UASs CUT
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under the boardwalk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some savings eh?
New command structure has UASs working under College pillar at Cranwell, in fact under 2 newly-established wg cdr posts in OASC. Full costs of those posts? Who knows, but nothing short of £150K per year possibly.
Old system has (say) 40 pilots out of (say) 80 UAS students, thus needing 40 lots of helmets, flying suits, boots, socks, gloves, green roll-necks, long johns etc. New system has 80 flyers needing, therefore, twice as much kit! Not to mention it will possibly need another SE Fitter on each base. Has anybody authorised the issue of flying kit to non-aircrew branches? You know what stores are like --- “sorry, you can’t have those, I don’t have the authority to issue them”.
As a UAS cannot exist without an AEF now, there is a need to establish 2 new AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, which will require the provision of Alpha helmets, flying suits, gloves, parachutes and seat cushions for cadet flying. Will they also need another SE Fitter? I wonder if Glasgow and St Athan will mind aircraft flying on Saturdays and Sundays every week? Is there a restriction on numbers of days flying allowed each week? Will the current “owners” of the airfields be prepared to change their working week if there is such a restriction? How much will it cost to persuade them to do so, if – indeed – you are able to?
I wonder what it would cost to keep the UAS structure exactly as it was, but just have a sqn ldr OC plus one other (or possibly 2 in some cases) full-time QFI(s) on each (thus removing any problems of flying supervision on any UASs/AEFs that are not on proper flying bases), and have the OC AEF, where there is one, (explains my “possibly 2 in some cases” above) as a QFI to help out as needed with UAS student flying. I wonder if that would give more flexibility than the proposed system of OC AEF plus one other full-time QFI teaching the UAS students. It would certainly help when one or other of the 2 full-time QFIs under the proposed scheme is on leave or off sick, especially as one of them already has a full time job running the AEF. This proposal would – of course – mean that you would not have to form AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, thereby saving on the costs of kit and personnel, and removing the problems of convincing the 2 bases to operate weekends.
For planning purposes, you would have to discount the plan to have some AEF pilots C to I to instruct some aspects of the UAS flying, as they are all part-timers and thus could not be totally relied on to be available – WITHOUT FAIL - when UAS students want to fly, although these C to I AEF pilots would – naturally – be available on occasions to help out as required. However, they would (of course) all need to attend a course of unknown duration in terms of hours and days to, upgrade their C to I to enable them to instruct UAS students. I wonder how long it will take to upgrade these C to Is and how much it will cost? I wonder how much of a commitment (hours/days per year) they will be required to give once the money and time has been spent upgrading them? I wonder if they will be paid when they instruct? I wonder if their instructional hours would count against the CAA maximum number of hours per year for airline pilots? I wonder if their companies would be prepared for them to say “sorry – can’t do that Frankfurt shuttle – I’ve used my hours instructing on a UAS”? Would that mean that airline pilots would not be able to take part in the scheme, leaving only the fully retired AEF pilots? Would all of these C to Is have to do CFS Examiners rides and EFT Standards rides every year? What would be the minimum number of instructional hours per year to retain their ability to continue instructing UAS students?
I seem to recall that in “the old days”, questions like this were raised during the study phase of any proposed change, and they were addressed and answered before the new system was introduced, rather than having masses of people scrabbling round like blue-ar$ed flies after the event, trying to fire-fight problems that have been caused by pi$$-poor staffing processes.
New command structure has UASs working under College pillar at Cranwell, in fact under 2 newly-established wg cdr posts in OASC. Full costs of those posts? Who knows, but nothing short of £150K per year possibly.
Old system has (say) 40 pilots out of (say) 80 UAS students, thus needing 40 lots of helmets, flying suits, boots, socks, gloves, green roll-necks, long johns etc. New system has 80 flyers needing, therefore, twice as much kit! Not to mention it will possibly need another SE Fitter on each base. Has anybody authorised the issue of flying kit to non-aircrew branches? You know what stores are like --- “sorry, you can’t have those, I don’t have the authority to issue them”.
