UASs CUT
been away for a few days so well behind the drag curve, so apologies for catching up on stale posts.
Beags, you stated way back.....
"The 13GE date I confirm - as I was on 14GE and all who graduated were sent FJ (some had to hold) bar a couple (I think) who went to RW training".
Well, I too was on 14GE - and a fine bunch we were, though I can't place you from your posts. I was one of the 3 who were destined for ME at Oakington, which was closed down some weeks before our Cranwell Graduation.
The 3 of us were sent to Leeming to do a 20 hr Kill/Hack/Maim/Napalmbabiesburn/Eatrazorbladesforbreakfast/binairmanship Course, Otherwise known as the No1 Fast Jet Lead in course (there was only one course). Two of us passed and went to Valley, where I was subsequently chopped alongside hosts of other guys.
As I recall, the RAF required the same number of pilots, they just all had to be FJ; and so with no increase in P scores, shedloads of us got chopped on the Gnat. A situation very similar to what we now have approaching us under MFTS with the numbers required for SS FJ increasing.
Beags, you stated way back.....
"The 13GE date I confirm - as I was on 14GE and all who graduated were sent FJ (some had to hold) bar a couple (I think) who went to RW training".
Well, I too was on 14GE - and a fine bunch we were, though I can't place you from your posts. I was one of the 3 who were destined for ME at Oakington, which was closed down some weeks before our Cranwell Graduation.
The 3 of us were sent to Leeming to do a 20 hr Kill/Hack/Maim/Napalmbabiesburn/Eatrazorbladesforbreakfast/binairmanship Course, Otherwise known as the No1 Fast Jet Lead in course (there was only one course). Two of us passed and went to Valley, where I was subsequently chopped alongside hosts of other guys.
As I recall, the RAF required the same number of pilots, they just all had to be FJ; and so with no increase in P scores, shedloads of us got chopped on the Gnat. A situation very similar to what we now have approaching us under MFTS with the numbers required for SS FJ increasing.
What really grips is the way in which officialdom, from the Minister to the RAF News are breathlessly presenting this as 'exciting good news', that 'students prefer', 'widening opportunity' and all the rest of the tired spin-doctored bol.locks.
Why can't some senior officer tell the truth and say that:
"At a time of increased pressure on the defence budget, we must prioritise our spending carefully. The whole flying training system is on the cusp of the most far reaching changes it has ever seen, and we have reluctantly decided that we can no longer afford the UAS system in its present form, which in any case urgently needed major structural changes. Therefore....."
Why can't some senior officer tell the truth and say that:
"At a time of increased pressure on the defence budget, we must prioritise our spending carefully. The whole flying training system is on the cusp of the most far reaching changes it has ever seen, and we have reluctantly decided that we can no longer afford the UAS system in its present form, which in any case urgently needed major structural changes. Therefore....."
6Z3 - I was the other chap who passed No 1 FJLIC - and after 1 trip the 'Kill/Hack/Maim/Napalmbabiesburn/Eatrazorbladesforbreakfast/binairmanship' staff apparently said to Cranwell "WTF hast thou sent us these peeps - they're OK for Valley as it is!". Still, we had a good time - although the chap who failed was pretty obviously never going to make it, I thought. Not ex-14GE, of course!
But sadly my QFI who had a penchant for low-level aeros (and scared me witless with some unorthodox low flying one fine day in LFA17 by rolling inverted and pulling over a bleak Yorkshire hill without warning....) later killed himself in a Jaguar - doing unauthorised low level aeros over a beach in the Mediterranean.
Did you go to Sea Kings eventually?
Weasel?
But sadly my QFI who had a penchant for low-level aeros (and scared me witless with some unorthodox low flying one fine day in LFA17 by rolling inverted and pulling over a bleak Yorkshire hill without warning....) later killed himself in a Jaguar - doing unauthorised low level aeros over a beach in the Mediterranean.
Did you go to Sea Kings eventually?
Weasel?
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Oct 2005 at 19:18.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: **VN
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If all this comes to pass it will be the end of the UAS ethos. Up til now the squadrons were run by current aircrew of mixed backgrounds in FJ/Rotary/MRA/AAR/AT with loads of frontline cred. For some of the ground branch cadets it would be the closest they ever got to being on a flying squadron (and in many ways with a better squadron spirit than found on some Op units).
