UASs CUT
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Many thanks. Looking at our squadron records though Off Cdts and Cdt Plts seem to co-exist. At the risk of appearing startlingly dull was the distinction between the VR members made on branch alone?
Thanks again
Mike
Many thanks. Looking at our squadron records though Off Cdts and Cdt Plts seem to co-exist. At the risk of appearing startlingly dull was the distinction between the VR members made on branch alone?
Thanks again
Mike
In Oct 1991, the long-established rank of Cadet Pilot was abolished and replaced by Offficer Cadet (Pilot). Before then it was easy - those already selected for the RAF were Acting Pilot Officers (and paid as such), the rest were Cadet Pilots.
As an APO in 1972 I received about £1200 per year. To give you an idea how far that went, accommodation ('hall fees') were £6 per week, a fixed price lunch with waiter service in the Chinese restaurant opposite the hall was about 35p and an 18 month old MG Midget cost me £750.
There were no'bursars' in those days, that was another cheapskate scheme brought in later on. And it's worth what - about £1000 per annum? That's about 8% of what I was paid.
As has already been said, Grand Fromage, flight instruction will only count towards civil licences if conducted by a current CFS-catted QFI on type or a civilian pilot with a valid FI Rating. Anything else will be considered to be passenger flying.
As an APO in 1972 I received about £1200 per year. To give you an idea how far that went, accommodation ('hall fees') were £6 per week, a fixed price lunch with waiter service in the Chinese restaurant opposite the hall was about 35p and an 18 month old MG Midget cost me £750.
There were no'bursars' in those days, that was another cheapskate scheme brought in later on. And it's worth what - about £1000 per annum? That's about 8% of what I was paid.
As has already been said, Grand Fromage, flight instruction will only count towards civil licences if conducted by a current CFS-catted QFI on type or a civilian pilot with a valid FI Rating. Anything else will be considered to be passenger flying.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Not the front line
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grand Fromage,
An ex-QFI can do a short refresher course to become CtoI (competent to instruct) on a type other than that they were a QFI on. Hence an ex Bulldog/JP/Hawk/Gnat/whatever A2 QFI currently on an AEF can become a CtoI Tutor QFI relatively easily; but it would probably still involve a 20-30 hour course.
To then "reactivate" their A2, they'd have to do a fair bit of flying with the appropriate standards people. I'm not sure if there'd be an hours requirement.
An ex-QFI can do a short refresher course to become CtoI (competent to instruct) on a type other than that they were a QFI on. Hence an ex Bulldog/JP/Hawk/Gnat/whatever A2 QFI currently on an AEF can become a CtoI Tutor QFI relatively easily; but it would probably still involve a 20-30 hour course.
To then "reactivate" their A2, they'd have to do a fair bit of flying with the appropriate standards people. I'm not sure if there'd be an hours requirement.
Manning:
Before this fiasco, and since time immemorial, was it the case that each UAS was staffed entirely by A2 cat instructors?
Until the change, what proportion were serving officers? Just the CO and CFI, or more or less than that?
The change will reduce in a reduction of 21 posts. Who are these? How will the new UASs be manned? And where does it say this?
Basing:
There was a reference on this thread to SUAS 'ceasing flying' at Boscombe. Surely while EFTS flying is ceasing at the existing UASs they will remain in place at their established airfields, along with the various AEFs?
Cost savings:
Does anyone have figures that either support or disprove the HQ PTC claim that:
"a UAS-trained pilot who started Basic Flying Training had a higher chance of getting to a Fast Jet OCU (a 95% chance of success) than a non graduate 'Direct Entry' (DE) pilot with exactly the same aptitude test score. These DE pilots were calculated to have only an 85% chance of passing through Basic Flying Training, with an even slimmer chance of making it to OCU."
(This means that a UAS trained bloke had a 10% higher chance of getting to a FJ OCU than a DE bloke with exactly the same aptitude test results had of making it through BFTS.)
Or can anyone provide 'matching' stats - directly comparing the success rate of FJ and DE pilots at the same point in training?
It strikes me that the number of hours saved would not have to be great to pay for the UAS system. How much can a UAS student cost? 70 flying hours (£10,000), wear and tear on and consumption of issued kit (£1,000) and attendance allowance (?). Certainly less than two Hawk flying hours (£16,000 plus).
