UASs CUT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UASs CUT
Shameful blow to RAF
21 September 2005
Shadow Defence Secretary Michael Ancram has accused the Government of undermining the future capability of the Royal Air Force after the Labour-run Ministry of Defence announced dramatic cuts in training for University Air Squadrons.
Unveiling new plans for the UASs, junior minister Don Touhig said that from now on university students hoping to join the armed forces would be offered a fuller range of personal development and leadership training, while those who decide to become RAF pilots would undertake their elementary flying training after graduation.
He said this would provide a greater continuity of training for UAS graduates than the current system, under which elementary flying training is provided to university students during their degree course.
But Mr Ancram warned that the shake-up would have serious implications for RAF training and recruitment. "Currently 60% of RAF pilots and 25% of all RAF officers are recruited through University Air Squadrons. Parliament should have been consulted before any decision was taken," he said.
Accusing the MoD of deliberately misleading MPs, Mr Ancram added: "Two months ago my colleague Gerald Howarth raised the issue with the Minister who was either unable to give the answer either because he has no idea what goes on in his own department, or because he was unwilling because he was hoping to bury the bad news during the recess. In both cases he shamefully misled the House."
He added: "The breaking of the Minister's personal assurances is an unforgivable discourtesy to the House and another blow to the RAF that continues being treated in the underhand way."
21 September 2005
Shadow Defence Secretary Michael Ancram has accused the Government of undermining the future capability of the Royal Air Force after the Labour-run Ministry of Defence announced dramatic cuts in training for University Air Squadrons.
Unveiling new plans for the UASs, junior minister Don Touhig said that from now on university students hoping to join the armed forces would be offered a fuller range of personal development and leadership training, while those who decide to become RAF pilots would undertake their elementary flying training after graduation.
He said this would provide a greater continuity of training for UAS graduates than the current system, under which elementary flying training is provided to university students during their degree course.
But Mr Ancram warned that the shake-up would have serious implications for RAF training and recruitment. "Currently 60% of RAF pilots and 25% of all RAF officers are recruited through University Air Squadrons. Parliament should have been consulted before any decision was taken," he said.
Accusing the MoD of deliberately misleading MPs, Mr Ancram added: "Two months ago my colleague Gerald Howarth raised the issue with the Minister who was either unable to give the answer either because he has no idea what goes on in his own department, or because he was unwilling because he was hoping to bury the bad news during the recess. In both cases he shamefully misled the House."
He added: "The breaking of the Minister's personal assurances is an unforgivable discourtesy to the House and another blow to the RAF that continues being treated in the underhand way."
Does anyone have the full text of this outrage?
Is there anyone stupid enough to bother joining a UAS which doesn't provide real flying training?
Is there anyone stupid enough to bother joining a UAS which doesn't provide real flying training?
"RAF pilots would undertake their elementary flying training
after graduation."
WHERE?
Back to DEFTS or will the EFT Flights still exist on the UAS's????
after graduation."
WHERE?
Back to DEFTS or will the EFT Flights still exist on the UAS's????
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under the boardwalk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First we need to look at how and why we got to the position we were in with UASs until this latest announcement. The “system” (outside the RAF) was going to force the closure of UASs. In order to defend the existence of the UASs, they were tasked to do Elementary Flying Training, and thus the argument could be used that they were an integral and essential part of flying training within the RAF, and they were therefore saved from extinction. Nobody really pretended that this was a genuinely good thing, but it was certainly better than losing UASs.
The basic premise behind this latest change is – in my opinion – right, although if I were asked I would have to say that there would be better ways of achieving the advantages that the new system will bring (but that’s another story).
“What advantages?”, I hear the cynics amongst you screech.
Under the recent system of doing EFT on a UAS, the students had to try to manage the priority dilemma which they all faced. Did they concentrate on their degree and thus not perform well on EFT? (Remember that they were being streamed at the end of EFT!) Or did they concentrate on their EFT and achieve a lesser value degree? Of course those who were doing a degree that did not tax their capabilities too strenuously may have been able to balance their work such that they did well at both. However, a student doing an aeronautical engineering degree would have had considerably more difficulty doing this balancing act than someone doing media studies (sorry if I’ve just pi$$ed anybody off).
Furthermore, the UAS students doing their EFT over 2 or 3 years (with the associated currency and continuity problems) were being compared for streaming purposes with DE students who did their EFT in approximately 3 months, thus achieving excellent continuity and currency. The DEs also did not have to concentrate on anything but their EFT.
