University Air Squadrons
Thread Starter
University Air Squadrons
On a day when the MOD is reeling after the Nimrod report, and 2 days after the Puma inquest,the RAF is subjected to further castigation in this article on an unnamed UAS in today's Times.
Top brass are failing our Top Guns | Melanie Reid - Times Online
Would anyone who has had recent experience of a UAS, either on the staff or as a student care to comment? I suspect that it's a pretty unfair portrait, certainly when I was at Uni you didn't have to join the UAS to experience hard-drinking, which was pretty universal, but nevertheless there may be some truth in it. This is publicity we could well do without, today of all days.
Top brass are failing our Top Guns | Melanie Reid - Times Online
Would anyone who has had recent experience of a UAS, either on the staff or as a student care to comment? I suspect that it's a pretty unfair portrait, certainly when I was at Uni you didn't have to join the UAS to experience hard-drinking, which was pretty universal, but nevertheless there may be some truth in it. This is publicity we could well do without, today of all days.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vegas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is hilarious.
It is spot on, although at first I thought she was discussing an URNU.
My experience is exactly what this journalist wrote although it was with an URNU.
I could not really see the point of them. Waste of RN money (when times are tight enough). Less than ten percent of the yearly intake around 20 to 30 will go into the RN. Surely this money could be spent elsewhere?
My time with an URNU did allow me to further my understanding of the mentality shift between civvie street and military whilst also allowing me to network with the right people in the RN. FAA CO's and Aircrew etc
UAS, OTC and URNU are all very similar.
We didnt do the bleep test once collectively as a unit. What a gimmick!!! haha
It is spot on, although at first I thought she was discussing an URNU.
My experience is exactly what this journalist wrote although it was with an URNU.
I could not really see the point of them. Waste of RN money (when times are tight enough). Less than ten percent of the yearly intake around 20 to 30 will go into the RN. Surely this money could be spent elsewhere?
My time with an URNU did allow me to further my understanding of the mentality shift between civvie street and military whilst also allowing me to network with the right people in the RN. FAA CO's and Aircrew etc
UAS, OTC and URNU are all very similar.
We didnt do the bleep test once collectively as a unit. What a gimmick!!! haha
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know - what about giving the students some proper flying training with qualified flying instructors - RAF flying tuition that is top-notch and lays the airmanship foundations for their future careers?
Oh, hang on.....!
Oh, hang on.....!
I've been around UAS's for some time, although not as a student, and I'd confess that since the change in the system, the "drinking culture" does seem to have increased in some places. However, I never saw any "clique-ness" when it came to allocation of flying during term-time, actually I would have said the available slots were massively under-used compared to prior to the report. Not sure about PIFTs, camps etc but fairly sure the slots were doled out evenly.
What the reporter doesn't state though, although she does admit that the UAS is not representative of the rest of Crabair, is that a UAS is effectively a glorified student club, the same as the Uni Mountaineering society, or the Hockey club, or the rowing club. And in my experience certainly the latter 2 involve copious quantities of booze. IMHO the UAS would do well to begin to distance itself from such a reputation.
What the reporter doesn't state though, although she does admit that the UAS is not representative of the rest of Crabair, is that a UAS is effectively a glorified student club, the same as the Uni Mountaineering society, or the Hockey club, or the rowing club. And in my experience certainly the latter 2 involve copious quantities of booze. IMHO the UAS would do well to begin to distance itself from such a reputation.
flipster, how right you are!
Before UASs became adventure playground outfits, they were commanded by RAF aircrew and all officers were either RAF aircrew QFIs or FTRS aircrew QFIs. Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.
Then some idiot decided to grade UAS students. Totally absurd. Students, not being completely stupid, realised that continuity was essential if they were going to be graded fast-jet. So harboured their flying allocation until Easter and Summer Camp and used the term-time training nights for light relief.
