UAS 's to close (Merged)
"Without flying the main attraction to joining a UAS goes"
I would say, without flying the ONLY attraction to joining a UAS goes.
"Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so."
Delete 'URNU', 'Navy' and 'RN' and insert 'UAS', 'Air Force' and 'RAF' and you could be describing what the UASs were all about until the idiots ruined them with the lunacy of pre-BFT streaming recommendation based upon UAS performance.
And don't anyone kid themselves that the RAF wants 'younger' people than UAS graduates because they're easier to teach and generally fitter - it's purely so that the beancounters can squeeze another 3 years 'productive' service out of them before their 38 point or whatever it is these days. Pure and simple.
I wonder whether the MoD-box beancounters have woken up to the current moves in ba's recruiting..... Once that ramps up even more (as it surely will), they'll be back to competing with the airlines for those few people who seem to want a flying career these days. No UAS APOs flying their ar$es off when not working for their degrees, no bursaries (worth less than a few months of supermarket shelf stacking to most students) = no interest except for the RHS of an A320.
And we'll all chorus "WE TOLD YOU SO!"
But it'll be too late then. Tough!
I would say, without flying the ONLY attraction to joining a UAS goes.
"Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so."
Delete 'URNU', 'Navy' and 'RN' and insert 'UAS', 'Air Force' and 'RAF' and you could be describing what the UASs were all about until the idiots ruined them with the lunacy of pre-BFT streaming recommendation based upon UAS performance.
And don't anyone kid themselves that the RAF wants 'younger' people than UAS graduates because they're easier to teach and generally fitter - it's purely so that the beancounters can squeeze another 3 years 'productive' service out of them before their 38 point or whatever it is these days. Pure and simple.
I wonder whether the MoD-box beancounters have woken up to the current moves in ba's recruiting..... Once that ramps up even more (as it surely will), they'll be back to competing with the airlines for those few people who seem to want a flying career these days. No UAS APOs flying their ar$es off when not working for their degrees, no bursaries (worth less than a few months of supermarket shelf stacking to most students) = no interest except for the RHS of an A320.
And we'll all chorus "WE TOLD YOU SO!"
But it'll be too late then. Tough!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bandit - RP
What a couple of twits you two are. This is no place for silly playground arguements, my plane's better than yours etc etc. Give us a break please.
Is there anyone out there with an informed opinion/knowledge of the fate of DEFTS?
FEBA
What a couple of twits you two are. This is no place for silly playground arguements, my plane's better than yours etc etc. Give us a break please.
Is there anyone out there with an informed opinion/knowledge of the fate of DEFTS?
FEBA
FEBA, on the contrary, the debate between the 2 of them is highly interesting.
JEFTS, DEFTS or whatever it's called had a different objective to the UAS scheme. Just as RNEFTS used to have a different objective to the UAS scheme.
Muddled Purple prose led to the stupidity of trying to force unacceptable compromises upon everyone - and neither the Firefly nor Das Teutor are as suitable for Elementary Training as was the Bulldog.
What would I do, given a clean sheet?
1. Retain the UAS scheme, but replace all QFIs with real RAF QFIs, not time-expired ex-senior officers. Abandon the concept of attempting to stream students based on their UAS performance.
2. Re-introduce University Cadetships.
3. Re-introduce a common BFTS at Cranwell on the Tucano for ALL RAF and RN pilot students.
4. Let the RN and Army do their own thing with RW training.
But of course the RAF can't afford any of that.
JEFTS, DEFTS or whatever it's called had a different objective to the UAS scheme. Just as RNEFTS used to have a different objective to the UAS scheme.
Muddled Purple prose led to the stupidity of trying to force unacceptable compromises upon everyone - and neither the Firefly nor Das Teutor are as suitable for Elementary Training as was the Bulldog.
What would I do, given a clean sheet?
1. Retain the UAS scheme, but replace all QFIs with real RAF QFIs, not time-expired ex-senior officers. Abandon the concept of attempting to stream students based on their UAS performance.
2. Re-introduce University Cadetships.
3. Re-introduce a common BFTS at Cranwell on the Tucano for ALL RAF and RN pilot students.
4. Let the RN and Army do their own thing with RW training.
But of course the RAF can't afford any of that.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
There are some who are most definitely in the loop as it were not just to the history, but some of the proposals for the future.
