UASs CUT
Roland Pulfrew
Forgetting about the sorry demise of once great UAS system, will these new female recruits you alluded too be at The Display Pilot's leaving bash????
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Flipster wrote:
<<I don't think so as, these days, nearly every 18 yo of any quality wants a degree, while DE TOS must be very unattractive to todays 'youff'. Furthermore, with today's apparent educational standards, those that want DE may be less likely to be of the right calibre. >>
There are pros and cons in this argument and it is another sign of the magic roundabout. If we accept that the educational output at 18 is not what it was we must also accept that the same is true of university. I make that assumption on the basis that the first year is now making good any knowledge or skill gap at school. The range of degrees on offer are also questionable. So our 18 year old that wants to go to university must also be selective in what degree course they embark on. In other words they must already be aiming at military flying.
What hasn't been stated in this UAS release is the shift to getting in DE aircrew at 18. The training system then handles any academic discrepancies and the 18 year old enters productive service 3 years earlier and can leave after a couple of productive tours whereas the UAS man may be seeking out after one tour - but that is less attractive in terms of hours and experience!
Do UAS make better aircrew prospects? As I said before, of 6 ex-UAS only the two who wanted to be navigators made it straight through the system (and the only two who got their PFB). Of the other 4, all became chopped pilots and only one got through nav training.
From that I would conclude that they did not have a better chance of getting to a FJ cockpit but a better chance of staying in the system so we would get a return on our money.
From this end of the tunnel that looks a very dubious prospect especially as we marked the 3 failures as high risk at the meet and greet!
<<I don't think so as, these days, nearly every 18 yo of any quality wants a degree, while DE TOS must be very unattractive to todays 'youff'. Furthermore, with today's apparent educational standards, those that want DE may be less likely to be of the right calibre. >>
There are pros and cons in this argument and it is another sign of the magic roundabout. If we accept that the educational output at 18 is not what it was we must also accept that the same is true of university. I make that assumption on the basis that the first year is now making good any knowledge or skill gap at school. The range of degrees on offer are also questionable. So our 18 year old that wants to go to university must also be selective in what degree course they embark on. In other words they must already be aiming at military flying.
What hasn't been stated in this UAS release is the shift to getting in DE aircrew at 18. The training system then handles any academic discrepancies and the 18 year old enters productive service 3 years earlier and can leave after a couple of productive tours whereas the UAS man may be seeking out after one tour - but that is less attractive in terms of hours and experience!
Do UAS make better aircrew prospects? As I said before, of 6 ex-UAS only the two who wanted to be navigators made it straight through the system (and the only two who got their PFB). Of the other 4, all became chopped pilots and only one got through nav training.
From that I would conclude that they did not have a better chance of getting to a FJ cockpit but a better chance of staying in the system so we would get a return on our money.
From this end of the tunnel that looks a very dubious prospect especially as we marked the 3 failures as high risk at the meet and greet!
The NPPL syllabus defines the dual and solo content required - basically a total of 32 hours of which 10 must be solo. That excludes the Navigation and General Skill Tests, each of which are about 90 min and must be flown with a UK/FE(PPL).
The Navigation Skill Test must be on a route which the student has not practised before, dual or solo. So no cheating by flying it dual beforehand! The NST must be passed before the Qualifying Cross-Country (including 2 intermediate landings at aerodromes other than the point of departure) is flown.
The theoretical knowledge syllabus is very specific.
The current level of accreditation agreed by the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee for UAS students seeking a NPPL with SSEA Rating was based upon 'traditional' UAS theoretical and flying training. However, a decision taken in committee in June this year, chaired by the CAA's Head of Licensing, requires that, once the 'new' UAS syllabus appears, the NPPL Policy and Steering Comittee will decide how much credit the new scheme will be given towards the NPPL with SSEA Rating - and it is by no means certain that it will receive the same levels of accreditation as hitherto.
The NPPL P&SC will be requesting early sight of the 'new' UAS ground and flight training courses in order to approve the appropriate level of accreditation.