So – as I said – in my opinion, the basic premise of separating EFT and UAS flying is correct. If money were no object, I would have preferred to see a reversion to the old system, where UAS students did real flying training, but this did not really count towards their EFT, but merely reduced slightly the number of hours they flew during their formal EFT course. This would – again in my opinion - be considerably better than the new system’s 10 hours per year of flying, which will (incidentally) include GH, basic IF and navigation – dual and solo (about three-quarters/one-quarter I think).
Bear in mind that the students who achieve their UAS flying and then go on to undergo formal EFT after IOT, will have had 30 hours or more of “free” flying which will stand them in good stead during their formal EFT course. No reports will be raised on them or their flying performance on the UAS, and each EFT student will be treated on their merit from a “level playing field” start to the course.
The “new” EFT courses will be undertaken initially at 3 EFT bases; Cranwell, Church Fenton and Wyton. Each of these bases will have 9/10 QFIs and will run overlapping courses of about 13/14 students on each course.
Why I said 30 hours “or more” is that each UAS will be given a pot of flying hours based on their student establishment (all branches). Thus, if a UAS has 70 students, it will have a task of 700 hours per year. If some students do not wish to fly or only wish to have the occasional AEF-type air experience ride, then the hours they do not use will be shared amongst those who wish to undergo a more structured form of flying.
Under the new scheme, UASs are now still formally protected from closure and are accepted as an essential pillar of the RAF. However, there are still some large unanswered questions (actually – un-asked questions in some cases) that will need to be addressed before the new system can be brought in effectively.
In all, I think it’s not a bad effort, but I would have preferred a total reversion to the “old” UAS system.
The basic premise behind this latest change is – in my opinion – right, although if I were asked I would have to say that there would be better ways of achieving the advantages that the new system will bring (but that’s another story).
“What advantages?”, I hear the cynics amongst you screech.
Under the recent system of doing EFT on a UAS, the students had to try to manage the priority dilemma which they all faced. Did they concentrate on their degree and thus not perform well on EFT? (Remember that they were being streamed at the end of EFT!) Or did they concentrate on their EFT and achieve a lesser value degree? Of course those who were doing a degree that did not tax their capabilities too strenuously may have been able to balance their work such that they did well at both. However, a student doing an aeronautical engineering degree would have had considerably more difficulty doing this balancing act than someone doing media studies (sorry if I’ve just pi$$ed anybody off).
Furthermore, the UAS students doing their EFT over 2 or 3 years (with the associated currency and continuity problems) were being compared for streaming purposes with DE students who did their EFT in approximately 3 months, thus achieving excellent continuity and currency. The DEs also did not have to concentrate on anything but their EFT.
So – as I said – in my opinion, the basic premise of separating EFT and UAS flying is correct. If money were no object, I would have preferred to see a reversion to the old system, where UAS students did real flying training, but this did not really count towards their EFT, but merely reduced slightly the number of hours they flew during their formal EFT course. This would – again in my opinion - be considerably better than the new system’s 10 hours per year of flying, which will (incidentally) include GH, basic IF and navigation – dual and solo (about three-quarters/one-quarter I think).
Bear in mind that the students who achieve their UAS flying and then go on to undergo formal EFT after IOT, will have had 30 hours or more of “free” flying which will stand them in good stead during their formal EFT course. No reports will be raised on them or their flying performance on the UAS, and each EFT student will be treated on their merit from a “level playing field” start to the course.
The “new” EFT courses will be undertaken initially at 3 EFT bases; Cranwell, Church Fenton and Wyton. Each of these bases will have 9/10 QFIs and will run overlapping courses of about 13/14 students on each course.
Why I said 30 hours “or more” is that each UAS will be given a pot of flying hours based on their student establishment (all branches). Thus, if a UAS has 70 students, it will have a task of 700 hours per year. If some students do not wish to fly or only wish to have the occasional AEF-type air experience ride, then the hours they do not use will be shared amongst those who wish to undergo a more structured form of flying.
Under the new scheme, UASs are now still formally protected from closure and are accepted as an essential pillar of the RAF. However, there are still some large unanswered questions (actually – un-asked questions in some cases) that will need to be addressed before the new system can be brought in effectively.
In all, I think it’s not a bad effort, but I would have preferred a total reversion to the “old” UAS system.
I cannot see why one lot of aeroplanes and instructors could not have done three jobs
1) Traditional UAS flying for undergraduates
2) EFTS flying for Direct Entrants with any post graduation 'top-up' for 1) above if they had not achieved the EFTS output standard.
