UAS 's to close (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under the boardwalk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what would you think if – hypothetically – the new system came into being and – hypothetically – it was supposed to save some £3M by saving on the number of QFIs in the system as a whole and – hypothetically – it was decided that the numbers of QFIs saved would have to be reduced because it was realised that – hypothetically – they needed more QFIs on each AEF to provide the training for the UAS students which would – hypothetically – include solo sorties and, therefore – hypothetically – the savings were not as great as expected because the BM “report to end all reports” had not taken this into account?
And what would happen if it was – hypothetically - recommended in the BM “report to end all reports” that it was necessary to reform No 1 AEF at St Athan because – hypothetically – it was not possible under the new system to have a UAS without an AEF. How much do you think it would cost to persuade DARA and VT Aerospace to – hypothetically - change to 7 day operations because you can’t run an AEF without operating at weekends because (guess what) that’s the only time that ATC cadets can fly because they are at school during the week and St Athan currently only operates Monday to Friday (except during the winter period when they do work on Saturdays). I wonder if that would erode some of the “savings” and I wonder if anybody has started contract negotiations with DARA and VT Aerospace to cater for this added requirement?
Oh – and I wonder what extra savings would be accrued by increasing the Adventurous Training budgets on the UASs to try to give SOME reason for Uni students to join the UASs? I also wonder what would happen if those Uni students who had taken the time and effort to become qualified as “leaders” (mountain, canoeing etc whatever) were told that they would be expected to “lead” expeditions as much as was required but that they would not be paid more than the thirty-something days per year currently permitted, even though the UAS would remain within its total pay budget by paying them whenever they were required to “lead”. Do you think they would decide to continue to “lead” AT detachments because they loved the life or would they say “sod you – pay me for when I work or I won’t work more than the days you pay me”? If the latter, who would “lead” the extra AT expeditions that will have been funded?
Just a few interested questions you know - hypothetical of course.
And what would happen if it was – hypothetically - recommended in the BM “report to end all reports” that it was necessary to reform No 1 AEF at St Athan because – hypothetically – it was not possible under the new system to have a UAS without an AEF. How much do you think it would cost to persuade DARA and VT Aerospace to – hypothetically - change to 7 day operations because you can’t run an AEF without operating at weekends because (guess what) that’s the only time that ATC cadets can fly because they are at school during the week and St Athan currently only operates Monday to Friday (except during the winter period when they do work on Saturdays). I wonder if that would erode some of the “savings” and I wonder if anybody has started contract negotiations with DARA and VT Aerospace to cater for this added requirement?
Oh – and I wonder what extra savings would be accrued by increasing the Adventurous Training budgets on the UASs to try to give SOME reason for Uni students to join the UASs? I also wonder what would happen if those Uni students who had taken the time and effort to become qualified as “leaders” (mountain, canoeing etc whatever) were told that they would be expected to “lead” expeditions as much as was required but that they would not be paid more than the thirty-something days per year currently permitted, even though the UAS would remain within its total pay budget by paying them whenever they were required to “lead”. Do you think they would decide to continue to “lead” AT detachments because they loved the life or would they say “sod you – pay me for when I work or I won’t work more than the days you pay me”? If the latter, who would “lead” the extra AT expeditions that will have been funded?
Just a few interested questions you know - hypothetical of course.
Last edited by Malissa Fawthort; 10th Aug 2005 at 04:04.
And what if, hypothetically, your plan to save on the number of QFIs, also requires that not only will more 'volunteer' pilots be needed, but that ex-QFI AEF members will be 'encouraged' to qualify as AEF QFIs.
One wonders sort of 'encouragement' would be on offer? Hardly likely to be financial, I would venture! And it would be a very brave QFI who would send someone solo if they had only flown 10 hours in that year....
Does 'volunteer' mean 'The RAF won't pay more than travel expenses'?
You don't make omelettes without breaking eggs!
One wonders sort of 'encouragement' would be on offer? Hardly likely to be financial, I would venture! And it would be a very brave QFI who would send someone solo if they had only flown 10 hours in that year....