With the best will in the world I find it hard to believe that with an "anybranch" Sqn Ldr OC, an SNCO PTI, RO ex-SL adj, one possibly FTRS and certainly overworked QFI/CFI and AEF pilots who don't do training nights, it isn't going to feel like a proper flying squadron or a fun place to be.
Is this just going to be the ATC for undergraduates?
With the best will in the world I find it hard to believe that with an "anybranch" Sqn Ldr OC, an SNCO PTI, RO ex-SL adj, one possibly FTRS and certainly overworked QFI/CFI and AEF pilots who don't do training nights, it isn't going to feel like a proper flying squadron or a fun place to be.
Is this just going to be the ATC for undergraduates?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC vs. UAS
The UAS becoming 'ATC+' is a risk indeed.
Surely, either the PSI / GTI establishment has to rise or else the RAuxAF has to furnish P/T instructors & DS? [But then that would eat into the planned budgetary savings from the changeover.]
However, there is alot of stuff I could teach at UAS level on the Ops/Int side that my ATC cadets are not sufficiently mature or intellectually capable of appreciating or absorbing.
Surely, either the PSI / GTI establishment has to rise or else the RAuxAF has to furnish P/T instructors & DS? [But then that would eat into the planned budgetary savings from the changeover.]
However, there is alot of stuff I could teach at UAS level on the Ops/Int side that my ATC cadets are not sufficiently mature or intellectually capable of appreciating or absorbing.
Sounds like ATC for over 18's to me. Rumours abound that they will lose 'their' VGS's. I feel like a grumpy old man but what made this country great is being eroded little by little each year.
WWW
WWW
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Around and about
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is ‘in the know’ about this, I have a question...
From what I understand, it is now fairly well established that instruction will be undertaken by the UAS QFI, AEF QFI or AEF C to I people. Air experience flying will be provided by AEF pilots.
In order to fulfil this task, more AEF pilots are to be recruited – a job which can be done by a regular officer, post Linton holding for Valley.
At the moment there are about 7-8 months holding either side of BFJT. Could this be changed so that all the holding comes after BJFT with the aim to gainfully employ holdees as UAS/AEF pilots for 14-16 months (hopefully less) and then not have to shell out extra attendance pay/FTRS to “recruit” the required number of AEF pilots?
Ok, so it means longer between the Tuc and Hawk, but there is a scaled refresher scheme anyway and surely 100+ hours P1 on the Tutor can’t hurt? Also, it will rectify the "Ghost Town" which Linton is said to be at the moment.
GF
From what I understand, it is now fairly well established that instruction will be undertaken by the UAS QFI, AEF QFI or AEF C to I people. Air experience flying will be provided by AEF pilots.
In order to fulfil this task, more AEF pilots are to be recruited – a job which can be done by a regular officer, post Linton holding for Valley.
At the moment there are about 7-8 months holding either side of BFJT. Could this be changed so that all the holding comes after BJFT with the aim to gainfully employ holdees as UAS/AEF pilots for 14-16 months (hopefully less) and then not have to shell out extra attendance pay/FTRS to “recruit” the required number of AEF pilots?
Ok, so it means longer between the Tuc and Hawk, but there is a scaled refresher scheme anyway and surely 100+ hours P1 on the Tutor can’t hurt? Also, it will rectify the "Ghost Town" which Linton is said to be at the moment.
GF
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Darkest Lincolnshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad times indeed.
I can see the logic, really I can; save money where there is no empirical evidence of benefit for the RAF. So why have an organisation which costs money for relatively little perceived output? Guys will always queue up to join the RAF to fly, UAS or no, and in this day and age there are few enough cockpits anway.
But I for one would probably not have joined the RAF were it not for the appeal generated by the UAS, both in the flying and camaraderie offered (by camaraderie I mean boozing).
During my time at Colt (5 yrs) I can think of 5 QWIs from SUAS alone. I cannot speak for those guys but I wonder how many would have joined had the UAS offered nothing more than an adult ATC.
Alas, it would appear that unless a definite financial value can be accorded to something it is line for the chop. It makes one wonder how much influence the Air Ranks actually have in the face of the balance sheets of the Treasury.
I can see the logic, really I can; save money where there is no empirical evidence of benefit for the RAF. So why have an organisation which costs money for relatively little perceived output? Guys will always queue up to join the RAF to fly, UAS or no, and in this day and age there are few enough cockpits anway.
But I for one would probably not have joined the RAF were it not for the appeal generated by the UAS, both in the flying and camaraderie offered (by camaraderie I mean boozing).