Roly - what are 'Q qualified pilots'? Do you mean QFIs? Or something else? Recent conversation with the relevant CAA Head confirms that only flying training conducted by a current QFI on type or the holder of a current civil FI Rating may be counted towards licence issue. Any other 'air experience' flying will be considered to be passenger flying only.
The Navigation Skill Test must be on a route which the student has not practised before, dual or solo. So no cheating by flying it dual beforehand! The NST must be passed before the Qualifying Cross-Country (including 2 intermediate landings at aerodromes other than the point of departure) is flown.
The theoretical knowledge syllabus is very specific.
The current level of accreditation agreed by the NPPL Policy and Steering Committee for UAS students seeking a NPPL with SSEA Rating was based upon 'traditional' UAS theoretical and flying training. However, a decision taken in committee in June this year, chaired by the CAA's Head of Licensing, requires that, once the 'new' UAS syllabus appears, the NPPL Policy and Steering Comittee will decide how much credit the new scheme will be given towards the NPPL with SSEA Rating - and it is by no means certain that it will receive the same levels of accreditation as hitherto.
The NPPL P&SC will be requesting early sight of the 'new' UAS ground and flight training courses in order to approve the appropriate level of accreditation.
Roly - what are 'Q qualified pilots'? Do you mean QFIs? Or something else? Recent conversation with the relevant CAA Head confirms that only flying training conducted by a current QFI on type or the holder of a current civil FI Rating may be counted towards licence issue. Any other 'air experience' flying will be considered to be passenger flying only.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Sep 2005 at 08:11.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one of my 'flippets' ever wants to join the mil after uni (if they get that far), then, certainly, I would not recommend the proposed University 'Ground' Sqns - the OTC or URNU would get my vote - depending on whether my 'precious ones' prefer eating mud or salt water!
Even with the 'attraction' of 10 hours air experience a yr, any undergrad worth their salt would think likewise - EVEN those already wanting to join the RAF after uni! Intelligent youngsters are more than capable of reading between the lines and they will know they would get a better deal (AND MORE FUN) with properly run units, rather than with the shambles that UASs are doomed to become.
If we continue down this path, we are in danger of losing out to the RN and Army and, as I have said before, to the airlines who are staring a shortfall of pilots in the face.
Spirit of Lord Trenchard - where are you now?
Even with the 'attraction' of 10 hours air experience a yr, any undergrad worth their salt would think likewise - EVEN those already wanting to join the RAF after uni! Intelligent youngsters are more than capable of reading between the lines and they will know they would get a better deal (AND MORE FUN) with properly run units, rather than with the shambles that UASs are doomed to become.
If we continue down this path, we are in danger of losing out to the RN and Army and, as I have said before, to the airlines who are staring a shortfall of pilots in the face.
Spirit of Lord Trenchard - where are you now?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one who spent time in the UAS system during the 3 years that straddled the switch to EFT, I am dismayed at this neutering of the UAS system.
The EFT idea was always a bad one, although it perhaps delayed this inevitable outcome by a few years. The old system, however, had much to commend it - bright undergrads were given the time and space to work on their degrees whilst gaining invaluable experience, in both flying and the RAF way of life, with no pressure other than passing checks and proving themself not to be a pillock in the bar. No need to prove fast jet potential, that could wait until EFT proper when they would bring their accumulated experience and 100% of their effort to bear on the task.
So what will we have now? 3 years of IOT preparation with a laughable nod to what really drives these people with 10 hours a year of AEF? I might have joined a UAS like that, having spent several years in the ATC and made my mind up a long time before that I wanted to join the RAF. Would a proportion of my erstwhile colleagues, many of whom are now RAF aircrew, have joined? Doubtful.
The fight for the brightest and best graduates is more intense than ever, and the forces are not in fashion at the moment. 'Advanced Air Cadets' is certainly not going to help the cause.
The EFT idea was always a bad one, although it perhaps delayed this inevitable outcome by a few years. The old system, however, had much to commend it - bright undergrads were given the time and space to work on their degrees whilst gaining invaluable experience, in both flying and the RAF way of life, with no pressure other than passing checks and proving themself not to be a pillock in the bar. No need to prove fast jet potential, that could wait until EFT proper when they would bring their accumulated experience and 100% of their effort to bear on the task.