As a UAS cannot exist without an AEF now, there is a need to establish 2 new AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, which will require the provision of Alpha helmets, flying suits, gloves, parachutes and seat cushions for cadet flying. Will they also need another SE Fitter? I wonder if Glasgow and St Athan will mind aircraft flying on Saturdays and Sundays every week? Is there a restriction on numbers of days flying allowed each week? Will the current “owners” of the airfields be prepared to change their working week if there is such a restriction? How much will it cost to persuade them to do so, if – indeed – you are able to?
I wonder what it would cost to keep the UAS structure exactly as it was, but just have a sqn ldr OC plus one other (or possibly 2 in some cases) full-time QFI(s) on each (thus removing any problems of flying supervision on any UASs/AEFs that are not on proper flying bases), and have the OC AEF, where there is one, (explains my “possibly 2 in some cases” above) as a QFI to help out as needed with UAS student flying. I wonder if that would give more flexibility than the proposed system of OC AEF plus one other full-time QFI teaching the UAS students. It would certainly help when one or other of the 2 full-time QFIs under the proposed scheme is on leave or off sick, especially as one of them already has a full time job running the AEF. This proposal would – of course – mean that you would not have to form AEFs at Glasgow and St Athan, thereby saving on the costs of kit and personnel, and removing the problems of convincing the 2 bases to operate weekends.
For planning purposes, you would have to discount the plan to have some AEF pilots C to I to instruct some aspects of the UAS flying, as they are all part-timers and thus could not be totally relied on to be available – WITHOUT FAIL - when UAS students want to fly, although these C to I AEF pilots would – naturally – be available on occasions to help out as required. However, they would (of course) all need to attend a course of unknown duration in terms of hours and days to, upgrade their C to I to enable them to instruct UAS students. I wonder how long it will take to upgrade these C to Is and how much it will cost? I wonder how much of a commitment (hours/days per year) they will be required to give once the money and time has been spent upgrading them? I wonder if they will be paid when they instruct? I wonder if their instructional hours would count against the CAA maximum number of hours per year for airline pilots? I wonder if their companies would be prepared for them to say “sorry – can’t do that Frankfurt shuttle – I’ve used my hours instructing on a UAS”? Would that mean that airline pilots would not be able to take part in the scheme, leaving only the fully retired AEF pilots? Would all of these C to Is have to do CFS Examiners rides and EFT Standards rides every year? What would be the minimum number of instructional hours per year to retain their ability to continue instructing UAS students?
I seem to recall that in “the old days”, questions like this were raised during the study phase of any proposed change, and they were addressed and answered before the new system was introduced, rather than having masses of people scrabbling round like blue-ar$ed flies after the event, trying to fire-fight problems that have been caused by pi$$-poor staffing processes.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New RAF Management Strategy....
Have i missed something in recent years? It seems as though all major changes have been thrust upon us have little detail/forethought leaving the minions to sort out the gaping holes in planning. Examples? :
- Pay As You Starve
- LEAN (See Lyneham Thread)
- UAS Changes.
Still, i've never seen a Freshers Fayre as busy as those recently, but i guess that's because now we can accept those that were previously medically ineligible for UAS(and RAF) service. We are rapidly heading towards a point were the majority of UAS studes are indeed good people, even future leaders of industry - but fundamentally unfit for the RAF. Well, with the change in command that's now somebody else's problem, just like the plan!
Malissa - the Squipper question was raised a while back and hadn't even been considered (apparently). Still no guidance on this - but at least the supply chain will be its usual, hastly self when needed.
Uncle G
- Pay As You Starve
- LEAN (See Lyneham Thread)
- UAS Changes.
Still, i've never seen a Freshers Fayre as busy as those recently, but i guess that's because now we can accept those that were previously medically ineligible for UAS(and RAF) service. We are rapidly heading towards a point were the majority of UAS studes are indeed good people, even future leaders of industry - but fundamentally unfit for the RAF. Well, with the change in command that's now somebody else's problem, just like the plan!
Malissa - the Squipper question was raised a while back and hadn't even been considered (apparently). Still no guidance on this - but at least the supply chain will be its usual, hastly self when needed.
Uncle G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Neverland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've been recruiting to the new requirements, and, being completely honest with the flying on offer, we've never had so many applicants ..... of both genders 
.
I think that there are a lot of postive things in these changes, and that they shouldn't be so easily dismissed. I echo the fact that I simply cannot see where the savings are going to come from, but it's obviously a step to implementing MFTS.