Does 'volunteer' mean 'The RAF won't pay more than travel expenses'?
You don't make omelettes without breaking eggs!
How many hours were UAS blokes getting immediately before the misguided conversion of the course to an EFTS syllabus with streaming at the end?
And how many on the EFTS course?
My own UAS days are long ago, and as a lazy, lecture-skiving arts student I got more hours than most, but dimly recall that VR blokes officially got 30 hours per year, with 20 in the first year (or the last, can't remember).
And how many on the EFTS course?
My own UAS days are long ago, and as a lazy, lecture-skiving arts student I got more hours than most, but dimly recall that VR blokes officially got 30 hours per year, with 20 in the first year (or the last, can't remember).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the turn of the millenium, the allocation was about 30hrs - ie 90hr course (as you say) but the average could be higher because of the monthly 'Essential Exercise'/currency trips.
Then someone had a brainwave to reduce the EFT cse to about 70 hrs by taking out most of the confidence-building solos and capacity-enhancing fun trips like tailchasing and LL Nav and composite sorties towards FHT.
Consequently, it is more difficult for QFIs to assess the studes potential capacity (this from the horse's mouth on numerous occsaions). Therefore, streaming is a bit of a lottery for the studes.
This hardly makes the system more efficient - both streaming at UASs and the introduction of EFT on UASs were large backward leaps.
Then someone had a brainwave to reduce the EFT cse to about 70 hrs by taking out most of the confidence-building solos and capacity-enhancing fun trips like tailchasing and LL Nav and composite sorties towards FHT.
Consequently, it is more difficult for QFIs to assess the studes potential capacity (this from the horse's mouth on numerous occsaions). Therefore, streaming is a bit of a lottery for the studes.
This hardly makes the system more efficient - both streaming at UASs and the introduction of EFT on UASs were large backward leaps.
And does anyone remember when the EFT fiasco came in?
And did that mark an official end to recruiting VR blokes who might not be committed to the RAf after Uni?
So many questions, so little brain!
And did that mark an official end to recruiting VR blokes who might not be committed to the RAf after Uni?
So many questions, so little brain!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: lancs
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster
The 70 hours you alluded to is actually only 59:15; 12:05 solo and 47:10 dual.
There is scope for incidental allowance to take care of essex and weather etc and up to 5 hours flex for lack of ability. Therefore a good competent student attending monthly could possibly complete the syllabus of 60 sorties in less than 60 hours or if attending less than 31 days between trips, up to 80!
The 70 hours you alluded to is actually only 59:15; 12:05 solo and 47:10 dual.
There is scope for incidental allowance to take care of essex and weather etc and up to 5 hours flex for lack of ability. Therefore a good competent student attending monthly could possibly complete the syllabus of 60 sorties in less than 60 hours or if attending less than 31 days between trips, up to 80!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, not sure exactly when doing EFT at UASs actually came in, but my sources tell me that the decision at the time was taken to protect the UASs. It seems that the stark choice then was either do EFT on UASs or lose UASs. This info comes from about as high up the food chain at the time as it was possible to get.
I have to say that I have never liked the situation where somebody who was completing EFT over 2/3 years was compared with somebody doing the same EFT over a few months (with the consequent vast improvement in continuity) when streaming decisions were made. When you consider that the course is only about 60 hours anyway, that system seems to me to be inherently unfair. When you also consider that – not THAT many moons ago – streaming decisions were made at the end of a 160-ish hour course flown in about 11 months, the current system seems even more unfair. I know the current plot allegedly saves money, but I firmly believe that it only saves money from one pot, and actually places a bigger expense further down the stream, because the real decisions have to be made whilst or after flying aircraft that are more expensive to run. If I had my choice (not that I ever will), I would elect for all students to fly EFT over a short course, then ALL STUDENTS to fly BFT on the Tincan, with streaming taking place after that. The bean-counters would never permit that though because it would “cost more” on the surface and they are not interested in the real down-stream expenses incurred by streaming after 60 hours.