So what will we have now? 3 years of IOT preparation with a laughable nod to what really drives these people with 10 hours a year of AEF? I might have joined a UAS like that, having spent several years in the ATC and made my mind up a long time before that I wanted to join the RAF. Would a proportion of my erstwhile colleagues, many of whom are now RAF aircrew, have joined? Doubtful.
The fight for the brightest and best graduates is more intense than ever, and the forces are not in fashion at the moment. 'Advanced Air Cadets' is certainly not going to help the cause.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Effect on Recruiting
Hello all,
I'd just like to add my comments to Flipster and Beagle's concerns about the effects on recruiting.
They are concerned that only 10 hours of flying will turn people off the UASs and on to the URNU/OTC/TA etc. I don't believe this to be the case.
Firstly, the reduction in flying hours is not as dramatic as first appears. 10 hours a year is more than most old-system ground branch generally did anyway. Yes, there are a few keenies who bag all the STC trips going, but these will still be around. Also, if the pilot chaps divide their course evenly over the three years it amounts to 20 hours a year, which is a mere 10 flying hours less.
The cut in flying does not therefore seem that significant.
Also, the UAS seems to mainly recruit two types of people: Those who have done Cadets etc and are looking to pursue a career once they grad, or people who see the opportunity at Freshers' Fayre and decide to give it a shot. Neither types are being put off by the changes. The ex-cadet types still want what flying there is and prefer the RAF culture over the Trench-digging and the off-to-bed-early of the OTC and the URNU. The guys who find out about the UAS from Freshers' Fayres haven't got a clue what EFT is anyway, and get sold on the UAS by the Sports and AT as much as the flying. We still have the edge over the other services.
In-fact, we are finding that as the entry criteria for Pilots (specifically anthropometric and medical) is no longer a player, many more undergrads are eligible to join. We therefore have a much larger pool from which to cream off the top candidates. This can be only a good thing for the UASs.
Dave.
I'd just like to add my comments to Flipster and Beagle's concerns about the effects on recruiting.
They are concerned that only 10 hours of flying will turn people off the UASs and on to the URNU/OTC/TA etc. I don't believe this to be the case.
Firstly, the reduction in flying hours is not as dramatic as first appears. 10 hours a year is more than most old-system ground branch generally did anyway. Yes, there are a few keenies who bag all the STC trips going, but these will still be around. Also, if the pilot chaps divide their course evenly over the three years it amounts to 20 hours a year, which is a mere 10 flying hours less.
The cut in flying does not therefore seem that significant.
Also, the UAS seems to mainly recruit two types of people: Those who have done Cadets etc and are looking to pursue a career once they grad, or people who see the opportunity at Freshers' Fayre and decide to give it a shot. Neither types are being put off by the changes. The ex-cadet types still want what flying there is and prefer the RAF culture over the Trench-digging and the off-to-bed-early of the OTC and the URNU. The guys who find out about the UAS from Freshers' Fayres haven't got a clue what EFT is anyway, and get sold on the UAS by the Sports and AT as much as the flying. We still have the edge over the other services.
In-fact, we are finding that as the entry criteria for Pilots (specifically anthropometric and medical) is no longer a player, many more undergrads are eligible to join. We therefore have a much larger pool from which to cream off the top candidates. This can be only a good thing for the UASs.
Dave.
Rodan,
As someone who straddled the change, can you tell us when that was?
When did DE blokes start pitching up to do EFT on UASs?
When did uni undergraduates start flying an EFT type syllabus on UAS?
Large Dave,
How does 30 hours equal 20 hours per year "if divided evenly over three years"?
As someone who straddled the change, can you tell us when that was?
When did DE blokes start pitching up to do EFT on UASs?
When did uni undergraduates start flying an EFT type syllabus on UAS?
Large Dave,
How does 30 hours equal 20 hours per year "if divided evenly over three years"?
