University Air Squadrons
There was to be more emphasis on Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, etc (as has already been stated).
10 hours per year. Just not worth it - I suspect the VR pilots get more out of it than any of the students - or rather, the interested passengers.
Personally I think the current pathetic excuse for the UAS system may as well hand their plastic pigs back to the bank and go home. Either that or do things properly - with military QFIs (that's real QFIs, not just AEF pilots given a laying-on of hands) providing disciplined flying training to a defined syllabus.
idle stop - you'd barely recognise 'our' part of White Waltham these days. But you'd recognise the UAS scheme of today even less....
And why the hell are tax payers stumping up for UAS students to bog off to Peru or wherever for 'charitable work'? What's wrong with the UK for that?
Wholigan: I'm re-assured by your long post. Thank you.
BEagle: I've been into WW a couple of times in the past few years and taken time for a quick shufti. I was surprised to see that the Mess (on camp, not the old HQ23 Gp one, on the MQ site) still standing, but surprised the more so that the old wooden F700 hut by the Fairey Hangar hadn't yet fallen down! The old ULAS/6AEF building and accommodation block are as stark as ever.
You really must try to make it to the 'oldies' reunion dinner. Was hoping I would see you on this year's list, but probably too late now as it's tomorrow evening at 128.
BEagle: I've been into WW a couple of times in the past few years and taken time for a quick shufti. I was surprised to see that the Mess (on camp, not the old HQ23 Gp one, on the MQ site) still standing, but surprised the more so that the old wooden F700 hut by the Fairey Hangar hadn't yet fallen down! The old ULAS/6AEF building and accommodation block are as stark as ever.
You really must try to make it to the 'oldies' reunion dinner. Was hoping I would see you on this year's list, but probably too late now as it's tomorrow evening at 128.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again BEags old mate, I must emphasise that I am not trying to justify any of the changes, merely putting a few of what I consider to be 'facts' into this thread that is naturally proving to be somewhat emotive. And also to state that I still think that they are worthwhile institutions, even if they don't match up to the idealistic requirements of many in here.
Simply put, I believe that it's better to have what we have, rather than the realistic current budgetary alternative - - - nothing.
Edited to say that as I have no experience whatsoever of OTCs, I do not know whether or not they do "the same only better". I do know that we have students who have taken the time and effort to become mountain leaders, canoe leaders etc and that the system puts a lot of effort into doing the adventurous training stuff. I also do know that even if they do do "the same only better", the OTC still doesn't provide the opportunity to fly as well.
Oops - sorry - that WAS almost a defence of the system.
Simply put, I believe that it's better to have what we have, rather than the realistic current budgetary alternative - - - nothing.
Edited to say that as I have no experience whatsoever of OTCs, I do not know whether or not they do "the same only better". I do know that we have students who have taken the time and effort to become mountain leaders, canoe leaders etc and that the system puts a lot of effort into doing the adventurous training stuff. I also do know that even if they do do "the same only better", the OTC still doesn't provide the opportunity to fly as well.
Oops - sorry - that WAS almost a defence of the system.
BEagle, you're starting to sound more childish than the pathetic charicatures of modern university students you're painting. So what if your rosey picture of PILOTS PILOTS PILOTS is no longer being painted? Yes, it's different. But, guess what? Different doesn't mean worse. I know you're getting on a bit and that concept might be a bit hard to understand, but it really doesn't take much to grasp the logic behind it.
And why is it better for people to do 'charitable work in Peru' at the Army's expense rather than the RAF's? Because I assure you they do them as well. Do a different set of taxpayers contribute to the Army's budget?