I believe the situation and changes could be worse, at least the UAS's are still here.....Just!!
.I think that there are a lot of postive things in these changes, and that they shouldn't be so easily dismissed. I echo the fact that I simply cannot see where the savings are going to come from, but it's obviously a step to implementing MFTS.
I believe the situation and changes could be worse, at least the UAS's are still here.....Just!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interested or not?
Many of you have said that people will not join if there is no full EFT on the UAS, even though they're still getting 30hrs towards a NPPL and then EFT afterwards with a better chance of FJ rec. If people are put of by this then I think we're better off without them. I would also definitely question their motivation.
There is definitley no shortge of very high calibre people still applying to join the UASs; I have seen that for myself this past week. Most people who want to join the RAF as pilots would still jump through any hoop we place in front of them. Granted, the system is not attractive as the old one but I don't think we are going to lose any/many of the right kind of people.
There is definitley no shortge of very high calibre people still applying to join the UASs; I have seen that for myself this past week. Most people who want to join the RAF as pilots would still jump through any hoop we place in front of them. Granted, the system is not attractive as the old one but I don't think we are going to lose any/many of the right kind of people.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Uberpilot for supplying the EFT syllabus but does anyone who what each trip contains?
For example circuits requires a glide, flapless, normal, low level and perhaps a square.
What IF approaches are required for EFT?
What aeros are required?
Will the new UAS syllabus be able to provide these?
Pink
For example circuits requires a glide, flapless, normal, low level and perhaps a square.
What IF approaches are required for EFT?
What aeros are required?
Will the new UAS syllabus be able to provide these?
Pink
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In think some people are missing the point of the 'dumbing-down' of the UAS (tho', of course, this is in line with government policy!)
I am glad that EFT has been taken away from the guys and girls doing degrees - thank the Lord for that, at least. Also, I am glad that recruiting is going well.... this year.
However, of course recruiting is going well - every tom and dick and harriett can join now the med and aptitude criteria have been dropped.
You will waste your breath on an increasingly larger number of people who are never going to be able to fill a Typhoon cockpit. Great for the ground-pounders, I suppose - but in today's world (which is very different from mine as a stude or QFI), we need to be recruiting a higher percentage of the undergrad population who COULD go SS FJ.
We could have lived with a smaller UAS syllabus and more OQ stuff but with the same selection criteria - money is tight. However, I don't think that would have worked either but, quite frankly, this c0cked-up system is the worst of both worlds.
Now, we will attract less of a percentage of the right kind of people and the few that are attracted will not get the full benefit of the 'old style' syllabus, As a result, they be less likely to get to the front line so less FJ cockpits will get filled!
I suppose the answer is to lose a few more squadrons.......um, sounds familiar!
flipster
ps Anyone who thinks that UASs have not been good recruiting tools is talking tosh.
I checked my log-book for the 3 yrs I spent on a UAS to see how the students, with whom I was priviledged to fly, had progressed. This was in the mid 90s (with and without streaming, medicals and aptitude but before EFT):
25 FJ
17 ME
6 RW
7 NAV
(I didn't fly with all studes for the first and last, so there were a few more)
I suspect about half of our VRs had designs on an RAF career before they joined but only 6 of had joined us as Bursars - the rest we 'converted' and they went on to do very well - in fact, about 7 more were streamed FJ but had to go ME or RW as there was a backlog in the FJ process - as ever.
Not bad for one UAS (albeit one of the best) with only one intake per year! I believe that some other UAS were better and some, worse.
Nonetheless, I am certain that the future UAS system will fail to attract as many good fliers - which is a waste of good opportuity, instructors, resources and the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we will need.
I am glad that EFT has been taken away from the guys and girls doing degrees - thank the Lord for that, at least. Also, I am glad that recruiting is going well.... this year.
However, of course recruiting is going well - every tom and dick and harriett can join now the med and aptitude criteria have been dropped.
You will waste your breath on an increasingly larger number of people who are never going to be able to fill a Typhoon cockpit. Great for the ground-pounders, I suppose - but in today's world (which is very different from mine as a stude or QFI), we need to be recruiting a higher percentage of the undergrad population who COULD go SS FJ.
