Ah, but the 'dogs' were shiny and new, we were still waiting for a Chippie replacement and he was not viewing with the benefit of nostalgic eyesight. I'd have to agree now though.

I think the real reason though was a bit of organisational rivalry over budgets.

airborne_artist

15th Oct 2010, 18:43

I think the real reason though was a bit of organisational rivalry over budgets.

Nope - just willy waving :E

ghostie

15th Oct 2010, 18:52

Hope not, I was only fourteen. They didn't have CRB checks in those days though. Perhaps I escaped lightly.:yuk:

Albanian Seahorse

15th Oct 2010, 22:05

what proportion of RAF officers were members of a UAS? I'd take a stab in the dark at about 50% or so.

Are you basing your numbers on the current numbers? Because yes, I'd agree... but the ~50:50 balance exists from the "old" UAS system, where you joined and the whole UAS emphasis was geared around joining the RAF.

Today though, there is literally zero drive to join up! Consequently there are FAR fewer joining post UAS, although that will only be apparent in a few years time. It is only about now in fact that the first wave of people to enter the "new" UAS system are graduating and joining.

And of those joining at the moment: most were bursars pre-joining, a few weren't but had prior ambitions to join up, and only a VERY small number joined on the off chance, successfully applied and are now starting.

That's a round about way of saying I did agree, until UAS's changed, but not anymore!

I'm still not sure if I'd actually get rid of UAS's, but I don't feel they're the recruiting tool people think they are...

I'd have thought the £3-4k per person to 'snag' them and ensure they're committed to joining after graduation is peanuts overall

Agreed! A number of bursars during my time decided they'd rather do something else and promptly handed their money back. But it's a nice bonus for anyone that is certain about joining...

old'n'bald

16th Oct 2010, 08:27

Although it was a fair time ago, my experience of the UAS recruitment process was that we were always very much oversubscribed, so any filter that reduced the number of potential interviews was strictly applied, hence the initial medical questionaire, where a 'YES' responce automatically ruled you out of further consideration.
We also had a number of people who followed up this rejection with a letter to the CO, and in many cases this resulted in an interview and subsequent selection.
However, the bottom line is that no one has a right to be granted a place on a UAS, and in the end, it is the decision of the staff and CO that determines who joins.

Whoosh1999

16th Oct 2010, 14:45

HRS1992,

Whilst I left the UAS system in '02, I remember that from '00 we had to send all our potential students to OASC for medical. I know of one candidate who was not forthcoming with his medical history and failed to reveal his childhood asthma and incurred the wrath of the Chief Medical Officer at RAFC.

Previous to '00, initial medicals for UAS selection tended to be held at Station Medical Centres and were far less demanding in their requirements. As I've mentioned, this changed, which led to a far earlier filtering of those with potential problems.

Not that I buy into the medical theory completely, but the reasoning we were given was that childhood asthma can potential damage your lungs and may, I repeat may, cause problems during some future scenario. As I mentioned, this did not seem totally plausible to me.

As for those who got in with a history of childhood asthma, they had to prove to specialists that they were completely fit. I did have one student that went through this: he is currently flying Harriers. (But for how long!!)

In the civvy world I currently reside in there seems to be a plethora of inhalers.......!