But what do I know --- I’m not a QFI!
I have to say that I have never liked the situation where somebody who was completing EFT over 2/3 years was compared with somebody doing the same EFT over a few months (with the consequent vast improvement in continuity) when streaming decisions were made. When you consider that the course is only about 60 hours anyway, that system seems to me to be inherently unfair. When you also consider that – not THAT many moons ago – streaming decisions were made at the end of a 160-ish hour course flown in about 11 months, the current system seems even more unfair. I know the current plot allegedly saves money, but I firmly believe that it only saves money from one pot, and actually places a bigger expense further down the stream, because the real decisions have to be made whilst or after flying aircraft that are more expensive to run. If I had my choice (not that I ever will), I would elect for all students to fly EFT over a short course, then ALL STUDENTS to fly BFT on the Tincan, with streaming taking place after that. The bean-counters would never permit that though because it would “cost more” on the surface and they are not interested in the real down-stream expenses incurred by streaming after 60 hours.
But what do I know --- I’m not a QFI!
"Therefore a good competent student attending monthly could possibly complete the syllabus of 60 sorties in less than 60 hours or if attending less than 31 days between trips, up to 80!"
Assuming that the weather is fine, the student can afford the time to travel the distance to the UAS and that it won't affect his degree....
Surely it's time for someone in the RAF to dig in against yet more erosion of values and the forthcoming total implosion of the RAF? How long before all those earnest 'Air Power' and other doctrinal folk begin to realise that all their hot air theorising is worth absolutely nothing without the assets to turn theory into practice.
I heartily agree with Wholi' about all pilot students doing a common-core BFTS syllabus on the Spicano - but UASs should return to the 30:30:20 pattern of flying to a common PIFG/PFB state without ANY streaming assessment!
As for a syllabus which is actually defined to '12:05 solo', well, that just about sums it all up. $odding beancounting which totally ignores the airmanship value of solo consolidation.
Assuming that the weather is fine, the student can afford the time to travel the distance to the UAS and that it won't affect his degree....
Surely it's time for someone in the RAF to dig in against yet more erosion of values and the forthcoming total implosion of the RAF? How long before all those earnest 'Air Power' and other doctrinal folk begin to realise that all their hot air theorising is worth absolutely nothing without the assets to turn theory into practice.
I heartily agree with Wholi' about all pilot students doing a common-core BFTS syllabus on the Spicano - but UASs should return to the 30:30:20 pattern of flying to a common PIFG/PFB state without ANY streaming assessment!
As for a syllabus which is actually defined to '12:05 solo', well, that just about sums it all up. $odding beancounting which totally ignores the airmanship value of solo consolidation.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Not the front line
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hours issue wasn't that bad; arriving at a UAS to do EFT, I had a 90 hour course ahead of me rather than a 60 hour course for a JEFTS mate. On top of that, I had all the "essential exercise" currency ticks that made sure I left my EFT after three years with slightly over 100 hours. I was still compared to a bloke with better continuity, but at least that bloke only had 60 hours, and I had a PIFG, had done IP-tgt runs, and been immersed in life on a front-line base for the duration of my degree.
The decision to drop the UAS EFT syllabus to 60 hours, matching the direct entry one, and then introduce DE flights on UASs was the one that shocked me. Nothing brought home how up against it you were than pitching up to fly one of your token 60 trips, while watching another guy fly the same trip as one of three that day on Fg Off pay, with no degree to worry about. Then you'd pitch up 3 months later and he'd be finished and off to Linton.
A common BFT course does make sense, and those beancounters saying "no" might like to have a look at Linton nowadays. A fleet of 80-odd Tucanos; loads of QFIs leaving, and barely any starting; too many pilots in the RAF nowadays; and complaints about the streaming point. Seems to add up beautifully to wheeling out the full fleet of Tucanos, keeping the squadrons there at their full complement of QFIs, and sending EVERYONE there.