Some of your statements ring true, but as one who has experienced all 3 types mentioned, then the Firefly is suitable for EFT. A 250'MSD clearance a la 'dog would be an advantage, but it still does the job very nicely and sorts the men out from the boys in prep for BFJT in a way the Grob cannot. (I should imagine that use of the rudder, energy management and the ability to think ahead in aeros to maintain base ht rather than gain during a sequence you would deem acceptable)
And yes, I've also taught BFJT - so I can compare the end product!
Agree that ideally we woiuld all complete BFJT. That would also remove the current snag of QFI's not having previously experienced the syllabus and platform on which they teach!
But please don't lump the RN with the AAC as advocates of pure RW throughput. We value our fixed wing time and gain some useful skills, streaming etc from it.
B*gger - cover blown - chaff banter quick! (Bl**dy Crabs!)
There are some who are most definitely in the loop as it were not just to the history, but some of the proposals for the future.
Some of your statements ring true, but as one who has experienced all 3 types mentioned, then the Firefly is suitable for EFT. A 250'MSD clearance a la 'dog would be an advantage, but it still does the job very nicely and sorts the men out from the boys in prep for BFJT in a way the Grob cannot. (I should imagine that use of the rudder, energy management and the ability to think ahead in aeros to maintain base ht rather than gain during a sequence you would deem acceptable)
And yes, I've also taught BFJT - so I can compare the end product!
Agree that ideally we woiuld all complete BFJT. That would also remove the current snag of QFI's not having previously experienced the syllabus and platform on which they teach!
But please don't lump the RN with the AAC as advocates of pure RW throughput. We value our fixed wing time and gain some useful skills, streaming etc from it.
B*gger - cover blown - chaff banter quick! (Bl**dy Crabs!)
FEBA
You need to re read some of the previous posts. There is no willy waving about ac types (apart from the fishheads)
. I accept that the Firefly is probably the better EFT ac, even though the Tutor can gain height during aeros. Both would ideally be on the military register to allow 250 low level (500' is just @rse) and PFLs to 100' with out worrying about CAA rules regarding PVVS.
And "Yes" about DEFTS!
You need to re read some of the previous posts. There is no willy waving about ac types (apart from the fishheads)
. I accept that the Firefly is probably the better EFT ac, even though the Tutor can gain height during aeros. Both would ideally be on the military register to allow 250 low level (500' is just @rse) and PFLs to 100' with out worrying about CAA rules regarding PVVS.And "Yes" about DEFTS!
Why is the EFT fleet civil registered? How does it differ from the Squirrel and Griffin RW training fleet that is contractor owned and maintained but fly as military registered aircraft?
The multi engine training Super King Airs have also just been allocated military serials so what is so unusual about the Grobs and Tutors?
The multi engine training Super King Airs have also just been allocated military serials so what is so unusual about the Grobs and Tutors?
Last edited by pr00ne; 10th Apr 2005 at 19:05.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
They are time expired ex-senior officer nontheless - and why should they be employed as UAS QFIs when there is an alleged surplus of ME JOs who would surely benefit from the opportunity to become QFIs at less than half the age (and pay?) of the old timers?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
What has come over you. You are WRONG.
The University Air Squadron is staffed by "normal" serving RAF Officers, all QFIs except for the odd one who was as above but has now "retired" and been reincarnated one rank lower and is a Civvie in Uniform. (Sorry, can't remember the correct technical term for this.)
The Air Experience Flight is commanded by a full time RAFVR officer, the only full time member of the Flight, supported by volunteer pilots who must have gained Service Wings (any Service) and may be serving or retired members of the forces.
Admittedly, some of these can be a bit gash, blokes like Cliff Spink, Sir Roger Austin, the late Ken Hayre(sp?).
The Aircraft are the same ones shared between the two competing users.
Mike W
Edited to add:-
The C.O. of the only AEF Flight I have any knowledge of, a man of vast experience, his last posting before "retirement", in a training role, personally vets any applicants, does their conversion to type and continuously monitors their performance. I have known him to sack pilots who were not performing as required.
M.
What has come over you. You are WRONG.