We could have lived with a smaller UAS syllabus and more OQ stuff but with the same selection criteria - money is tight. However, I don't think that would have worked either but, quite frankly, this c0cked-up system is the worst of both worlds.
Now, we will attract less of a percentage of the right kind of people and the few that are attracted will not get the full benefit of the 'old style' syllabus, As a result, they be less likely to get to the front line so less FJ cockpits will get filled!
I suppose the answer is to lose a few more squadrons.......um, sounds familiar!
flipster
ps Anyone who thinks that UASs have not been good recruiting tools is talking tosh.
I checked my log-book for the 3 yrs I spent on a UAS to see how the students, with whom I was priviledged to fly, had progressed. This was in the mid 90s (with and without streaming, medicals and aptitude but before EFT):
25 FJ
17 ME
6 RW
7 NAV
(I didn't fly with all studes for the first and last, so there were a few more)
I suspect about half of our VRs had designs on an RAF career before they joined but only 6 of had joined us as Bursars - the rest we 'converted' and they went on to do very well - in fact, about 7 more were streamed FJ but had to go ME or RW as there was a backlog in the FJ process - as ever.
Not bad for one UAS (albeit one of the best) with only one intake per year! I believe that some other UAS were better and some, worse.
Nonetheless, I am certain that the future UAS system will fail to attract as many good fliers - which is a waste of good opportuity, instructors, resources and the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we will need.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pink Flyer;
CCTS: Normal, Glide, Flapless, Low
IF approaches: PAR, SRA and maybe an ILS. PAR is airfield dependent
Aeros: Minimum Basic 5 for IHT: Wing over, Loop, Aileron Roll, Stall Turn, Half Cuban, Half Horizontal. You will learn others which could include...Slow Roll, Barrell Roll, 1/4 Clover, Roll Of The Top, Reverse Stall Turn, Noddy Stall Turn, Porteus Loop...list goes on! You are expected to do more than the basic 5 for FHT. Most people can real of at least 10 meaneouvres by IHT.
The new syallabus according to Gp Capt Round, at the moment, does NOT contain aeros or formation. However, they are going to get aeros added but not formation. But latest has it that students will not be allowed to do solo aeros (Spin Aeros Check). However, this won't apply to those already cleared. Studes will also not be cleared for low level nav solo (again, doesn't apply to those already cleared). I guess those cleared formation will be allowed to as well
Feel free to correct if I'm wrong but that is what I was told. I also didn't realise that SUAS have already stopped flying at Boscombe Down.
CCTS: Normal, Glide, Flapless, Low
IF approaches: PAR, SRA and maybe an ILS. PAR is airfield dependent
Aeros: Minimum Basic 5 for IHT: Wing over, Loop, Aileron Roll, Stall Turn, Half Cuban, Half Horizontal. You will learn others which could include...Slow Roll, Barrell Roll, 1/4 Clover, Roll Of The Top, Reverse Stall Turn, Noddy Stall Turn, Porteus Loop...list goes on! You are expected to do more than the basic 5 for FHT. Most people can real of at least 10 meaneouvres by IHT.
The new syallabus according to Gp Capt Round, at the moment, does NOT contain aeros or formation. However, they are going to get aeros added but not formation. But latest has it that students will not be allowed to do solo aeros (Spin Aeros Check). However, this won't apply to those already cleared. Studes will also not be cleared for low level nav solo (again, doesn't apply to those already cleared). I guess those cleared formation will be allowed to as well
Feel free to correct if I'm wrong but that is what I was told. I also didn't realise that SUAS have already stopped flying at Boscombe Down.
Rather than just continuing to annoy 'Them' by groaning about the latest change to the UAS flying syllabus, perhaps it might be opportune to reflect on the way things were in the past and the subsequent changes since those days:
Chipmunk student 1969-73:
Had already obtained a PPL through the RAF Scholarship scheme. In first year flew 22:45 dual and 15:30 solo, mainly circuits, stalling, PFLs, solo GH and Sector Recces. In second year flew 33:45 dual and 11:00 solo, including aerobatics, spinning (dual and solo), Preliminary Instrument Flying Grading and a tiny amount of navigation. In third year flew 18:25 dual and 14:00 solo, mainly more GH (no IF), plus fractionally more navigation, culminating in Preliminary Flying Badge awarded after completion of a total of 115:15 hours, of which 40:30 were solo. 12:50 total IF time.