Sorry, Large Dave, but you overlook the fact that this proposed University Air Cadet system will be competing for recruits with URNU and the OTC.
I've also noticed that one reason behind this UAS dumbing-down is to increase the availability of AEF flying for air cadets. Presumably to entice them into becoming DE pilots rather than going to university?
Was it all really that expensive pre-1995?
I've also noticed that one reason behind this UAS dumbing-down is to increase the availability of AEF flying for air cadets. Presumably to entice them into becoming DE pilots rather than going to university?
Was it all really that expensive pre-1995?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko:
I might not have been 100% clear. The change I was referring to was when UAS training assumed the status of EFT. The syllabus had been the same before the changeover, it just didn't count as EFT. After the switch, students who completed the syllabus were streamed at the end and went straight to BFT after IOT. This was, as I recall, in '97 - I can't be 100% sure though.
Edit - BEagle seems to be suggesting the switch was in 1995. I'll go along with that, he would know better.
I don't know when the DE's started pitching up on UAS's, probably after I left in '98. However, the year after the switch one of our ex-stude's came back after IOT to complete the syllabus.
Large Dave:
Was the old system not 90hrs? I certainly did more than 20hrs a year.
I might not have been 100% clear. The change I was referring to was when UAS training assumed the status of EFT. The syllabus had been the same before the changeover, it just didn't count as EFT. After the switch, students who completed the syllabus were streamed at the end and went straight to BFT after IOT. This was, as I recall, in '97 - I can't be 100% sure though.
Edit - BEagle seems to be suggesting the switch was in 1995. I'll go along with that, he would know better.
I don't know when the DE's started pitching up on UAS's, probably after I left in '98. However, the year after the switch one of our ex-stude's came back after IOT to complete the syllabus.
Large Dave:
Was the old system not 90hrs? I certainly did more than 20hrs a year.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rodan- the old-old system was 90hrs, then they brought the UAS syllabus in line with the DE one- 60hrs. This happened Summer 02.
Beags- On the biggest and the best UAS which you know and love, we're finding no impact on recruiting. As I said, we're getting many more eligible applicants because of the loss of Aircrew med and anthro requirements.
At the time the Freshers are joining, they don't seem to care if its 'just' 10 hrs a year- it's more than they're going to get digging foxholes or floating around at a VNE of 20kts. The UAS still give all the AT and Sports that the OTC and URNU have, and the socials are in a different league.
The only impact I see this having is the possiblity of disheartening existing members who may now decide that the OTC or URNU 'floats their boat' more than the new UAS system, but again, I don't really see what they've got on us.
Dave
Beags- On the biggest and the best UAS which you know and love, we're finding no impact on recruiting. As I said, we're getting many more eligible applicants because of the loss of Aircrew med and anthro requirements.
At the time the Freshers are joining, they don't seem to care if its 'just' 10 hrs a year- it's more than they're going to get digging foxholes or floating around at a VNE of 20kts. The UAS still give all the AT and Sports that the OTC and URNU have, and the socials are in a different league.
The only impact I see this having is the possiblity of disheartening existing members who may now decide that the OTC or URNU 'floats their boat' more than the new UAS system, but again, I don't really see what they've got on us.
Dave
Well, I think they'll soon get bored with it. Travelling all the way to Wyton just to play Air Cadets for 3 years?
Nope - not for those with half a brain.
OK - so now you can recruit lots of pretty little girls who would have been too small to train properly under the traditional scheme. Lots of moist, pink, nubile young things who'd rather flutter their eyelids at your aeros than rush half-naked against Jerry.
Haaang on........
(With apologies to Capt E. Blackadder)
Nope - not for those with half a brain.
OK - so now you can recruit lots of pretty little girls who would have been too small to train properly under the traditional scheme. Lots of moist, pink, nubile young things who'd rather flutter their eyelids at your aeros than rush half-naked against Jerry.
Haaang on........
(With apologies to Capt E. Blackadder)
DE's on UAS's
I think I can answer that question.