And why is it better for people to do 'charitable work in Peru' at the Army's expense rather than the RAF's? Because I assure you they do them as well. Do a different set of taxpayers contribute to the Army's budget?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a shame that successive financial squeezes have so changed the purpose and ethos of UAS. The flying syllabus is much more restricted: I wonder how many manage to work their way throught the syllabus as far as PFB (the syllabus for which has also been downgraded) these days?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the VR pilots get more out of it than any of the students - or rather, the interested passengers
A lot of my guys would - in many ways - much rather come in and fly air cadets, where there is much less pressure and much less requirement to get everything right, rather than spend time preparing for their instructional sortie, briefing carefully and then instructing to the best of their ability (which in many cases is considerable), then debriefing and conscientiously writing up the sortie.
I also have to say that the students who follow the formal syllabus are definitely not "interested passengers"! They still need to meet the same standards for first solo, solo sector recce, solo aeros etc. Just because the system has changed doesn't mean that those individual standards requirements have been allowed to lapse. And they never will be!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all happens, and the UAS is not a sleepy backwater for any member of the staff. It is a pleasant change from an operational tour, but it is still 'kin busy.
It is particularly " 'kin busy", because all of those "secondary duties" that used to be shared between 5 or 6 QFIs now need to be done by one or two with some help from the AEF commander.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm 'on a roll' ...................
Most of these 'just AEF pilots given a laying on of hands' have a huge amount of experience in flying training. Some of them are only recently 'out of the real system'. Some of them have more instructional experience - in between their 'real' jobs - than can even be imagined by the 'military QFIs' that you laud (a lot of whom are and were first tour B2s then B1s). A lot of the AEF 'QFIs' are ex-A1s and that is a skill and talent that is not easily lost, just as it isn't easily gained by the first tour B2s!
(that's real QFIs, not just AEF pilots given a laying-on of hands)
I know you're getting on a bit and that concept might be a bit hard to understand, but it really doesn't take much to grasp the logic behind it.
.....there does seem to be an underlying current of sneering about ex-aircrew "of a certain age" on here.
Wholi', what fraction of the UAS hours budget is spent teaching pilot students these days? The 'interested passengers' I referred to being the non-pilot students receiving air experience joy rides.
How will the future UAS/AEF system be self-sustaining if it relies on retired aircrew so heavily, given that the available population is fast decreasing?
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And finally 'cos I'm now off to bed to get up early for my worthless job:
Read again ...............
That must be 'worth it'!
10 hours per year. Just not worth it
For this the UAS has a 'bucket of hours' which is based on that 10 hours per member. If some people are not interested in taking up the offer of flying or they are too busy for a time with their degree course, then those hours are available for those who are interested to fly more than this allocated number of hours. It may be just rumour control (but considering who told me I doubt it) I think the best achieved so far (not on our UAS) was 67 hours in the first year!
That must be 'worth it'!
If some people are not interested in taking up the offer of flying....
If someone can manage 6.7 x the allotted hours, or about 2 x the allotted hours even in 'traditional' UAS days, one wonders what sort of a degree course he/she was doing.
By the way, no need to get up particularly early - haven't you seen the Met.....
?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a recent product of both the 'old' (EFT at UAS) and 'new' (post-Marston report) UAS world, I'll chuck in my tuppence worth...
Yes, it's a shame they've cut the flying. However, the cut tends to be more in beancounter terms than actual student flying -- of the people left when I graduated, probably upwards of 25% (60%+ in the higher years) have the 'new' PFB (roughly half of the EFT syllabus). Many of those have completed the 'expansion packages' or whatever they're called that bring their experience up to that of a completed EFT student. The flying rate of individual students certainly didn't change that much; there were enough Medics/Engineers not flying to give the rest of us all the flying we could hack (or desire!).
Some who have entered flying training (both RAF and RN, and one AAC) in my cohort, or in the years following, have well over 100 hours of Tutor experience. Is it fair? Probably not. Do I think that's a problem? Not really. Most of the DE aircrew I've been working with have performed just as well as the ex-UAS grads.