3) Tradional AEF for cadets
Why did UAS undergraduates have to do the EFTS course during their time at Uni?
The cost was negligible, and the system paid for itself.
1) Traditional UAS flying for undergraduates
2) EFTS flying for Direct Entrants with any post graduation 'top-up' for 1) above if they had not achieved the EFTS output standard.
3) Tradional AEF for cadets
Why did UAS undergraduates have to do the EFTS course during their time at Uni?
The cost was negligible, and the system paid for itself.
Malissa
You weren't at a briefing at at a secret air base in the East Midlands today were you? Your brief seems remarkably similar to one I heard this afternoon!!!
Jacko
The reason for doing this is to take the 'added pressure' of doing EFT and a degree at the same time away from Unis students. Remember that some of the UAS students do meet the end of course standard but may not receive a fast jet rec. The levelling of the playing field means that DE and UAS students will now have an equal chance of getting a FJ rec through continuity of training. Indeed it could be argued that UAS students will now get a better chance of the FJ rec as they will have received 30+ hours more than their DE colleagues.
In addition costs have driven the need to reduce the flying done on UASs. We all agree that it would be miuch better to go back to the UAS system of the 80s and 90s but the savings generated under the old sytem (short courses on JP and Tucano) are no longer there. Students are streamed from EFT and all do the same length course on their next stage of training be it DHFS, BFJT or METS.
You weren't at a briefing at at a secret air base in the East Midlands today were you? Your brief seems remarkably similar to one I heard this afternoon!!!
Jacko
The reason for doing this is to take the 'added pressure' of doing EFT and a degree at the same time away from Unis students. Remember that some of the UAS students do meet the end of course standard but may not receive a fast jet rec. The levelling of the playing field means that DE and UAS students will now have an equal chance of getting a FJ rec through continuity of training. Indeed it could be argued that UAS students will now get a better chance of the FJ rec as they will have received 30+ hours more than their DE colleagues.
In addition costs have driven the need to reduce the flying done on UASs. We all agree that it would be miuch better to go back to the UAS system of the 80s and 90s but the savings generated under the old sytem (short courses on JP and Tucano) are no longer there. Students are streamed from EFT and all do the same length course on their next stage of training be it DHFS, BFJT or METS.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Under the boardwalk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko:
See above:
Why did UAS undergraduates have to do the EFTS course during their time at Uni?
The “system” (outside the RAF) was going to force the closure of UASs. In order to defend the existence of the UASs, they were tasked to do Elementary Flying Training, and thus the argument could be used that they were an integral and essential part of flying training within the RAF, and they were therefore saved from extinction.
No, sorry.
That explains why it was necessary to have a DE EFT flight on each UAS, and not why Uni undergrads had to participate in that scheme.
Roland,
The saving to which I referred was the improved likelihood of ex-UAS blokes to make it through AFTS and TWU to get into a FJ cockpit. It was always reckoned that the saving in Hawk hours alone more than paid for the entire UAS scheme.
"It was found that UAS trained pilots were more likely to pass through basic and advanced flying training successfully, and to make it to the frontline as productive fast jet aircrew. HQ PTC discovered 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. The lower 'failure rate' of ex-UAS pilots on the Jet Provost and Hawk resulted in a considerable reduction in 'wasted' flying hours (given to pilots who would not become productive RAF pilots) and the cost savings (with Hawk flying conservatively estimated at £8,000 per hour) more than paid for the entire UAS system. Moreover, the 5% of ex-UAS pilots who did not make it to a Fast Jet OCU were significantly more likely to become productive rotary- or multi-engine pilots than DE 'washouts'."
In other words, 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.
That explains why it was necessary to have a DE EFT flight on each UAS, and not why Uni undergrads had to participate in that scheme.
Roland,
The saving to which I referred was the improved likelihood of ex-UAS blokes to make it through AFTS and TWU to get into a FJ cockpit. It was always reckoned that the saving in Hawk hours alone more than paid for the entire UAS scheme.
"It was found that UAS trained pilots were more likely to pass through basic and advanced flying training successfully, and to make it to the frontline as productive fast jet aircrew. HQ PTC discovered 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. The lower 'failure rate' of ex-UAS pilots on the Jet Provost and Hawk resulted in a considerable reduction in 'wasted' flying hours (given to pilots who would not become productive RAF pilots) and the cost savings (with Hawk flying conservatively estimated at £8,000 per hour) more than paid for the entire UAS system. Moreover, the 5% of ex-UAS pilots who did not make it to a Fast Jet OCU were significantly more likely to become productive rotary- or multi-engine pilots than DE 'washouts'."