Has a total UAS running cost figure ever been calculated?
Before this fiasco, and since time immemorial, was it the case that each UAS was staffed entirely by A2 cat instructors?
Until the change, what proportion were serving officers? Just the CO and CFI, or more or less than that?
The change will reduce in a reduction of 21 posts. Who are these? How will the new UASs be manned? And where does it say this?
Basing:
There was a reference on this thread to SUAS 'ceasing flying' at Boscombe. Surely while EFTS flying is ceasing at the existing UASs they will remain in place at their established airfields, along with the various AEFs?
Cost savings:
Does anyone have figures that either support or disprove the HQ PTC claim that:
"a UAS-trained pilot who started Basic Flying Training had a higher chance of getting to a Fast Jet OCU (a 95% chance of success) than a non graduate 'Direct Entry' (DE) pilot with exactly the same aptitude test score. These DE pilots were calculated to have only an 85% chance of passing through Basic Flying Training, with an even slimmer chance of making it to OCU."
(This means that a UAS trained bloke had a 10% higher chance of getting to a FJ OCU than a DE bloke with exactly the same aptitude test results had of making it through BFTS.)
Or can anyone provide 'matching' stats - directly comparing the success rate of FJ and DE pilots at the same point in training?
It strikes me that the number of hours saved would not have to be great to pay for the UAS system. How much can a UAS student cost? 70 flying hours (£10,000), wear and tear on and consumption of issued kit (£1,000) and attendance allowance (?). Certainly less than two Hawk flying hours (£16,000 plus).
Has a total UAS running cost figure ever been calculated?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
That survey has been initiated - on 26 Sep 05 - a whole five days after the decision!
....and that, my dear fellow, is my point precisely.
Furthermore, AEF pilots are currently paid out of the ACO budget. How long, i wonder, before the ACO ask for a 'hire-fee' for their pilots?
The UAS manning plot is deemed to be 1 S/L Boss (any branch), 1 F/L QFI, 1 Sgt GTI and a S/L Adj as at present. Let's have a look at the Sqn workload and secondary duties?
Quart out of a pint pot?
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?
....and that, my dear fellow, is my point precisely.
Furthermore, AEF pilots are currently paid out of the ACO budget. How long, i wonder, before the ACO ask for a 'hire-fee' for their pilots?
The UAS manning plot is deemed to be 1 S/L Boss (any branch), 1 F/L QFI, 1 Sgt GTI and a S/L Adj as at present. Let's have a look at the Sqn workload and secondary duties?
Quart out of a pint pot?
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 28th Sep 2005 at 15:18.
"The UAS manning plot is deemed to be 1 S/L Boss (any branch), 1 F/L QFI, 1 Sgt GTI and a S/L Adj as at present. Let's have a look at the Sqn workload and secondary duties?"
So - a couple of penguins Sqn Ldrs with absolutely no background of running a flying squadron will run this shambles, whilst some jockstapping Sgt will chase the lucky students around the sports fields?
Why do they need a S/L Adjutant, for heaven's sake?
Incidentally, do/will AEF pilots have current IRs on type? Or will they be restricted to day VMC operations? Not much chance of teaching S&L 1 & 2 in winter if you can't get VMC on top with a good horizon....
They did think about that, didn't they.....??
So - a couple of penguins Sqn Ldrs with absolutely no background of running a flying squadron will run this shambles, whilst some jockstapping Sgt will chase the lucky students around the sports fields?
Why do they need a S/L Adjutant, for heaven's sake?
Incidentally, do/will AEF pilots have current IRs on type? Or will they be restricted to day VMC operations? Not much chance of teaching S&L 1 & 2 in winter if you can't get VMC on top with a good horizon....
They did think about that, didn't they.....??
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So - a couple of penguins Sqn Ldrs with absolutely no background of running a flying squadron will run this shambles, whilst some jockstapping Sgt will chase the lucky students around the sports fields
So who's left to fulfil all of the secondary duties related to flying?
Beags & tmmorris - AEF pilots currently do not routinely hold IRs, hence the current VMC only caveat. Current TGOs state that a current QFI must have a valid IR - This is another factor which the AEF will have to consider to stay current, unless TGOs are changed.