The University Air Squadron is staffed by "normal" serving RAF Officers, all QFIs except for the odd one who was as above but has now "retired" and been reincarnated one rank lower and is a Civvie in Uniform. (Sorry, can't remember the correct technical term for this.)
The Air Experience Flight is commanded by a full time RAFVR officer, the only full time member of the Flight, supported by volunteer pilots who must have gained Service Wings (any Service) and may be serving or retired members of the forces.
Admittedly, some of these can be a bit gash, blokes like Cliff Spink, Sir Roger Austin, the late Ken Hayre(sp?).
The Aircraft are the same ones shared between the two competing users.
Mike W
Edited to add:-
The C.O. of the only AEF Flight I have any knowledge of, a man of vast experience, his last posting before "retirement", in a training role, personally vets any applicants, does their conversion to type and continuously monitors their performance. I have known him to sack pilots who were not performing as required.
M.
Last edited by Skylark4; 20th Apr 2005 at 21:48.
... which reminds me of popular crewroom rants at training bases I've seen. Why should AEFs be full of retired officers supplementing their pension when there're dozens and dozens of post-BFJT and post-AFT holding officers doing SAC ops clerk jobs up and down the country?
It's a good way to crush a guy's morale. Well done on getting your wings, mate, now off you go to do an SAC's job left gapped because we're making everyone redundant. And you have to do it for 14 months, because our training system's a bit busy with another air force...
Be nice if they could do a flying job, and exercise those shiny new wings.
It's a good way to crush a guy's morale. Well done on getting your wings, mate, now off you go to do an SAC's job left gapped because we're making everyone redundant. And you have to do it for 14 months, because our training system's a bit busy with another air force...
Be nice if they could do a flying job, and exercise those shiny new wings.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5F6B - as a 'user' of the Air Experience Flights for many years from the Air Cadet perspective (having experienced about 8 of the AEFs around the country over about 33 yrs), I maybe have a different take on it. All of the pilots I have ever met (well, nearly all!!) have been walking talking recruiting posters for the RAF, many of whom genuinely use all of their service experience to enthuse cadets about an RAF career. I believe that to be eligible for consideration as a pilot, they have to have been Combat Ready and have a minimum of 500 hrs total time with 300 hrs as PIC (I'm sure Beagle will be able to correct me on this!). I'm not sure that your average stude after BFJT on a holding posting will meet these criteria and certainly are unlikely have the presence / stature to be able to 'wow' the cadets.
These are genuine enthusiasts (such as former ACM Sir Michael Knight, who was re-ranked to Fg Off with 4 AEF at Exeter!).
These are genuine enthusiasts (such as former ACM Sir Michael Knight, who was re-ranked to Fg Off with 4 AEF at Exeter!).
You are wrong about them supplementing their pension...they get home to duty and max 28 days pay per year...hardly a huge amount of dosh.
Re: Circuit Basher's comments, I believe it's 500hrs P1 and they must have previously been combat ready. Currently, there are a handful of post-BFJT studes as test cases flying on AEFs (If I remember right, they needed a "high average" pass from Linton to be eligible.).
I didn't intend this to be a rant against AEF pilots. Obviously a lot have some spectacular experience, some great dits, and they're all very nice guys (certainly every one I've encountered has been).
Rather, as BEagle was saying, I think it's a bit off the mark that we're filling what are effectively RAF flying posts with a lot of retired officers, when we have a massive overflow of young, still enthusiastic, capable pilots who are left kicking their heels and making tea for anything up to 18 months between courses. Fair enough, especially when young and inexperienced, they need to spend a hold or two on the front line; learning what happens there, how a squadron runs, and what their future job'll be like. But if you spent 6 months as a squadron holding bod after IOT, then 9 months after EFT, then maybe 14 months after Linton... there's only so much tea making you can take when you wander away from Valley with your eyes on TW in 6 months' time.
Don't want to knock the gents who do a great job on AEFs, but I'm sure that while cadets must be enthused by tales of Phantom and Lightning derring-do, wouldn't they also be quite interested to fly in the seat next to a chap 3-5 years older than them who can tell them a bit about how to get into his job now? When I was a cadet, I never thought for a second I might actually end up like any of the guys who took me AEF flying; but if it was a 22 year old post-BFJT stude, I might have thought differently.