In other words, 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.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 21st Sep 2005 at 21:43.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, sorry - it doesn't. The UASs started doing Elementary Flying Training as a direct result of the threat to the existence of UASs. Much later it was decided to add a "DE flight" to the UASs as a result of the decision to pull out of JEFTS and to do ALL EFT on UASs. Prior to that you had EFT at JEFTS - AND - EFT on UASs..
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am disappointed and saddened that our leaders cannot see the writing on the wall.
10 hrs of non-accredited 'air-experience' and a bit of 'mil leadership training' (that won't be as good, or as fun as that which the OTCs and URNUs get)
WILL NOT ENTICE 'THE RIGHT STUFF' TO JOIN THE UAS - nor, in turn, the RAF!
This is sad because the RAF will need to be recruiting MORE, NOT LESS, of the country's very best undergrads. In turn, this is because, for the first time for many, many years, a greater majority of our pilots will have to have single-seat FJ potential.
What about Direct Entry pilots - won't they save us?
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. That is a sweeping statement, I know, and there will be some very good DEs, for sure. However, in IMHO it is unlikely that many 18 yo DE junior officer pilots will be as good as those of even a few years ago.
So, to turn what was an excellent recruiting tool (UASs were the best society in uni and always oversubscribed) into probably one of the worst, is totally counter-productive to our long term needs.
The people who we will need to recruit are intelligent, full of life, with a fair amount of panache, confidence and awareness but whom have not yet necessarily decided on a mil flying career. Regrettably, I do not see the proposed UAS structure as having the anything like the attraction equivalent to that of even the most recent incarnation of the UASs, let alone the pre-1995 system. It is more likely to attract military 'cabbages' who couldn't get into the OTC or URNU.
All this just to save the 'five-eighths of the square-root of f@ck-all' at a time when the competition from the Airlines to snap up air-minded graduates is really hotting up? This is pure folly!
I might be wrong but I would not mind betting that in a few years time, we will be revisiting the UAS structure......... but then it will be way too late!
RIP UAS (...... RAF?)
10 hrs of non-accredited 'air-experience' and a bit of 'mil leadership training' (that won't be as good, or as fun as that which the OTCs and URNUs get)
WILL NOT ENTICE 'THE RIGHT STUFF' TO JOIN THE UAS - nor, in turn, the RAF!
This is sad because the RAF will need to be recruiting MORE, NOT LESS, of the country's very best undergrads. In turn, this is because, for the first time for many, many years, a greater majority of our pilots will have to have single-seat FJ potential.
What about Direct Entry pilots - won't they save us?
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. That is a sweeping statement, I know, and there will be some very good DEs, for sure. However, in IMHO it is unlikely that many 18 yo DE junior officer pilots will be as good as those of even a few years ago.
So, to turn what was an excellent recruiting tool (UASs were the best society in uni and always oversubscribed) into probably one of the worst, is totally counter-productive to our long term needs.
The people who we will need to recruit are intelligent, full of life, with a fair amount of panache, confidence and awareness but whom have not yet necessarily decided on a mil flying career. Regrettably, I do not see the proposed UAS structure as having the anything like the attraction equivalent to that of even the most recent incarnation of the UASs, let alone the pre-1995 system. It is more likely to attract military 'cabbages' who couldn't get into the OTC or URNU.
All this just to save the 'five-eighths of the square-root of f@ck-all' at a time when the competition from the Airlines to snap up air-minded graduates is really hotting up? This is pure folly!
I might be wrong but I would not mind betting that in a few years time, we will be revisiting the UAS structure......... but then it will be way too late!
RIP UAS (...... RAF?)
Well put, flipster!
And just what is the "more structured form of flying" supposed to consist of, Melissa? What will the course consist of (in both theoretical knowledge and flying training content) - and who will conduct the training?
3 years of watching someone else's flying? What a daft concept. Some happy Hunter hero living out past dreams by inflicting his aeros sequence on his reluctant passengers four times a day whilst telling them how good it all was 40 years ago? Bolleaux.
Forget the UAS, join the URNU or OTC, have fun and get paid for it!
How can the airships get away with cashing in the family silver in this way?
And just what is the "more structured form of flying" supposed to consist of, Melissa? What will the course consist of (in both theoretical knowledge and flying training content) - and who will conduct the training?