Then things deteriorated still further with the current University Air Cadets scheme which is an utter travesty. One, maybe 2 RAF QFIs per UAS? Who supervises the students on Training Nights?
I know I'm out of touch, but the UAS methods of the 1980s beat the current nonsense into a cocked hat. And in the overall scheme of things, it cost SFA! In addition to providing excellent training for students, UASs gave novice QFIs an excellent opportunity to develop and practise their instructional skills. The RAF even owned and operated proper military training aircraft rather than renting them from some bank.
It seems that UASs fly around 33% of the hours they did 6 years or so ago. I know that students now have opportunities to do more adventurous training etc, but perhaps the devil alcohol makes more time for idle hands, now that there's so little flying?
Before UASs became adventure playground outfits, they were commanded by RAF aircrew and all officers were either RAF aircrew QFIs or FTRS aircrew QFIs. Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.
Then some idiot decided to grade UAS students. Totally absurd. Students, not being completely stupid, realised that continuity was essential if they were going to be graded fast-jet. So harboured their flying allocation until Easter and Summer Camp and used the term-time training nights for light relief.
Then things deteriorated still further with the current University Air Cadets scheme which is an utter travesty. One, maybe 2 RAF QFIs per UAS? Who supervises the students on Training Nights?
I know I'm out of touch, but the UAS methods of the 1980s beat the current nonsense into a cocked hat. And in the overall scheme of things, it cost SFA! In addition to providing excellent training for students, UASs gave novice QFIs an excellent opportunity to develop and practise their instructional skills. The RAF even owned and operated proper military training aircraft rather than renting them from some bank.
It seems that UASs fly around 33% of the hours they did 6 years or so ago. I know that students now have opportunities to do more adventurous training etc, but perhaps the devil alcohol makes more time for idle hands, now that there's so little flying?
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Oct 2009 at 08:07.
As - probably - the most recent UAS stude here there are certainly aspects of the article I can identify with. However, I'd have had slightly more sympathy for the guys involved if they'd stayed less than a year before deciding it wasn't for them. The article states they were disillusioned after a year and a half of empty promises? Tough. If things aren't being organised, then you take over and organise them yourself. Yes there are less staff about - perhaps 2 full time RAF personnel per sqn (one as OC, one GTI) and one or two RAFR as instructing pilots - but if you went to them and asked for assistance to organise an event, they'd drop almost everything and help out implicitly. If the guys in the article didn't have the presence of mind to do that, then the UAS was better off without, to be honest.
Of course, every UAS is different and some will be better than others - and students are still students - but whining because something isn't going your way when you have power to change it is absurd.
The UAS' are obviously doing something right, the most recent IOT course to start has about 60 cdts all hailing from an UAS, with every single one represented by at least one cdt, some with 5 or 6.
Those who want to can still get something out of the system, so it's not something to write off yet.
Of course, every UAS is different and some will be better than others - and students are still students - but whining because something isn't going your way when you have power to change it is absurd.
The UAS' are obviously doing something right, the most recent IOT course to start has about 60 cdts all hailing from an UAS, with every single one represented by at least one cdt, some with 5 or 6.
Those who want to can still get something out of the system, so it's not something to write off yet.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Under the Sun
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An informed, in depth review of the RAF based on second hand information gleamed from some friend's kids from when they went to a University Air Squadron! Top quality cafe gossip!
Maybe I can recognise the caricature of the Air Squadron I went to there. Its certainly a long way from the true nature of the squadron. There was a lot of drinking, but not to same level of excess of the sports clubs. There was a bit of pressure, nothing that couldn't be coped with!
A great deal of time and effort went into the squadron by the students as well as the Officers. There was a group of students closer to the heart of the squadron, including the APOs. They were in those positions generally due to getting stuck in more than the rest. No favouritism was attached to anyone when it came to assigning opportunities, be it flying or on expeds.
The flying training on the UAS is excellent, as is the equipment. Having paid top dollar at one of the best professional civilian FTOs: it doesn't compare to what was available in the UAS. Similarly the other opportunities available to Officer Cadets are far beyond what any of the non-forces university organisations can offer.