During my time at Colt (5 yrs) I can think of 5 QWIs from SUAS alone. I cannot speak for those guys but I wonder how many would have joined had the UAS offered nothing more than an adult ATC.
Alas, it would appear that unless a definite financial value can be accorded to something it is line for the chop. It makes one wonder how much influence the Air Ranks actually have in the face of the balance sheets of the Treasury.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London,UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had an answer to my question about the UAS review, which may be of interest to readers of this thread:
I was somehwat surprised that recruitment and training standards will be maintained and have put down a further question on this.
Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 21 July (WA 323), whether they have completed the review of University Air Squadrons; if so, what were the conclusions of the review; and what changes are to be made to recruitment and training standards. [HL1580]
Lord Drayson: The review of University Air Squadrons has now been completed and I refer the noble Lord to my Written Ministerial Statement of 10 October 2005 (Official Report, cols. WS 8-9). (Hansard Link) There have been no changes made to the standards of recruitment and training, although the focus of the University Air Squadron has shifted to provide more emphasis on leadership and personal development training.
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 21 July (WA 323), whether they have completed the review of University Air Squadrons; if so, what were the conclusions of the review; and what changes are to be made to recruitment and training standards. [HL1580]
Lord Drayson: The review of University Air Squadrons has now been completed and I refer the noble Lord to my Written Ministerial Statement of 10 October 2005 (Official Report, cols. WS 8-9). (Hansard Link) There have been no changes made to the standards of recruitment and training, although the focus of the University Air Squadron has shifted to provide more emphasis on leadership and personal development training.
As a tax payer, whilst I considered it an entirely reasonable use of the Defence Budget for flying training to be provided for students at University Air Squadrons, providing them with 10 hours of annual joy-riding seems an utter waste of the tax payers' money.
"What if any flying training will henceforth be given at University Air Squadrons - and by whom will it be conducted?"
"What if any flying training will henceforth be given at University Air Squadrons - and by whom will it be conducted?"
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: newark
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as an ex UAS CFI - I remember we justified our existance same as ATC - it wasn't just the ones we recruited but also the future leaders of the country(!) who would foster fond memories of the RAF (*uke!)etc etc etc
BEags
What was the point of your question? This topic explains very clearly what the flying training will be and who will be able to carry it out. Which bit do you want clarifying?
ALL students will be able to undertake 10 hours instructional flying per year. It will be on a syllabus that will closely mirror the NPPL, and students will still have to do the old (and already accredited) Crit Point system. The instruction will be done by current QFIs or AEF pilots who have previously held a QFI category and who will (after a period of training) be given a C to I on the UAS/Tutor syllabus.
All of this is explained above.
With regard to recruiting and entry standards - all students will still have to get an RAF MES - this is a minimum requirement to enable a student to participate in AT and sports etc. The MES will be the same as that required by the old "ground branch" members of the UASs. This is higher than that required for an NPPL but not as high a standard as the RAF Pilot entry requirements.
I will refrain from commenting on Lord Tim's "training standards" as it is probably too early to comment.
What was the point of your question? This topic explains very clearly what the flying training will be and who will be able to carry it out. Which bit do you want clarifying?
ALL students will be able to undertake 10 hours instructional flying per year. It will be on a syllabus that will closely mirror the NPPL, and students will still have to do the old (and already accredited) Crit Point system. The instruction will be done by current QFIs or AEF pilots who have previously held a QFI category and who will (after a period of training) be given a C to I on the UAS/Tutor syllabus.
All of this is explained above.
With regard to recruiting and entry standards - all students will still have to get an RAF MES - this is a minimum requirement to enable a student to participate in AT and sports etc. The MES will be the same as that required by the old "ground branch" members of the UASs. This is higher than that required for an NPPL but not as high a standard as the RAF Pilot entry requirements.
I will refrain from commenting on Lord Tim's "training standards" as it is probably too early to comment.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in Blighty
Age: 73
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UASs Cut
Pardon the belated intrusion from one far away in the sunshine, but the proposed syllabus jars with my experience of over ten years EFT teaching experience. In my student years continuity was a major problem. When teaching at JEFTS the students only had the weather to cause problems. ASIs stated that these current, selected, medically approved and fully groundschooled students had to fly two hours solo circuit bashing before continuing onto off circuit work. In the new, let them all have 10 hours, we will find someone who can teach it scenario, it sems that the student will need less supervision and practice 
Quite so, Ray.