However, the UAS system changed (I believe) to reflect the changes in the 'real' RAF: the rise of Force Development and all the associated buzzword bingo to go with it being but one example. Whereas before UAS expeds were set with twin aims (getting drunk in foreign parts and having a bloody good time, whilst actually learning something about yourself, leadership and teamwork almost in passing), they now have to meet the whims of 'FD' and 'AT' (and now instead of drinking in bars various you get treated to evenings of IOT-style 'reviews' and 'Action Plans' and other such). Whilst this is a shame, I'll admit, it does produce 'officer cadets' who fit in better with the ideas and ethos of the modern RAF rather than the proto-aircrew wannabes that the UASs of old produced to terrorise the Flt Cdrs at DIOT/OACTU.
The new UAS system is still bloody brilliant (or it was when I left three years ago). Certainly, the flying isn't the same as the heyday pre-1992 or whenever it was that EFT on UAS arrived. It is, however, still rigorous flying training to the same standards as far as my experience recalls (admittedly, not that far). I know for a fact it stood me in good stead for my own flying training, and that view is shared by those I keep in contact with. This question of who QFIs is, in my view, a red herring: I had the priviledge to fly with some amazingly experienced and talented 'AEF' pilots (from whom I learned a hell of a lot); I also flew with some new B2 Tutor QFIs who would occasionally ask the more experienced studes for flying tips...
By the way...
That looks pretty close (if not identical) to the number of hours I flew in my second year (the first under the 'new' system): I got a first in Aeronautical Engineering from a certain well-known university... your point?
Yes, it's a shame they've cut the flying. However, the cut tends to be more in beancounter terms than actual student flying -- of the people left when I graduated, probably upwards of 25% (60%+ in the higher years) have the 'new' PFB (roughly half of the EFT syllabus). Many of those have completed the 'expansion packages' or whatever they're called that bring their experience up to that of a completed EFT student. The flying rate of individual students certainly didn't change that much; there were enough Medics/Engineers not flying to give the rest of us all the flying we could hack (or desire!).
Some who have entered flying training (both RAF and RN, and one AAC) in my cohort, or in the years following, have well over 100 hours of Tutor experience. Is it fair? Probably not. Do I think that's a problem? Not really. Most of the DE aircrew I've been working with have performed just as well as the ex-UAS grads.
However, the UAS system changed (I believe) to reflect the changes in the 'real' RAF: the rise of Force Development and all the associated buzzword bingo to go with it being but one example. Whereas before UAS expeds were set with twin aims (getting drunk in foreign parts and having a bloody good time, whilst actually learning something about yourself, leadership and teamwork almost in passing), they now have to meet the whims of 'FD' and 'AT' (and now instead of drinking in bars various you get treated to evenings of IOT-style 'reviews' and 'Action Plans' and other such). Whilst this is a shame, I'll admit, it does produce 'officer cadets' who fit in better with the ideas and ethos of the modern RAF rather than the proto-aircrew wannabes that the UASs of old produced to terrorise the Flt Cdrs at DIOT/OACTU.
The new UAS system is still bloody brilliant (or it was when I left three years ago). Certainly, the flying isn't the same as the heyday pre-1992 or whenever it was that EFT on UAS arrived. It is, however, still rigorous flying training to the same standards as far as my experience recalls (admittedly, not that far). I know for a fact it stood me in good stead for my own flying training, and that view is shared by those I keep in contact with. This question of who QFIs is, in my view, a red herring: I had the priviledge to fly with some amazingly experienced and talented 'AEF' pilots (from whom I learned a hell of a lot); I also flew with some new B2 Tutor QFIs who would occasionally ask the more experienced studes for flying tips...
By the way...
If someone can manage 6.7 x the allotted hours, or about 2 x the allotted hours even in 'traditional' UAS days, one wonders what sort of a degree course he/she was doing.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To echo Anonystude's last, he's not the only one - while I may be a product of the old UAS system, I cracked the old 90 hour syllabus in just over a year, and got a Linton slot and a First in Aeronautical Engineering from a reasonably reputable university. I'm sure we're not alone in this; you just had to manage your time sensibly.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Up there somewhere
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anonystude has it right...