Most of the students in the intakes around my time went on to at least OASC. Everyone, to my knowledge, who got offered a place took it. A few ended up at Sandhurst, Dartmouth or the MoD. Two or three ended up in the Airlines. I don't think many of those that disappeared elsewhere were a great loss to the system!
I'm pretty sure that things were much the same in the lesser, provincial, squadrons that existed too!
Maybe I can recognise the caricature of the Air Squadron I went to there. Its certainly a long way from the true nature of the squadron. There was a lot of drinking, but not to same level of excess of the sports clubs. There was a bit of pressure, nothing that couldn't be coped with!
A great deal of time and effort went into the squadron by the students as well as the Officers. There was a group of students closer to the heart of the squadron, including the APOs. They were in those positions generally due to getting stuck in more than the rest. No favouritism was attached to anyone when it came to assigning opportunities, be it flying or on expeds.
The flying training on the UAS is excellent, as is the equipment. Having paid top dollar at one of the best professional civilian FTOs: it doesn't compare to what was available in the UAS. Similarly the other opportunities available to Officer Cadets are far beyond what any of the non-forces university organisations can offer.
Most of the students in the intakes around my time went on to at least OASC. Everyone, to my knowledge, who got offered a place took it. A few ended up at Sandhurst, Dartmouth or the MoD. Two or three ended up in the Airlines. I don't think many of those that disappeared elsewhere were a great loss to the system!
I'm pretty sure that things were much the same in the lesser, provincial, squadrons that existed too!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The flying training on the UAS is excellent
Hopefully this article will not be taken too seriously, mainly as it second-hand, uninformed rubbish.
There is formal flying training, it is just not EFTS. There is still a flying syllabus. It is just different. Students achieve first solo, solo sector recce, solo aerobatics, solo formation, solo nav - how do you think this is achieved without formal flying training?
As has been stated above - students get out what they put in. There may not be dozens of QFIs on every UAS, but as usual we manage to do as much, if not more, with less. I am constantly amazed by the enthusiasm, time and effort put into the sqn by the students.
Flying Instruction, Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, Engagement. 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.
Anyway, there's my opinion. But what would I know, I am only dealing with the facts every day, rather than reminiscing about the good old Cold War days and assuming I know everything about today's Royal Air Force and what is best for it.
There is formal flying training, it is just not EFTS. There is still a flying syllabus. It is just different. Students achieve first solo, solo sector recce, solo aerobatics, solo formation, solo nav - how do you think this is achieved without formal flying training?
As has been stated above - students get out what they put in. There may not be dozens of QFIs on every UAS, but as usual we manage to do as much, if not more, with less. I am constantly amazed by the enthusiasm, time and effort put into the sqn by the students.
Flying Instruction, Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, Engagement. 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.
Anyway, there's my opinion. But what would I know, I am only dealing with the facts every day, rather than reminiscing about the good old Cold War days and assuming I know everything about today's Royal Air Force and what is best for it.
Thread Starter
I am only dealing with the facts every day, rather than reminiscing about the good old Cold War days and assuming I know everything about today's Royal Air Force
On this matter, though, maybe I am hyper-sensitive, but there does seem to be an underlying current of sneering about ex-aircrew "of a certain age" on here. No-one can help their age, anymore than they can help their gender or race. You can't really blame old farts, whose daily lives are maybe somewhat dull, for reminiscing about the time when the Queen paid them to fly around the world in nice shiny aeroplanes, visiting foreign places that more often than not were neither sandy nor dangerous! (Although I did manage 6 months in Aden myself, and got shot at [he missed!]).
Interesting crop of opinions on UAS's - thanks - not much agreement though.
What are there more of the RAF, pilots or Officers?