I suspect that the 10 hour people (poor $ods) will end up hoarding their hours in an attempt to have some continuity. Nothing until after their summer term exams, then 10 hours, then the the 10 for the following year immediately afterwards before starting the following autumn term.... As for the final 10....
Are these 10 hour people supposed to do either air experience or 10 hours joy-riding? Or will they be allowed to do some of each?
Only that flying training conducted by a QFI or holder of a current civil FI Rating may be accredited; presumably the air experience joy-rides won't be recorded in the passenger's log book?
And incidentally, Roly, my question was phrased in a manner which others may wish to ask officially. I have been given conflicting accounts of what the 'flying training' will consist of; the CAA are aware of the fact that UAS flying has changed and until the emergent UAS syllabus has been studied, advice to NPLG will be to accredit only that UAS flying conducted prior to 21 Sep 05 pending further information. Hopefully this will all be resolved before the 2006 ANO amendment pertaining to the NPPL becomes law.
I suspect that the 10 hour people (poor $ods) will end up hoarding their hours in an attempt to have some continuity. Nothing until after their summer term exams, then 10 hours, then the the 10 for the following year immediately afterwards before starting the following autumn term.... As for the final 10....
Are these 10 hour people supposed to do either air experience or 10 hours joy-riding? Or will they be allowed to do some of each?
Only that flying training conducted by a QFI or holder of a current civil FI Rating may be accredited; presumably the air experience joy-rides won't be recorded in the passenger's log book?
And incidentally, Roly, my question was phrased in a manner which others may wish to ask officially. I have been given conflicting accounts of what the 'flying training' will consist of; the CAA are aware of the fact that UAS flying has changed and until the emergent UAS syllabus has been studied, advice to NPLG will be to accredit only that UAS flying conducted prior to 21 Sep 05 pending further information. Hopefully this will all be resolved before the 2006 ANO amendment pertaining to the NPPL becomes law.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Oct 2005 at 12:36.
The problem is that no-one really knows how it's going to pan out yet. The intention seems to be to give the studes instruction if the available staff are suitably qualified and it's what they want, otherwise it'll be AEF. My guess is that the UAS will be given a pot of hours to fly (x studes @ 10 hrs) and then the keen beans will do plenty and the others somewhat less.
Instruction will (should) be fairly accessible at some places (eg cranditz where there is a good QFI stock), less so at others. I'm sure that CFS are looking forward to doing the C to I s that will be required and then the maintenance of those quals!
Instruction will (should) be fairly accessible at some places (eg cranditz where there is a good QFI stock), less so at others. I'm sure that CFS are looking forward to doing the C to I s that will be required and then the maintenance of those quals!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surge capability....
Beags,
I agree...that's what the sensible stude might do. The problem is that with only 1xUAS QFI and 2 gusting 3 AEF C2Is, there simply won't be enough slots on the FlyPro to fly 80 students x 10hrs in that time frame (when you take into account all other factors). NB also that the AEF guys are not going to be full time so how and when will they provide their hrs? Still a big issue to sort out.
The staffing means that student fg (instructional) will happen as and when the QFIs are available. If this is spread evenly over the course of a year, then each hr airborne wll be at least 30 mins 'rust-shaking' - so each stude effectively gets 5hrs (instructional) per year - doh!
Most studes don't fly their full quota as it stands so this may not be an issue...we wait with baited breath.
Uncle G
I suspect that the 10 hour people (poor $ods) will end up hoarding their hours in an attempt to have some continuity. Nothing until after their summer term exams, then 10 hours, then the the 10 for the following year immediately afterwards before starting the following autumn term.... As for the final 10....
The staffing means that student fg (instructional) will happen as and when the QFIs are available. If this is spread evenly over the course of a year, then each hr airborne wll be at least 30 mins 'rust-shaking' - so each stude effectively gets 5hrs (instructional) per year - doh!
Most studes don't fly their full quota as it stands so this may not be an issue...we wait with baited breath.
Uncle G
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is there any specific incentive for an AEF pilot to regain a C-to-I interim QFI category?
?!?Not as yet....looking for some extra income, Beags?
No thanks, Uncle G!
Just wondered what the incentive would be to persuade part-time joy-ride pilots to go through all the extra hassle of QFI refresher flying, instrument rating tests, standards etc etc......
Just wondered what the incentive would be to persuade part-time joy-ride pilots to go through all the extra hassle of QFI refresher flying, instrument rating tests, standards etc etc......