The article is rubbish as are some of the comments on here from people way out of touch with the current system.
The article seems to say to me that the boys could not be bothered to turn up to fly in the week and only turned up at camp - where flying is usually restricted by the number of studes, wx and airframes: and priority is often given to those who make the effort to show their face down the Sqn in the week to fly or organise AT/Sport/Town Nights etc.
It also sounds like they got chopped at their 18month pre-second year interview....!
I did the old and new system - 1 year pre-Marston and 2 years of this "10 hour" malarky with both new EFT + extension syllabus and then bog standard syallbus (the extension has been bought back in since) - however the syllabus by then was redundant to me and a others who already had done FHT.
I completed EFT in the first year before Marston so that was a good 62 hours in 9 months. I left with well over 150 hours and plenty of 'extra' flying that wasn't in the UAS EFT syllabus per se but was in the real EFT syllabus which the instructors were all too keen to teach (extra IF, IP - Tgt, extra formation etc.) and plenty of solo to boot. The 10 hour/year thing never happens purely because they can't just cut you off when you get to ten hours as so many students never make their ten hours or don't even want to fly.
There is still formal flying assessment it just doesn't count towards anything and you don't get a score but the tick sheets still show whether you are average, above av or below.
The article seems to say to me that the boys could not be bothered to turn up to fly in the week and only turned up at camp - where flying is usually restricted by the number of studes, wx and airframes: and priority is often given to those who make the effort to show their face down the Sqn in the week to fly or organise AT/Sport/Town Nights etc.
It also sounds like they got chopped at their 18month pre-second year interview....!
I did the old and new system - 1 year pre-Marston and 2 years of this "10 hour" malarky with both new EFT + extension syllabus and then bog standard syallbus (the extension has been bought back in since) - however the syllabus by then was redundant to me and a others who already had done FHT.
I completed EFT in the first year before Marston so that was a good 62 hours in 9 months. I left with well over 150 hours and plenty of 'extra' flying that wasn't in the UAS EFT syllabus per se but was in the real EFT syllabus which the instructors were all too keen to teach (extra IF, IP - Tgt, extra formation etc.) and plenty of solo to boot. The 10 hour/year thing never happens purely because they can't just cut you off when you get to ten hours as so many students never make their ten hours or don't even want to fly.
There is still formal flying assessment it just doesn't count towards anything and you don't get a score but the tick sheets still show whether you are average, above av or below.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the purpose of the UAS?
University Air Squadrons are training units of the Royal Air Force which primarily provide basic flying training and adventurous training to undergraduate students at British universities. These units exist to provide a taste of life in the Service and give experience to their members to take up a career as an officer in one of the many of the RAF's branches.
Do the RAF have a recruitment problem?
Not for Officers and especially not for Pilot training -
Is there any difference in the standard of pilots whom join directly rather than via the UAS?
AS ANSWERED BY A QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT
A direct comparison of University Air Squadron trained and Joint Elementary Flying Training School trained RAF pilots is seen at the point of streaming to aircraft type (fast jet, rotary wing, or multi-engine), which follows immediately after elementary flying training. At this point, there is no discernible difference between them.
A SNAPSHOT OF RECRUITMENT FIGURES UP TO 2008
7 July 2008 : Column 1144W
2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-08All RAF applications for Pilot
1,676
1,289
1,129
1,159
1,384
Initial Pilot Training (RAF)
167
92
121
133
148
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RAF)
75
51
46
54
46
All RN applications for Pilot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Initial Pilot Training (RN)
47
45
35
42
44
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RN)
7
9
5
9
11
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Initial Pilot Training
214
137
156
175
192
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Fast-Jet Pilot Training
82
60
51
63
57
n/a = Not available.