So far, 99% of the animosity in this thread seems to devolve to the fact that UAS' no longer provide pilot training and that their raison d'etre is null and void. Anybody currently on the UAS, or having left one in the last 2 years has - more than likely - zero exposure to the 'old' system, so couldn't care less how things used to be. Yes, UAS' may not provide the RAF with ready-made pilots, but those who successfully complete 3 years with their local squadron will be far better prepared to be JOs. Ultimately, what's more useful? For every pilot there needs to be an IntO, a JEngO, LogO [or whatever they're going to be called], Provost, Doctor, Dentist, Ops, ATC and ABM, so why is training geared towards providing JOs sneered at?
Tankertrashnav, if you're after a consensus I reckon you're out of luck!
Tankertrashnav, if you're after a consensus I reckon you're out of luck!
Thread Starter
Tankertrashnav, if you're after a consensus I reckon you're out of luck!
I'm with BEagle on this. But then that's not surprising since we were contemporaries, as undergrads, on the same UAS. He speaks with authority as he went back later as a QFI.
'Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.'
How right. After reading the Times article, I looked at the RAF's UAS website and the Wikipedia entry. They don't tell you, but UAS were formed in the 1930s as RAFVR training units, with the object of exposing university students to the Service, and RAF in particular, ethos: on the basis that these people would go on to be in positions of influence in society as civil professionals. The 'carrot' was to teach them to fly, and the methodology for this was exactly the same as (then) EFTS. Fortunately, some of these chaps carrried on with their flying and formed the cadre of early 2WW pilots.
When I joined in 1969, our unit was about 90% RAFVR Cadet Pilots and the rest a few APOs on University Cadetships, plus 'parented' Medics. As a result of the 1970 decision by the Service Chiefs to make the default standard of Officer Entry those with degrees, the composition of UAS was gradually skewed, and, of course, there was a greater number of ancillary (non-aircrew) cadetship persons 'parented ' by each unit.
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?
Did we drink? Of course. A lot. Work hard, play hard. But we managed our degrees and our flying too.
Most of the VRs in my intake either subsequently joined the RAF full time (I did) or went off to BOAC/BEA.
Amongst my contemporaries are (retired!) senior officers, (retired) BA pilots, and an eminent aviation lawyer and judge; two of us are graduate tps, and still working: where did we go wrong? Hang on, we're still flying!
I hope that in another 40 years' time a current UAS student today will be able to look back with fond memories and feel, like I do, that this was where it all started.
'Training was always geared towards teaching students to fly and to aspire to a career in the RAF. But their degrees came first.'
How right. After reading the Times article, I looked at the RAF's UAS website and the Wikipedia entry. They don't tell you, but UAS were formed in the 1930s as RAFVR training units, with the object of exposing university students to the Service, and RAF in particular, ethos: on the basis that these people would go on to be in positions of influence in society as civil professionals. The 'carrot' was to teach them to fly, and the methodology for this was exactly the same as (then) EFTS. Fortunately, some of these chaps carrried on with their flying and formed the cadre of early 2WW pilots.
When I joined in 1969, our unit was about 90% RAFVR Cadet Pilots and the rest a few APOs on University Cadetships, plus 'parented' Medics. As a result of the 1970 decision by the Service Chiefs to make the default standard of Officer Entry those with degrees, the composition of UAS was gradually skewed, and, of course, there was a greater number of ancillary (non-aircrew) cadetship persons 'parented ' by each unit.
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?
Did we drink? Of course. A lot. Work hard, play hard. But we managed our degrees and our flying too.
Most of the VRs in my intake either subsequently joined the RAF full time (I did) or went off to BOAC/BEA.
Amongst my contemporaries are (retired!) senior officers, (retired) BA pilots, and an eminent aviation lawyer and judge; two of us are graduate tps, and still working: where did we go wrong? Hang on, we're still flying!
I hope that in another 40 years' time a current UAS student today will be able to look back with fond memories and feel, like I do, that this was where it all started.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pompey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but...
i don't suppose any of you have recently walked into the 16 Sqn students crewroom at Rauceby Lane? Or spent a night in Daedalus Mess at Cranwell. If you had you might have been suprised...