We own the aircraft, we have the pilots, and there're plenty of QFIs there sitting around wishing they had more hours to fly. Why not?
The decision to drop the UAS EFT syllabus to 60 hours, matching the direct entry one, and then introduce DE flights on UASs was the one that shocked me. Nothing brought home how up against it you were than pitching up to fly one of your token 60 trips, while watching another guy fly the same trip as one of three that day on Fg Off pay, with no degree to worry about. Then you'd pitch up 3 months later and he'd be finished and off to Linton.
A common BFT course does make sense, and those beancounters saying "no" might like to have a look at Linton nowadays. A fleet of 80-odd Tucanos; loads of QFIs leaving, and barely any starting; too many pilots in the RAF nowadays; and complaints about the streaming point. Seems to add up beautifully to wheeling out the full fleet of Tucanos, keeping the squadrons there at their full complement of QFIs, and sending EVERYONE there.
We own the aircraft, we have the pilots, and there're plenty of QFIs there sitting around wishing they had more hours to fly. Why not?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Not the front line
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh?
I was quite content doing UAS EFT, and didn't want to go DE at all. I was happy as a sponsored stude, doing the 90-hour UAS course, and didn't think for a second about how I'd be compared to JEFTS blokes during streaming. I certainly have no issues with them; there weren't DE flights while I was on a UAS!
My point about UAS studes doing 60 hours now alongside DE guys is perfectly valid; and is one of the thrusts of this whole thread! The fact I was getting a degree at the same time was countered by an extra 30 hours at least. Now, the guys get nothing extra; they do the same course, to the same standards, and have their reports written by the same QFIs; so they struggle through with poor continuity and no pay, knowing their entire career path rests on their performance?
Anyway, if you disagree with that, there're enough posts on the pages above discussing that. I don't think it's right to send a uni stude through a course part-time, unpaid, and during uni over three years that he'd otherwise polish off as a full-time job, on full pay, in 4 months.
I like the idea of a common EFT post-IOT; but I don't like the idea of UASs disappearing. From what I've seen, we used to have it right; a short EFT course for non-flyers, and a free-for-all UAS course. Afterwards, everyone does a BFT Tucano/JP course, with a slightly different start depending on your background. Stream after a few hours there, then keep the FJ guys on to do more.
I was quite content doing UAS EFT, and didn't want to go DE at all. I was happy as a sponsored stude, doing the 90-hour UAS course, and didn't think for a second about how I'd be compared to JEFTS blokes during streaming. I certainly have no issues with them; there weren't DE flights while I was on a UAS!
My point about UAS studes doing 60 hours now alongside DE guys is perfectly valid; and is one of the thrusts of this whole thread! The fact I was getting a degree at the same time was countered by an extra 30 hours at least. Now, the guys get nothing extra; they do the same course, to the same standards, and have their reports written by the same QFIs; so they struggle through with poor continuity and no pay, knowing their entire career path rests on their performance?
Anyway, if you disagree with that, there're enough posts on the pages above discussing that. I don't think it's right to send a uni stude through a course part-time, unpaid, and during uni over three years that he'd otherwise polish off as a full-time job, on full pay, in 4 months.
I like the idea of a common EFT post-IOT; but I don't like the idea of UASs disappearing. From what I've seen, we used to have it right; a short EFT course for non-flyers, and a free-for-all UAS course. Afterwards, everyone does a BFT Tucano/JP course, with a slightly different start depending on your background. Stream after a few hours there, then keep the FJ guys on to do more.
"Afterwards, everyone does a BFT Tucano/JP course, with a slightly different start depending on your background..."
Which is precisely what used to happen in the early 1970s. Ex-UAS did 125 hrs on the JP3/5, DE did 140. You were then awarded wings and streamed to AFTS; FJ to the Gnat at Valley, ME to the Varsity at Oakington and RW to the Whirlwind at Ternhill.
It worked very well indeed.
Then the rot stared with all the SAFT Gp 1 Ph 1 nonsense - and flying training never really recovered....