Data has been obtained from the TAFMIS (Training Administration and Financial Management Information System) computer system which was introduced in 2003. Recruitment data prior to 2003 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
IN SUMMARY
No recruitment issues to address
The standard of pilots between UAS and direct entrant - no difference
Perhaps closing all UAS is the way ahead as it seems that with a shrinking Armed Forces it is no longer required to achieve what it was primarily set up to do -
University Air Squadrons are training units of the Royal Air Force which primarily provide basic flying training and adventurous training to undergraduate students at British universities. These units exist to provide a taste of life in the Service and give experience to their members to take up a career as an officer in one of the many of the RAF's branches.
Do the RAF have a recruitment problem?
Not for Officers and especially not for Pilot training -
Is there any difference in the standard of pilots whom join directly rather than via the UAS?
AS ANSWERED BY A QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT
A direct comparison of University Air Squadron trained and Joint Elementary Flying Training School trained RAF pilots is seen at the point of streaming to aircraft type (fast jet, rotary wing, or multi-engine), which follows immediately after elementary flying training. At this point, there is no discernible difference between them.
A SNAPSHOT OF RECRUITMENT FIGURES UP TO 2008
7 July 2008 : Column 1144W
2003-042004-052005-062006-072007-08All RAF applications for Pilot
1,676
1,289
1,129
1,159
1,384
Initial Pilot Training (RAF)
167
92
121
133
148
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RAF)
75
51
46
54
46
All RN applications for Pilot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Initial Pilot Training (RN)
47
45
35
42
44
Selected for Fast-Jet Training (RN)
7
9
5
9
11
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Initial Pilot Training
214
137
156
175
192
Total number of RAF and RN selected for Fast-Jet Pilot Training
82
60
51
63
57
n/a = Not available.
Data has been obtained from the TAFMIS (Training Administration and Financial Management Information System) computer system which was introduced in 2003. Recruitment data prior to 2003 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
IN SUMMARY
No recruitment issues to address
The standard of pilots between UAS and direct entrant - no difference
Perhaps closing all UAS is the way ahead as it seems that with a shrinking Armed Forces it is no longer required to achieve what it was primarily set up to do -
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wholi', what fraction of the UAS hours budget is spent teaching pilot students these days? The 'interested passengers' I referred to being the non-pilot students receiving air experience joy rides.
Sorry BEags, but I have no idea what fraction of the hours budget is spent teaching 'pilot students' Partially because there is really no such thing as a 'pilot student' these days, and partially because it doesn't really matter.
As I said, all UAS members are entitled to be taught to fly. There are medic, dentist, engineer, scribbly, rock ape, controllers, suppliers etc in the system who certainly reach solo sector recce, and in many cases a lot further.
In my view this is no bad thing for two reasons (both the same really). These 'non-pilots' will enter the RAF with a knowledge of the thrills of flying, and the difficulties and concentration/dedication required to 'meet the standards' required for flying. This has certainly not been the norm in the past and can only be good for the understanding and teamwork required to operate today's RAF to the best of its collective ability.
The converse can also be true. The 'pilot students' sometimes (frequently?) see some of the aforesaid 'blunties' doing as well as - and in some cases better than - they are. They also realise that in some cases the reason that these potential 'blunties' can not try to join as pilots etc is that fate has dealt them the bad hand of poor eyesight or some other limiting problem. Thus the future RAF pilots maybe have less reason once in the RAF to use the pejorative adjectival terms of - for example - f*****g or b*****d before the word 'bluntie', because they have seen that these people frequently have equal skills to theirs.
How will the future UAS/AEF system be self-sustaining if it relies on retired aircrew so heavily, given that the available population is fast decreasing?
I'm not sure how this is a major problem. At EFT and BFT and advanced and OCU and squadron levels, there are still lots of 'real RAF QFIs' serving. These people retire in due course (some earlier than others) and a lot of them will be more than happy to have a break from their long haul flights or their consultant jobs to teach UAS students.
I agree that the overall number of serving QFIs may be fewer than of old, but I think there should still be sufficient to continue to feed the system for a long time. The available population has doubtless decreased, but it should only have decreased while the overall RAF size was decreasing and while the initial changeover of policy to use 'part-time' QFIs was introduced.