As for your point on the GTIs, they have been an incredibly valuable asset to the Sqn's over the last few years of their existence. They are all fully trained and experienced ATIs (Adv Trg Instrs) as well as PDT professionals - this is where the focus of UAS trg is to be now! I feel it may be the Sqn Ldrs who are running round the sports fields with little else to do
Uncle G
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UAS - the New World Order
This seems financially-driven to an outsider, but as a management consultant with a finance background I despair at civil servants who can't do sums !
Back in the era 84-89 Leeds UOTC had Infantry, Artillery, Signals and Engineer Wings. Others had Tankie and REME sub-units. If the UAS have to evolve then why not adopt a similar structure: Int, Ops Supp, ATC etc. I'm sure that the relevant courses from Waddo/Chicksands and Shawbury could be modularised. Obtaining a FISO certificate whilst at Uni or doing a chunk of theory on P of F ain't the same as what you get at the minute, but it's still differentiated from Green / Dark Blue offerings.
Like the OTC, only a few DS would be Perm Staff or NRPS, a small establishment of officer/SNCO reservists could deliver the 'wider' training package. It doesn't have to be imitating the Rock Apes every weekend.
A bit of imagination, that's the key....
FP
Back in the era 84-89 Leeds UOTC had Infantry, Artillery, Signals and Engineer Wings. Others had Tankie and REME sub-units. If the UAS have to evolve then why not adopt a similar structure: Int, Ops Supp, ATC etc. I'm sure that the relevant courses from Waddo/Chicksands and Shawbury could be modularised. Obtaining a FISO certificate whilst at Uni or doing a chunk of theory on P of F ain't the same as what you get at the minute, but it's still differentiated from Green / Dark Blue offerings.
Like the OTC, only a few DS would be Perm Staff or NRPS, a small establishment of officer/SNCO reservists could deliver the 'wider' training package. It doesn't have to be imitating the Rock Apes every weekend.
A bit of imagination, that's the key....
FP
Err, pretty damn soon, is the answer to that, I believe? It's not a "in 5 years we'll stop this", I think it applies to all UAS as of this years recruiting, so whether the 2nd/3rd/4th year chaps will finish their flying I do no know.
Btw, thought a hawk was 6k an hour?
On the course front, it certainly seems like a lot more effort could be put into the GT syllabus, but surely that's going to result from this? Bear in mind, however that part of the justification for chopping EFT from the UAS is that it puts a burden on students whilst at uni..... GTI's certainly seem to do a good job though!
Just as an aside, those pilots on an AEF who are flying full time can AFAIK get a valid IR and fly IMC (although I believe there might be a restriction about flying spaceys in cloud, though don't hold me to that.) The reason I say this is that a good number of holding chappies have been farmed out to AEFs recently, and I believe they have been allowed IMC, though I may be mistaken
Btw, thought a hawk was 6k an hour?
On the course front, it certainly seems like a lot more effort could be put into the GT syllabus, but surely that's going to result from this? Bear in mind, however that part of the justification for chopping EFT from the UAS is that it puts a burden on students whilst at uni..... GTI's certainly seem to do a good job though!
Just as an aside, those pilots on an AEF who are flying full time can AFAIK get a valid IR and fly IMC (although I believe there might be a restriction about flying spaceys in cloud, though don't hold me to that.) The reason I say this is that a good number of holding chappies have been farmed out to AEFs recently, and I believe they have been allowed IMC, though I may be mistaken
durpilot
EFT (for VR students only) on UASs has stopped - it stopped on the day of the announcement. As has been mentioned on this thread the 10 hrs per student per year has started - it started on the day of the announcement. If you are part way through the syllabus you will continue on the old EFT syllabus until the new syllabus is formally (ie not on PPRuNe) published. Then depending upon your progress you will continue on the new syllabus or get 'value-added' flying.
As an example if you have already done the nav phase there is no point working you up to the now non-existant FHT so you may be taught IP to Target runs, or if you have completed the formation phase you may be taught tail-chasing ie the 'value-added' elements that were sadly removed from the EFT syllabus when it was cut from 90 to 60 hours.
EFT (for VR students only) on UASs has stopped - it stopped on the day of the announcement. As has been mentioned on this thread the 10 hrs per student per year has started - it started on the day of the announcement. If you are part way through the syllabus you will continue on the old EFT syllabus until the new syllabus is formally (ie not on PPRuNe) published. Then depending upon your progress you will continue on the new syllabus or get 'value-added' flying.