3 years of watching someone else's flying? What a daft concept. Some happy Hunter hero living out past dreams by inflicting his aeros sequence on his reluctant passengers four times a day whilst telling them how good it all was 40 years ago? Bolleaux.
Forget the UAS, join the URNU or OTC, have fun and get paid for it!
How can the airships get away with cashing in the family silver in this way?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering if someone could confirm if this announcement made earlier today means that the UAS system as we know it is now over from today or has the whole brainless idea still yet to be signed off.
The reason I ask is recently a certain group captain gave us briefing in our crew room and he told us the crossover period between the new and old systems might be immediate.
Personally as a student pilot on a UAS I cannot agree in the opinion that this is better deal for anyone, with effectively 50 minutes flying a month on the new system compared with approx. 2 and a half hours a month on the old system [excluding IA trips]. As regarding the continuity issue isn’t that why we had IA trips! And although one may argue the competitiveness of getting streamed FJ on this new system is better, it was as I saw it, the students decision, he/she could either press on, granted with periods off for academic study [although this did allow time for refection on the previous sortie], or he/she could take it easy over the 2/3 years and then compete EFT after IOT.
“We are told from the beginning that we should respect our senior officers, yet it is these officers that have made the RAF and all of our services it is today.” Lets bring back some senior officers with some backbone and brains that have are not purely concerned with the objective of promotion, regardless of the consequences.
The reason I ask is recently a certain group captain gave us briefing in our crew room and he told us the crossover period between the new and old systems might be immediate.
Personally as a student pilot on a UAS I cannot agree in the opinion that this is better deal for anyone, with effectively 50 minutes flying a month on the new system compared with approx. 2 and a half hours a month on the old system [excluding IA trips]. As regarding the continuity issue isn’t that why we had IA trips! And although one may argue the competitiveness of getting streamed FJ on this new system is better, it was as I saw it, the students decision, he/she could either press on, granted with periods off for academic study [although this did allow time for refection on the previous sortie], or he/she could take it easy over the 2/3 years and then compete EFT after IOT.
“We are told from the beginning that we should respect our senior officers, yet it is these officers that have made the RAF and all of our services it is today.” Lets bring back some senior officers with some backbone and brains that have are not purely concerned with the objective of promotion, regardless of the consequences.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I wholeheartedly agree that this is a crying shame, I'm not sure it quite represents the outright catastrophe that some suggest. I'm absolutely sure I'd still want to join the UAS if I were at the Fresher's Fair this autumn. 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. And as has been mentioned above, probably well over half of my old UAS didn't come close to flying 30 hours a year anyway (maybe I went through with a particularly apathetic bunch though?).
On a slight tangent, while I wouldn't want to suggest that we don't need to take the cream of today's graduates, I'm not sure I agree with the argument that it's a show-stopper because Typhoon is a single-seater. I think the RAF are a bit wrapped around the axle about single-seat pilots needing to be sky-gods or something. I think it's largely a function of our current platforms. I mean the Jag, pre Jag-96 days was an ergonomic disaster, and the Harrier's always had a bit of a reputation for being a little unforgiving at times. Maybe there's a bit of a hangover from Lightning and Hunter days too. But the rest of the world send their 'average' pilots to fly the Viper, Hornet, Mirages etc. where they usually have a radar, a designation pod and all sorts of weapons to play with. I'd hope that Typhoon should be quite an 'easy' jet to fly, and the cockpit looks like it's had some thought put into it. So I would hope that anyone who graduates from Valley should be as eligible to fly Typhoon as anything else.
I still think the biggest shame is that the UAS regional trophies aren't decided by an aero's routine fly-off (but then that was always for the lucky 1 on the sqn that got it).
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
On a slight tangent, while I wouldn't want to suggest that we don't need to take the cream of today's graduates, I'm not sure I agree with the argument that it's a show-stopper because Typhoon is a single-seater. I think the RAF are a bit wrapped around the axle about single-seat pilots needing to be sky-gods or something. I think it's largely a function of our current platforms. I mean the Jag, pre Jag-96 days was an ergonomic disaster, and the Harrier's always had a bit of a reputation for being a little unforgiving at times. Maybe there's a bit of a hangover from Lightning and Hunter days too. But the rest of the world send their 'average' pilots to fly the Viper, Hornet, Mirages etc. where they usually have a radar, a designation pod and all sorts of weapons to play with. I'd hope that Typhoon should be quite an 'easy' jet to fly, and the cockpit looks like it's had some thought put into it. So I would hope that anyone who graduates from Valley should be as eligible to fly Typhoon as anything else.