Hopefully, we have now reached a level where there will be no further reduction in serving QFIs. I may be wrong (I frequently have been) but I think the system could now continue to be self-sustaining, if no further major changes are introduced.
Leave me with my dream!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: backofbeyond
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaping to the defence of the UAS!!
The UAS organisation is one which can be easily maligned and yet provides the Royal Air Force with far more than can be captured by simple statistics.
The UAS is a fine organisation which has been a consistent recruiting ground for some of the sharpest people from British society. The organisation continues to recruit some of our finest air warriors who have proved their mettle in combat from the earliest days of the RAF and continue to do so today above Afghainstan.
The UAS allows students to gain an insight into the RAF and provides them with an opportunity to join the RAF, a path which they may not otherwise have taken.
I had not really considered the RAF as a realistic option when I went to university in the 1980s - the UAS gave me an insight into the professionalism and the pride in doing a job which really means something in this World where elsewhere values are often reduced to the size of pay packet and the type of mobile phone one uses. The UAS gives people a brief snapshot of what it means to serve their country. It shows them that the ethos of the RAF is still well and truly alive and that we are a real force to be reckoned with because of the traditions we have developed over the years which come from our proud service and continue to come from the proud service members of the RAF put in daily serving the country.
In addition to this, the UAS also has various intangible benefits for the service which statistics will often fail to identify or quantify. Firstly, those members of UASs who enjoy their two years on the squadron continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives. I have friends who still hark back to their Bulldog time and they now represent serious power around the country in various guises, both in the public and private World. With armed forces shrinking, having members of the public who are able to understand, in some way, what armed forces do is vitally important. Elsewhere on this forum I see people whinge about the lack of credibility and understanding MPs have for the armed services - UASs/OTCs and URNUs are real vehicles for this.
A for those who slate the organisations currently, it should be understood that UAS manning has been axed. That said, and having served relatively recently on a UAS, the standard of training on offer to the students today far exceeds what I received in the mid 80s. The UAS organisation has seriously reconfigured itself to deliver some excellent training both in the aircraft and on the ground.
To all the doubting Thomases, the flying syllabus now is not all that different from what was being delivered on the Bulldog back then - it is in a slightly different guise but spinning, low level, navigation, IF are all there and the kit on the aircraft is certainly better than when I was a student. It does differ from the period when UASs were used as EFTS, but lets face it was it really fair on the students who had heavy work schedules? The 10 hours per student is not really a problem as there is a natural flow of those who are very keen and those who are not so keen......those who are not so keen are often the students who are more focussed on other areas within the UAS and often join the branches which are crying out for people. In fact, in my time I saw a number of extremely high calibre students from excellent universities going into ground branches such as int, admin, eng etc. B under no illusion, we really need brilliant dynamic people to man those branches to ensure success in an organisation which is squeezed and where every person counts. We need people who have been studied closely for 2-3 years rather than gambles on people who drift into recruiting offices and pass a couple of interviews and test!! These kids have seen it and crucially we have had a chance to see them!!
The ground training programme is now quantifiable, checked and deliveres a broad range of training including military knowledge, leadership skills, teamwork, self awareness, drill, adventure training. It is a far cry from the drinking and flying club many on this forum seem to have depicted. I should state, however, that flying still comes very much first and also that socialising (including .....yes beer) is very much a part of the organisation. That said, there is no pressure on anyone to drink if they are non drinkers.....it is simply an normal organisation where some members do and some don't!!!! In fact, compared to the normal student haunts, UASs provide a sensible approach to boozing with people watching out for each other - how many students at uni have a 40 or 50 year old mentor who is approachable and who they can have a beer with who is not heir dad and who is looking out for them? The students on the sqn are really part of something which looks out for them.