Which is precisely what used to happen in the early 1970s. Ex-UAS did 125 hrs on the JP3/5, DE did 140. You were then awarded wings and streamed to AFTS; FJ to the Gnat at Valley, ME to the Varsity at Oakington and RW to the Whirlwind at Ternhill.
It worked very well indeed.
Then the rot stared with all the SAFT Gp 1 Ph 1 nonsense - and flying training never really recovered....
BEags: SAFT?
Everyone else: Can anyone name any distinguished ex-UAS grads - historic (like Richard Hillary) and recent (MRAFs, CASs, CinCSTCs, etc.)?
Everyone else: Can anyone name any distinguished ex-UAS grads - historic (like Richard Hillary) and recent (MRAFs, CASs, CinCSTCs, etc.)?
JN,
SAFT
“Systems Approach to Flying Training” I think, but I am LONG out of this training scheme!
BEagle,
Wasn’t it about the same time that the term Fast Jet was coined as Group 1? I dread to think of the comparative standard of airmanship of the average ME stude bowling up at AFTS or even at OCU, especially if they are ex UAS with all the hassle and spread of flying involved.
The RAF used to have a training system second to none, now I have no beef with leases or even contractor owned training aircraft, but I have a real worry about hours and overall airmanship, are we seeing a real dip in experience? Add that to reduced hours at the front line and this is only heading one way.
BRING BACK BFTS FOR ALL.
SAFT
“Systems Approach to Flying Training” I think, but I am LONG out of this training scheme!
BEagle,
Wasn’t it about the same time that the term Fast Jet was coined as Group 1? I dread to think of the comparative standard of airmanship of the average ME stude bowling up at AFTS or even at OCU, especially if they are ex UAS with all the hassle and spread of flying involved.
The RAF used to have a training system second to none, now I have no beef with leases or even contractor owned training aircraft, but I have a real worry about hours and overall airmanship, are we seeing a real dip in experience? Add that to reduced hours at the front line and this is only heading one way.
BRING BACK BFTS FOR ALL.
SAFT - Systems Approach to Flying Training. Scribbledegook w@nkwords for 'cut backs in Flying Training' circa 1974-5?
Sir Tim Garden is an ex-UAS mate......http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/biog/tgbio1.html
Sir Tim Garden is an ex-UAS mate......http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/biog/tgbio1.html
Gentleman Aviator
Can anyone name any distinguished ex-UAS grads
..... there's a total of 9 stars for you Jacko....
..... and only 7 are rotary (but not streamed that way at UAS!!)......
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
What I have to say below proves something but I leave it to others to decide.
Of seven nav studes 5 were chopped pilots, two had the preliminary flying badge. Six were ex-UAS. Two wanted to be navs not pilots.
Guess who got the preliminary flying badges.
Guess who graduated as navigators; one made Buccs, one made GR1s.
One ex-UAS, failed PF, chopped BFTS, made it through to Canberras.
Of seven nav studes 5 were chopped pilots, two had the preliminary flying badge. Six were ex-UAS. Two wanted to be navs not pilots.
Guess who got the preliminary flying badges.
Guess who graduated as navigators; one made Buccs, one made GR1s.
One ex-UAS, failed PF, chopped BFTS, made it through to Canberras.
Thanks Teeters!!!
I'd add:
Leonard Cheshire, VC
Geoffrey Page
Arthur Aaron, VC
Brian Burridge
Tim Garden
Sir Charles Masefield
Colin Chapman (Lotus)
Tim Yeo, MP
Dr Nicholas Patrick (astronaut!)
Stanley ('Handling the Big Jets') Stewart
I'd add:
Leonard Cheshire, VC
Geoffrey Page
Arthur Aaron, VC
Brian Burridge
Tim Garden
Sir Charles Masefield
Colin Chapman (Lotus)
Tim Yeo, MP
Dr Nicholas Patrick (astronaut!)
Stanley ('Handling the Big Jets') Stewart