When I attended Cranwell back in September 2000 three of my colleagues (one of which is sat right next to me now as a fellow Squadron pilot) were specially selected to be the first DE course, held on Yorkshire UAS.
Fact.
BV
When I attended Cranwell back in September 2000 three of my colleagues (one of which is sat right next to me now as a fellow Squadron pilot) were specially selected to be the first DE course, held on Yorkshire UAS.
Fact.
BV
Yeah, they did DE's on YUAS and ULAS once every few JEFTS courses just to relieve the load on JEFTS (aka MELINLIN) until beginning of '03, thereabouts, when the whole chabang went to DE flts all over the place....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
Whilst I detest the idea of any dumbing down of the UAS system if Large Dave says that there is no effect on recruiting I am inclined to believe him, he is somewhat in the know at present.
I know this may not be what UAS were originally designed for and may not meet with a lot of appreciation here; but genuine flying training for all, irrespective of (potential) branch, may well attract a higher proportion of talented non-pilots who may contribute much to the service in their own way.
In addition the keenos will get much more than 10 hours a year.
On the bright side as UAS are still in existence I will be able to maintain my superhuman fitness levels with occasional runs to Harrods and back.
IS THERE A ULAS IN THE HOUSE???
Regards to all
Whilst I detest the idea of any dumbing down of the UAS system if Large Dave says that there is no effect on recruiting I am inclined to believe him, he is somewhat in the know at present.
I know this may not be what UAS were originally designed for and may not meet with a lot of appreciation here; but genuine flying training for all, irrespective of (potential) branch, may well attract a higher proportion of talented non-pilots who may contribute much to the service in their own way.
In addition the keenos will get much more than 10 hours a year.
On the bright side as UAS are still in existence I will be able to maintain my superhuman fitness levels with occasional runs to Harrods and back.
IS THERE A ULAS IN THE HOUSE???
Regards to all
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it's goodnight from the UASs and therefore it's goodbye to the AEFs.
That kinda takes the Air out of Air Training Corps. Will the ATC merge with the Army Cadets? Sounds logical.
The RAF is fast becoming invisible..
C&B
That kinda takes the Air out of Air Training Corps. Will the ATC merge with the Army Cadets? Sounds logical.
The RAF is fast becoming invisible..
C&B
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will mourn the loss of the UAS's as I knew them. They were, without a shadow of a doubt the best club/society in the entirety of the British tertiary education system, and probably one of the best recruiting tools for any organisation.
As regards the issue of continuity and how the new system will be better as it gives more continuity etc for all Pilots, I have heard it said, and it makes a great deal of sense, that more contunuity will mask some weaknesses to a certain extent. It's a lot harder to study and then to prepare and fly a "complex" EFT sortie (LL Nav etc) every few weeks without having the basic continuity of a DE to fall back on (i.e. checks, basic handling, general aimanship etc). So, although this is both a pro and a con, every sortie you had to spend the first 10-15 mins regaining the feel for the aicraft and so on, as well as achieving out the aims of the sortie. BUT, if you can do it you demonstrate more potential and thus identify yourself as a good candidate for BFJT. This, however, is only my personal view based on my experience.
EDIT: This is in no way meant to be a DE v UAS post, nor I one better than the other - i'm just saying that I don't believe the argument for binning EFT on UAS's based on continuity is valid.
As regards the issue of continuity and how the new system will be better as it gives more continuity etc for all Pilots, I have heard it said, and it makes a great deal of sense, that more contunuity will mask some weaknesses to a certain extent. It's a lot harder to study and then to prepare and fly a "complex" EFT sortie (LL Nav etc) every few weeks without having the basic continuity of a DE to fall back on (i.e. checks, basic handling, general aimanship etc). So, although this is both a pro and a con, every sortie you had to spend the first 10-15 mins regaining the feel for the aicraft and so on, as well as achieving out the aims of the sortie. BUT, if you can do it you demonstrate more potential and thus identify yourself as a good candidate for BFJT. This, however, is only my personal view based on my experience.