As an example if you have already done the nav phase there is no point working you up to the now non-existant FHT so you may be taught IP to Target runs, or if you have completed the formation phase you may be taught tail-chasing ie the 'value-added' elements that were sadly removed from the EFT syllabus when it was cut from 90 to 60 hours.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pba_target,
Some AEF pilots may have valid IRTs. As for Holding Offr Convexees, why waste the hrs giving them a rating (remember, ratings are type-specific)? For all AEF types, if rated, they would then have to keep the required currency (i.e. "Five hrs IF in the previous 6 months, including 2 hrs actual. Twelve instrument letdowns and approaches in the previous 6 months. Additionally, pilots should avoid long periods with no IF activity and are to achieve a minimum of 2 hrs IF (actual or simulated) and 3 instrument approaches every 3 calendar months ").
This can be hard enough for current UAS QFIs (esp the 2hrs actual). Why would AEFs want to bother with this for very limited benefit to the current ACO flying, with a lot of IF time and practice required?
Uncle G
Some AEF pilots may have valid IRTs. As for Holding Offr Convexees, why waste the hrs giving them a rating (remember, ratings are type-specific)? For all AEF types, if rated, they would then have to keep the required currency (i.e. "Five hrs IF in the previous 6 months, including 2 hrs actual. Twelve instrument letdowns and approaches in the previous 6 months. Additionally, pilots should avoid long periods with no IF activity and are to achieve a minimum of 2 hrs IF (actual or simulated) and 3 instrument approaches every 3 calendar months ").
This can be hard enough for current UAS QFIs (esp the 2hrs actual). Why would AEFs want to bother with this for very limited benefit to the current ACO flying, with a lot of IF time and practice required?
Uncle G
As far as I know on my AEF (the glorious 12th) nobody has a RAF IR although plenty of us have civilian IRs provided by the companies we work for.
There is no real requirement for us to hold IRs as the type of flying we do has generally to be done in VMC anyway as most cadets want to do aeros etc.
As has been said in an earlier post it would not be cost efficient or even practical to obtain and keep an IR current under RAF rules which are far more stringent than the civilian ones.
As an AEF pilot I look forward to the "New" UAS with interest and will hopefully be able to offer my services (unpaid) to the new system!!
HF
There is no real requirement for us to hold IRs as the type of flying we do has generally to be done in VMC anyway as most cadets want to do aeros etc.
As has been said in an earlier post it would not be cost efficient or even practical to obtain and keep an IR current under RAF rules which are far more stringent than the civilian ones.
As an AEF pilot I look forward to the "New" UAS with interest and will hopefully be able to offer my services (unpaid) to the new system!!
HF
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Poor ole RAF must have been disappointed to pay you all that loot as an APO & then you drop out as a Fast Jet Mate! Could have got the tanker Dudes from the DE fellahs who cost nufink at Uni! Banter aside - suspect with the future size of RAF & numbers of young fellahs wishing to whizz around in Typhoons - UAS an expense Tony/New Labour can not afford. My 180 hours Bulldog in three years (doss degree - cadet pilot) in the late seventies convinced me to sign on. My ilk no longer requied methinks!
Poor ole RAF must have been disappointed to pay you all that loot as an APO & then you drop out as a Fast Jet Mate! Could have got the tanker Dudes from the DE fellahs who cost nufink at Uni! Banter aside - suspect with the future size of RAF & numbers of young fellahs wishing to whizz around in Typhoons - UAS an expense Tony/New Labour can not afford. My 180 hours Bulldog in three years (doss degree - cadet pilot) in the late seventies convinced me to sign on. My ilk no longer requied methinks!
Back then the RAF wasn't as 'fast-jet centric' as unfortunately it is these days! Of a typical RAFC Flt Cdt course, perhaps 2 or 3 would go to the Gnat, about 10 to the Varsity - and 1 might have to go to the Whirlwind..... It was only from about 1974 that the surge in pointy-head training and virtual cessation of ME training occurred.
Of a typical RAFC Flt Cdt course, perhaps 2 or 3 would go to the Gnat, about 10 to the Varsity
What period are you talking about Beagle?
YS