I also blagged a 4th year, but just marked time doing GH dual (7:55) and solo (14:30).
But no low level or formation flying. These were considered 'post-PFB' exercises which were only flown if the UAS had the hours and opportunity. Mine didn't, others did! No formal streaming assessment was made.
Bulldog QFI 1989-1992:
Students had pretty much the same (perhaps slightly less) flying than I'd had 20-ish years earlier. All (APOs and Cdt Plts) had 2 guaranteed years, some Cdt Plts were granted a 3rd year. All the exercises I'd done as a student were covered, except for Forced Landings with power and solo spinning. Additionally, use of VOR/DME (and ILS, informally), intro to low level, low level manoeuvres and formation dual/solo were included in the 3rd year. The course was more tightly structured and managed than the course I'd flown as a student, navigation was properly taught although it was flown at 2-3000 ft. Low level navigation was not included. No formal streaming assessment was made.
So, given a clean sheet what would I suggest?
Three x unassessed 20 hour years:
Year 1: Up to 'solo sector recce' standard. Sponsored and non-sponsored students.
Year 2: Basic aeros, navigation and GH. Sponsored students and selected non-sponsored students.
Year 3: PIFG and PFB both mandatory requirements before IOT entry.
Plus, for sponsored ground branch students only, air experience flying.
Don't bother with: Formation and low level navigation. Leave it until BFTS. Learn to walk with confidence before trying to run!
Chipmunk student 1969-73:
Had already obtained a PPL through the RAF Scholarship scheme. In first year flew 22:45 dual and 15:30 solo, mainly circuits, stalling, PFLs, solo GH and Sector Recces. In second year flew 33:45 dual and 11:00 solo, including aerobatics, spinning (dual and solo), Preliminary Instrument Flying Grading and a tiny amount of navigation. In third year flew 18:25 dual and 14:00 solo, mainly more GH (no IF), plus fractionally more navigation, culminating in Preliminary Flying Badge awarded after completion of a total of 115:15 hours, of which 40:30 were solo. 12:50 total IF time.
I also blagged a 4th year, but just marked time doing GH dual (7:55) and solo (14:30).
But no low level or formation flying. These were considered 'post-PFB' exercises which were only flown if the UAS had the hours and opportunity. Mine didn't, others did! No formal streaming assessment was made.
Bulldog QFI 1989-1992:
Students had pretty much the same (perhaps slightly less) flying than I'd had 20-ish years earlier. All (APOs and Cdt Plts) had 2 guaranteed years, some Cdt Plts were granted a 3rd year. All the exercises I'd done as a student were covered, except for Forced Landings with power and solo spinning. Additionally, use of VOR/DME (and ILS, informally), intro to low level, low level manoeuvres and formation dual/solo were included in the 3rd year. The course was more tightly structured and managed than the course I'd flown as a student, navigation was properly taught although it was flown at 2-3000 ft. Low level navigation was not included. No formal streaming assessment was made.
So, given a clean sheet what would I suggest?
Three x unassessed 20 hour years:
Year 1: Up to 'solo sector recce' standard. Sponsored and non-sponsored students.
Year 2: Basic aeros, navigation and GH. Sponsored students and selected non-sponsored students.
Year 3: PIFG and PFB both mandatory requirements before IOT entry.
Plus, for sponsored ground branch students only, air experience flying.
Don't bother with: Formation and low level navigation. Leave it until BFTS. Learn to walk with confidence before trying to run!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Your idea sounds good and certainly better than this proposed fudge but I would lament the loss of LL and formation. We found that these extra skills helped identify the really good ones (SS FJ) from the good (2 seat) from the average (ME/RW). Also, on our UAS, we used to use proper 'composite' sorties as a build up to FHT (outside the suyllabus, I think - but we had a ballsy OC).
For example, we would ask 2 studes to plan and brief a formation deparure and some pairs manouvring, then to split, followed by a bit of LL to Ip-tgt (not TOT), then pull out out of LL to GH and IF home, finishing off with ccts- with a few emergencies thrown in! Once the studes learnt to cope with an 1:30 of this (in a Bulldog too), then the syllabus FHT was a piece of cake! Scores reflected what we asked them to do over and above the syllabus and they went on to become better pilots for it - certainly they breezed FHT (mostly). Furthermore, it was quite challenging for QFIs to keep ahead of things, keping us on our mettle.