Regarding the original article, there will always be some units which do not take thins as seriously as others. That said there will always be some students who do not take every chance offered to them. In my experience, when students wished to fly, the sqn moved heaven and earth to get them airborne - in fact the workload on the QFIs is now far more intense than it was in years gone by. 95% of QFIs take extreme pride in the quality of instruction they offer and in the service they provide to the students. I found the report very poorly researched and I am sure that had the reporter spoken with the RAF that she would have been allowed unlimited access to the hoard of students across the country who are UAS believers as well as the staff of UASs who could have given her a more objective picture of how they achieve their tasks with limited resources and oodles of very hard work.
My final note is that to ensure the success of the armed services in the future, the RAF should be sending its brightest instructors to the UAS World to take command of and inspire these crucial units (even if only for a short tour). They are our investment for tomorrow, they a vital link with the academic communities (so important as we try to intellectualise our force to deal with future threats), they are our link with the leaders of tomorrow and finally they are the only way of recruiting some real brains from our highest academic institutions; as we get smaller we will need to rely on excellence.
The UAS is a fine organisation which has been a consistent recruiting ground for some of the sharpest people from British society. The organisation continues to recruit some of our finest air warriors who have proved their mettle in combat from the earliest days of the RAF and continue to do so today above Afghainstan.
The UAS allows students to gain an insight into the RAF and provides them with an opportunity to join the RAF, a path which they may not otherwise have taken.
I had not really considered the RAF as a realistic option when I went to university in the 1980s - the UAS gave me an insight into the professionalism and the pride in doing a job which really means something in this World where elsewhere values are often reduced to the size of pay packet and the type of mobile phone one uses. The UAS gives people a brief snapshot of what it means to serve their country. It shows them that the ethos of the RAF is still well and truly alive and that we are a real force to be reckoned with because of the traditions we have developed over the years which come from our proud service and continue to come from the proud service members of the RAF put in daily serving the country.
In addition to this, the UAS also has various intangible benefits for the service which statistics will often fail to identify or quantify. Firstly, those members of UASs who enjoy their two years on the squadron continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives. I have friends who still hark back to their Bulldog time and they now represent serious power around the country in various guises, both in the public and private World. With armed forces shrinking, having members of the public who are able to understand, in some way, what armed forces do is vitally important. Elsewhere on this forum I see people whinge about the lack of credibility and understanding MPs have for the armed services - UASs/OTCs and URNUs are real vehicles for this.
A for those who slate the organisations currently, it should be understood that UAS manning has been axed. That said, and having served relatively recently on a UAS, the standard of training on offer to the students today far exceeds what I received in the mid 80s. The UAS organisation has seriously reconfigured itself to deliver some excellent training both in the aircraft and on the ground.
To all the doubting Thomases, the flying syllabus now is not all that different from what was being delivered on the Bulldog back then - it is in a slightly different guise but spinning, low level, navigation, IF are all there and the kit on the aircraft is certainly better than when I was a student. It does differ from the period when UASs were used as EFTS, but lets face it was it really fair on the students who had heavy work schedules? The 10 hours per student is not really a problem as there is a natural flow of those who are very keen and those who are not so keen......those who are not so keen are often the students who are more focussed on other areas within the UAS and often join the branches which are crying out for people. In fact, in my time I saw a number of extremely high calibre students from excellent universities going into ground branches such as int, admin, eng etc. B under no illusion, we really need brilliant dynamic people to man those branches to ensure success in an organisation which is squeezed and where every person counts. We need people who have been studied closely for 2-3 years rather than gambles on people who drift into recruiting offices and pass a couple of interviews and test!! These kids have seen it and crucially we have had a chance to see them!!