I still think the biggest shame is that the UAS regional trophies aren't decided by an aero's routine fly-off (but then that was always for the lucky 1 on the sqn that got it).
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
But SSSETOWTF, 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. What does it mean anyway - 3 years of muddy romps with pine poles and wet tents? Hardly has the allure of solo aeros, does it?
30 hours in 3 years.......woeful.
Having learned what URNU do in fast patrol boats, I wouldn't bother with the UAS. Period. I could always learn to fly at a civilian flying club later on in life if the RAF can't afford to teach me at university any longer. But I could never afford to go to sea in a FPB unless I won the lottery - so I'd join URNU instead.
See http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1967.html
30 hours in 3 years.......woeful.
Having learned what URNU do in fast patrol boats, I wouldn't bother with the UAS. Period. I could always learn to fly at a civilian flying club later on in life if the RAF can't afford to teach me at university any longer. But I could never afford to go to sea in a FPB unless I won the lottery - so I'd join URNU instead.
See http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1967.html
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Sep 2005 at 22:45.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to second what Beagle says about joining the URNU, as they do everything the UAS’s will do including the possibility of going flying at one of there camps down in Plymouth.
Secondly most universities have AT and gliding clubs that don’t involve compulsory meetings listening to sometimes times complete drivel on why we should drop everything we worked for and join the regiment as a gunner compare this to the uni clubs where we meet socially during the week and then at the weekend go out an actually do something fun and relaxing - with the knowledge that if we do have a bit too much fun too many times it can’t effect our chances at the time of application to the RAF.
I just can’t see people joining the new UAS system who are not already extremely keen on joining the RAF and therefore apply anyway, thus eliminating the people who firstly may join and be converted to joining the RAF after being lured by the free flying. And secondly, and probably most importantly missing out on the people who will go on to high profile jobs in the civie world, who understand the concepts of the RAF and what it stands for etc etc.
Secondly most universities have AT and gliding clubs that don’t involve compulsory meetings listening to sometimes times complete drivel on why we should drop everything we worked for and join the regiment as a gunner compare this to the uni clubs where we meet socially during the week and then at the weekend go out an actually do something fun and relaxing - with the knowledge that if we do have a bit too much fun too many times it can’t effect our chances at the time of application to the RAF.
I just can’t see people joining the new UAS system who are not already extremely keen on joining the RAF and therefore apply anyway, thus eliminating the people who firstly may join and be converted to joining the RAF after being lured by the free flying. And secondly, and probably most importantly missing out on the people who will go on to high profile jobs in the civie world, who understand the concepts of the RAF and what it stands for etc etc.
Jacko
I understand what you are now getting at. Unfortunately in these days of beancounters (who know the cost of everything....) your assessment of the savings paying for the UAS system is very difficult to prove and even harder to cost!
With regard to the flying TRAINING that will be undertaken on UASs I understand that there will be a structured syllabus, that all instruction will be undertaken by Q qualified pilots, the syllabus will mirror to some extent the NPPL syllabus, the flying will not be assessed (except for fit solo/not fit solo), pilots will continue to follow the current syllabus until the new syllabus is in force and the 30 hours is not capped. For those students who do not want to be pilots their flying can be tailored to meet their needs - if they just want to do the Dams Run everytime they fly then they can, if they want to progress through the syllabus and do the solos then they can - it will be their choice.
Oh and there seems to be no shortage of volunteers at recruiting, even when the new system is explained to them.......so far!
I understand what you are now getting at. Unfortunately in these days of beancounters (who know the cost of everything....) your assessment of the savings paying for the UAS system is very difficult to prove and even harder to cost!
With regard to the flying TRAINING that will be undertaken on UASs I understand that there will be a structured syllabus, that all instruction will be undertaken by Q qualified pilots, the syllabus will mirror to some extent the NPPL syllabus, the flying will not be assessed (except for fit solo/not fit solo), pilots will continue to follow the current syllabus until the new syllabus is in force and the 30 hours is not capped. For those students who do not want to be pilots their flying can be tailored to meet their needs - if they just want to do the Dams Run everytime they fly then they can, if they want to progress through the syllabus and do the solos then they can - it will be their choice.
Oh and there seems to be no shortage of volunteers at recruiting, even when the new system is explained to them.......so far!
Gentleman Aviator
Wonderful timing too .... I will watch with interest the imminent recruiting for the UAS I share an airfield with ........