However, Beags, with or without formation and LL, you and I know that those days are gone - most regrettably!
Your idea sounds good and certainly better than this proposed fudge but I would lament the loss of LL and formation. We found that these extra skills helped identify the really good ones (SS FJ) from the good (2 seat) from the average (ME/RW). Also, on our UAS, we used to use proper 'composite' sorties as a build up to FHT (outside the suyllabus, I think - but we had a ballsy OC).
For example, we would ask 2 studes to plan and brief a formation deparure and some pairs manouvring, then to split, followed by a bit of LL to Ip-tgt (not TOT), then pull out out of LL to GH and IF home, finishing off with ccts- with a few emergencies thrown in! Once the studes learnt to cope with an 1:30 of this (in a Bulldog too), then the syllabus FHT was a piece of cake! Scores reflected what we asked them to do over and above the syllabus and they went on to become better pilots for it - certainly they breezed FHT (mostly). Furthermore, it was quite challenging for QFIs to keep ahead of things, keping us on our mettle.
However, Beags, with or without formation and LL, you and I know that those days are gone - most regrettably!
Well, the formation and low-level aspects were obviously very demanding, but my feeling is that sound airmanship and consolidated stick-and-rudder skills at UAS level are more important than so-called streaming assessment. Which, frankly was total bolleaux and grossly unfair - as I've always said!
Is 60 hours proper flying training on Das Teutor for future RAF pilots at university really too expensive in today's RAF? Surely it's of more value than giving future ground-pounders 30 hours of "Oooh - aren't you clever" air experience?
Is 60 hours proper flying training on Das Teutor for future RAF pilots at university really too expensive in today's RAF? Surely it's of more value than giving future ground-pounders 30 hours of "Oooh - aren't you clever" air experience?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Yes - we did the composite stuff before and after streaming was introduced - but we probably would have been b0llocked by HQ UAS if they had known. Streaming at UAS was an @rse idea - everyone said so at the time but it probably saved the UASs back then.
Bl00dy bean-c*nters (oops that should be bean-counters, sorry!)
Yes - we did the composite stuff before and after streaming was introduced - but we probably would have been b0llocked by HQ UAS if they had known. Streaming at UAS was an @rse idea - everyone said so at the time but it probably saved the UASs back then.
Bl00dy bean-c*nters (oops that should be bean-counters, sorry!)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Around and about
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
If the new system allowed 20hrs per year and was all given by QFIs and not AEF pilots, what would your recommendation be post IOT? I'd like to see everybody go to Linton but I can't see that happening.
With regards to LL and formation on the old system, I think flipster is right. Also, I heard a nasty rumour that when doubt existed about the ability of a stude who may have been "positively stroked" shall we say
those concerned could turn to LL and formation SRFs to see how said stude coped in these demanding areas.
But it was just a nasty rumour...
GF
If the new system allowed 20hrs per year and was all given by QFIs and not AEF pilots, what would your recommendation be post IOT? I'd like to see everybody go to Linton but I can't see that happening.
With regards to LL and formation on the old system, I think flipster is right. Also, I heard a nasty rumour that when doubt existed about the ability of a stude who may have been "positively stroked" shall we say
those concerned could turn to LL and formation SRFs to see how said stude coped in these demanding areas. But it was just a nasty rumour...
GF
Post IOT? A common-core BFTS system for ALL ab-initio RAF pilots - and an end to the pervasive 'fast-jet centric' attitude towards flying training.
Are you saying that it is intended that some of the non-air experience flying training to be conducted at UASs will be conducted by people who aren't even QFIs? Please clarify that, if you would.
Are you saying that it is intended that some of the non-air experience flying training to be conducted at UASs will be conducted by people who aren't even QFIs? Please clarify that, if you would.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The vast majority of flying training will be conducted by QFIs, although I understand that some of the latter sorties may be flown by ex-QFI AEF pilots who do a "C to I UAS" upgrade/refresher course. Those UAS cadets who only wish to do air experence flying may be flown by non-QFI AEF pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tesco seems to do well when it opens a store 'near you'.
