UAS 's to close (Merged)
Because UASs are primarily Elementary Flying Training organisations. Or rather, they were.....
The day that someone who can just about tell his ar$e from his elbows starts trying to run a pilot training organisation will be the day that the lunatics have really taken over the asylum!
The day that someone who can just about tell his ar$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!
Because UASs are primarily Elementary Flying Training organisations. Or rather, they were.....
YS
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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!!!
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.....
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.....
an OCU converts qualified aircrew onto their operational type of aircraft as its first priority.
I am still waiting to hear any cogent reason why the CO of a University Air Squadron must be a pilot/QFI.
YS
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
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) )
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
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)
)
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!)
Would that be as opposed to a clapped out ex-QFI who bounces around the forums ... etc?
(Take cover Baldrick!!)
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire
Age: 55
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAS
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)!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: around and about
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
How do you justify a budget of 24 million quid on a youth organisation out of the RAF's share of the defence budget?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
UAS and non-QFI Boss
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 ;-)
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 ;-)