EDIT: This is in no way meant to be a DE v UAS post, nor I one better than the other - i'm just saying that I don't believe the argument for binning EFT on UAS's based on continuity is valid.
Last edited by UberPilot; 22nd Sep 2005 at 18:39.
PBA
MELINLIN
You obviously know what you're talking about then!!
Some people on here really need to remove the noose from around their necks and forego the suicide plans for a little longer.
In reality it probably won't change very much at all. Why don't we wait a while before getting all morose and whiney. Lets leave that to the Navy. It's what they're best at!
As for all this UAS is better than DE cr@p. It's a very old and boring argument. One which I really can't be @rsed to dignify with a response. Am I to consider myself a freak statistic then. Graduate DE, JEFTS to single seat fast jet. Or am I just on the extraordinarily long METs syllabus!!
BV
You obviously know what you're talking about then!!
Some people on here really need to remove the noose from around their necks and forego the suicide plans for a little longer.
In reality it probably won't change very much at all. Why don't we wait a while before getting all morose and whiney. Lets leave that to the Navy. It's what they're best at!
As for all this UAS is better than DE cr@p. It's a very old and boring argument. One which I really can't be @rsed to dignify with a response. Am I to consider myself a freak statistic then. Graduate DE, JEFTS to single seat fast jet. Or am I just on the extraordinarily long METs syllabus!!
BV
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought there are still hundreds of teenagers out there who spend their youth going to air shows, playing flight simulators and dreaming of flying a fast jet down the Welsh valleys (I'm not the only sad one am I?). For people like that 10 hours of flying in an aerobatic aircraft and low-level nav down Derwent Water (?) will still be very attractive.
the point is that those folk who would have joined the UAS because they were going to be taught to fly will now think twice about joining... And I'm pretty sure that the vaguely stated "....fuller range of personal development and leadership training" won't be of much interest to potential recruits either.
I'm off to Uni on Saturday and have been looking forward to going for a UAS place for as logn as I can remember.
Of course i'll still go for it, but I am still truely gutted it's not the UAS I was hoping to join.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all Swiss Cheese!
Well, that's that then. We all saw it coming and now it's happened. The only problem is how to faithfully follow a plan that throws up more questions/problems than it solves:
10hrs a year - or 7.5 in Scotland!
- either way that's not enough to stay current - so what's the IA allowance for currency?
What is the true benefit of this system?
Will a flying instructor who teaches the NPPL syllabus truly still be a CFS-worthy QFI?
With one QFI per UAS, the young guys can't develop and very few old guys can offer the same energy to PDT...so who gets to be the chosen one then?
How will the AEF cope with the extra tasking (and will they want to for the same wage)?
Who will train and standardise the old-guard and how will they find the time to maintain our time-honoured proficiency?
Why weren't CFS standards involved in the planning thus far, and what are their thoughts on this standards nightmare-in-the-making for the rest of the RAF?
Will we have to put up bar prices to cover lost Pigz board earnings?
and on and on and on.......
The goat is out and running - and this time he's on acid
But like everything else at the moment, we must somehow find the answers and cobble together a result for the studes' sake......
Oh for a simple front line job....
Uncle G
10hrs a year - or 7.5 in Scotland!
- either way that's not enough to stay current - so what's the IA allowance for currency?
What is the true benefit of this system?
Will a flying instructor who teaches the NPPL syllabus truly still be a CFS-worthy QFI?
With one QFI per UAS, the young guys can't develop and very few old guys can offer the same energy to PDT...so who gets to be the chosen one then?
How will the AEF cope with the extra tasking (and will they want to for the same wage)?
Who will train and standardise the old-guard and how will they find the time to maintain our time-honoured proficiency?
Why weren't CFS standards involved in the planning thus far, and what are their thoughts on this standards nightmare-in-the-making for the rest of the RAF?
Will we have to put up bar prices to cover lost Pigz board earnings?
and on and on and on.......
The goat is out and running - and this time he's on acid
But like everything else at the moment, we must somehow find the answers and cobble together a result for the studes' sake......
Oh for a simple front line job....
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 22nd Sep 2005 at 20:42.