The UAS's are now on the opposite path; let's remove them from where the students are based.
We are so wonderful we don't need to promote the RAF.
Crazy...
The UAS's are now on the opposite path; let's remove them from where the students are based.
We are so wonderful we don't need to promote the RAF.
Crazy...
Wholigan, the reason I ask is that currently only flying training conducted by current CFS categorised QFIs on type or pilots holding valid civil Flight Instructor ratings may be counted towards civil pilot licensing requirements.
The status of such so-called 'C-to-I UAS instructors' is, by its very definition, uncertain. It will be necessary for their status to be assessed by the CAA's advisers before any credit may be given for any flying training flown with them. The basic guideline will probably be "If they held civil licences, would they meet the current military QFI to FI Rating accreditation criteria?" If yes, OK - it'll obviously count. If no, then the hours will most probably be considered to be passenger hours only.
Currently, the equivalence applies only to QFIs who have flown a CFS Standardisation Check in the previous 12 months and is:
CFS Category B2 will equate to a FI(A) with all restrictions as per JAR-FCL 1.325. For details of these restrictions and their removal, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.
CFS Category B1, with at least 200 hours flight instruction, will equate to a FI(A) without the Supervisory Restriction. All other restrictions will be endorsed and to remove the restrictions, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.
CFS Categories A1 and A2 will equate to a FI(A) with no restrictions other than single pilot, single engine aeroplanes.
Note that 'C-to-I' is not credited.
The status of such so-called 'C-to-I UAS instructors' is, by its very definition, uncertain. It will be necessary for their status to be assessed by the CAA's advisers before any credit may be given for any flying training flown with them. The basic guideline will probably be "If they held civil licences, would they meet the current military QFI to FI Rating accreditation criteria?" If yes, OK - it'll obviously count. If no, then the hours will most probably be considered to be passenger hours only.
Currently, the equivalence applies only to QFIs who have flown a CFS Standardisation Check in the previous 12 months and is:
CFS Category B2 will equate to a FI(A) with all restrictions as per JAR-FCL 1.325. For details of these restrictions and their removal, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.
CFS Category B1, with at least 200 hours flight instruction, will equate to a FI(A) without the Supervisory Restriction. All other restrictions will be endorsed and to remove the restrictions, refer to LASORS Section H1.4.
CFS Categories A1 and A2 will equate to a FI(A) with no restrictions other than single pilot, single engine aeroplanes.
Note that 'C-to-I' is not credited.
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Sep 2005 at 21:14.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....which still raises the question of why a volunteer AEF pilot is going to offer himself for such QFI duties and the time-consuming extras (Bf, DBf, Admin, CFS Stds) when he's only out for some weekend flying for enjoyment.
How do these chaps become QFIs? I doubt that many can afford to spend a full course time at CWL. Do CFS start to 'roam' to train these guys? They'll love that!
Uncle G
How do these chaps become QFIs? I doubt that many can afford to spend a full course time at CWL. Do CFS start to 'roam' to train these guys? They'll love that!
Uncle G
Presumably a survey was conducted to answer that question before the recommendation was made, Uncle G? Otherwise how on earth could the savings be quantified?
How many of these weekend fliers who currently just give joyrides to young cadets really said that they'd be happy to give up their H-o-P time to do some QFI-ing?
And what will the non-service ones be paid for QFI-ing?
How many of these weekend fliers who currently just give joyrides to young cadets really said that they'd be happy to give up their H-o-P time to do some QFI-ing?
And what will the non-service ones be paid for QFI-ing?
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Sep 2005 at 22:40.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Around and about
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle,
Though I'm not sure (bit worse for wear due to sherbert!) I was under the impression that most "instruction"/pax flying would be conducted by AEF pilots (Ex-QFIs maybe? - but does that count on paper?) and certain trips e.g. pre-solos would be conducted by a QFI. I really don't know for sure how the instruction is going to work but that is how I understand it!
GF
Though I'm not sure (bit worse for wear due to sherbert!) I was under the impression that most "instruction"/pax flying would be conducted by AEF pilots (Ex-QFIs maybe? - but does that count on paper?) and certain trips e.g. pre-solos would be conducted by a QFI. I really don't know for sure how the instruction is going to work but that is how I understand it!
GF