The ground training programme is now quantifiable, checked and deliveres a broad range of training including military knowledge, leadership skills, teamwork, self awareness, drill, adventure training. It is a far cry from the drinking and flying club many on this forum seem to have depicted. I should state, however, that flying still comes very much first and also that socialising (including .....yes beer) is very much a part of the organisation. That said, there is no pressure on anyone to drink if they are non drinkers.....it is simply an normal organisation where some members do and some don't!!!! In fact, compared to the normal student haunts, UASs provide a sensible approach to boozing with people watching out for each other - how many students at uni have a 40 or 50 year old mentor who is approachable and who they can have a beer with who is not heir dad and who is looking out for them? The students on the sqn are really part of something which looks out for them.
Regarding the original article, there will always be some units which do not take thins as seriously as others. That said there will always be some students who do not take every chance offered to them. In my experience, when students wished to fly, the sqn moved heaven and earth to get them airborne - in fact the workload on the QFIs is now far more intense than it was in years gone by. 95% of QFIs take extreme pride in the quality of instruction they offer and in the service they provide to the students. I found the report very poorly researched and I am sure that had the reporter spoken with the RAF that she would have been allowed unlimited access to the hoard of students across the country who are UAS believers as well as the staff of UASs who could have given her a more objective picture of how they achieve their tasks with limited resources and oodles of very hard work.
My final note is that to ensure the success of the armed services in the future, the RAF should be sending its brightest instructors to the UAS World to take command of and inspire these crucial units (even if only for a short tour). They are our investment for tomorrow, they a vital link with the academic communities (so important as we try to intellectualise our force to deal with future threats), they are our link with the leaders of tomorrow and finally they are the only way of recruiting some real brains from our highest academic institutions; as we get smaller we will need to rely on excellence.
Dogstar:
Thank you, a very reasoned and eloquent exposition. If only your positive comments, and those of Wholigan and one or two others, could find their way to the lady from The Times!
Thank you, a very reasoned and eloquent exposition. If only your positive comments, and those of Wholigan and one or two others, could find their way to the lady from The Times!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dogstar
Excellent post, and absolutely right – although, in my case, Chipmunk rather than Bulldog.
In addition to this, the UAS also has various intangible benefits for the service which statistics will often fail to identify or quantify. Firstly, those members of UASs who enjoy their two years on the squadron continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives. I have friends who still hark back to their Bulldog time and they now represent serious power around the country in various guises, both in the public and private World. With armed forces shrinking, having members of the public who are able to understand, in some way, what armed forces do is vitally important. Elsewhere on this forum I see people whinge about the lack of credibility and understanding MPs have for the armed services - UASs/OTCs and URNUs are real vehicles for this.
Excellent post, and absolutely right – although, in my case, Chipmunk rather than Bulldog.
I was a contemporary on the University of London Air Squadron of people like Derek Reeh, Andy Sephton, BEagle and idle stop who went on to distinguished careers in the RAF and then in civvy aviation. I was a Cadet Pilot (VR) and, after a great deal of thought, eventually decided to keep to my original plan to become a barrister. (16/38, the only option available at the time, was too long for me.) I was proud then to be a member of a UAS and now, almost 40 years on, I’m still proud of it - and am very much in the category of those who “continue to feel empathy towards the armed services for the rest of their lives.”
Having civvies who understand in some way what the armed services do is an important asset, even though it’s not possible to quantify. I believe many former UAS members make valuable contributions to debates about Defence, whether they are in positions of power themselves or because they are in close contact with those who are.
Having civvies who understand in some way what the armed services do is an important asset, even though it’s not possible to quantify. I believe many former UAS members make valuable contributions to debates about Defence, whether they are in positions of power themselves or because they are in close contact with those who are.
I didn't recognise the description given by the Times journo who got her information from a couple of students who appear not to have made the most of the wonderful opportunity given to them. My reaction was that it was a pity her contacts took up two places which others would have valued and put to good use.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Nov 2009 at 17:11.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in Blighty
Age: 73
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed FL. I am still instructing, and hoping I can instill the enthusiasm for flying that I remember as the norm from those days I shared with you at ULAS.
Shame that the present crop do not get all the opportunities we had.
Shame that the present crop do not get all the opportunities we had.