UAS 's to close (Merged)
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.
Along with its author,
But sadly I fear that will not be the case.
And another part of RAF history will disappear for ever.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: somewhere in Wiltshire..once
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Postponed briefing ...
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
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up North!!
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London,UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The topic was raised in the Commons on Thursday and the exchange can be read in Hansard
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ready to Depart
Age: 45
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Minister ignorant of changes
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! ;-)
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! ;-)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London,UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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,
even if you achieved it at the RAFGSA centre 
, let alone somewhere out in the sticks
. And UAS Solo Sector Recce 
or solo aeros 
had it over first solo, for me!
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,
even if you achieved it at the RAFGSA centre , let alone somewhere out in the sticks. And UAS Solo Sector Recce or solo aeros had it over first solo, for me!
UASs - a delayed briefing
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 ... ;-)
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 ... ;-)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London,UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