16 (R) caters for 1/3 of the RAF EFT students (many of whom come out of the UAS, but that is neither here nor there). To that end it is a constantly busy squadron and is often pressed by time and resources to finish EFT courses on time. It is slightly curious, then, that if you were to walk into the crewroom that houses usually 20 but up to 30 RAF students at one time, you could very easily mistake it for the East Midlands UAS crewroom. They share, but the amount of space there and in the mess that the UAS seem to occupy is odd, considering how pressed the RAF is. And they aren't just sitting around drinking (though do occasionally wake up those of us with jobs to do on return from the bar)... they benefit from an enormous amount of flying - contrary to some of the earlier suggestions. I've never been airborne in the area without hearing a UAS callsign - and perhaps the biggest question we should be asking is: "can we justify it??"
Yes the UAS is a huge recruiter... and yes the ex-UAS students tend to cope with EFT very well... but is that fair? Fair on the guys who may dip out - the guys for whom the squadron and aircraft are really there. And is it fair on those without the flying experience? RAF EFT is competitive, there is no question of that... is the UAS a strictly necessary headstart or does it possibly allow students to perform better than they otherwise would, thereby taking up one of those precious linton spaces?
I'm only questioning!
MW
16 (R) caters for 1/3 of the RAF EFT students (many of whom come out of the UAS, but that is neither here nor there). To that end it is a constantly busy squadron and is often pressed by time and resources to finish EFT courses on time. It is slightly curious, then, that if you were to walk into the crewroom that houses usually 20 but up to 30 RAF students at one time, you could very easily mistake it for the East Midlands UAS crewroom. They share, but the amount of space there and in the mess that the UAS seem to occupy is odd, considering how pressed the RAF is. And they aren't just sitting around drinking (though do occasionally wake up those of us with jobs to do on return from the bar)... they benefit from an enormous amount of flying - contrary to some of the earlier suggestions. I've never been airborne in the area without hearing a UAS callsign - and perhaps the biggest question we should be asking is: "can we justify it??"
Yes the UAS is a huge recruiter... and yes the ex-UAS students tend to cope with EFT very well... but is that fair? Fair on the guys who may dip out - the guys for whom the squadron and aircraft are really there. And is it fair on those without the flying experience? RAF EFT is competitive, there is no question of that... is the UAS a strictly necessary headstart or does it possibly allow students to perform better than they otherwise would, thereby taking up one of those precious linton spaces?
I'm only questioning!
MW
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Idle Stop,
This throws an interesting light on my Nav Course. Of 7 students 5 were chopped pilots. Only one graduated as a Nav and he retired early. The other two were straight-through Navs and are both now wg cdr; they were the only 2 out of 6 UAS students to gain their PFB.
From what has been said earlier, they obviously applied themselves to both their studies and their UAS work.
I wonder how many manage to work their way throught the syllabus as far as PFB
From what has been said earlier, they obviously applied themselves to both their studies and their UAS work.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However if I was a student in a UAS I'd be pretty disappointed if I never got to fly.
I only know about one UAS, never having been a UAS student myself. The guys and gals are first class people and most try their utmost to fit in and to achieve the best they can in their chosen way.
I am sure you are right those of you that say that UASs aren't what they used to be. But, even in my short time (9 years) in contact with this one, I have seen the goalposts moved quite drastically twice, and on both occasions for reasons that I can understand.
The first time was when it was decided that all EFT was to be conducted on UASs and that the old EFTs would close. I know the person who was ultimately responsible for the implementation of this decision, and I also know why he decided what he did. UASs were under dire and real threat from the purse-string holders axe, and the only way at the time to solve the problem was to be able to say "you can't cut UASs because they are an integral part of our flying training system and without them we would not be able to train our pilots". As they are still with us I can only assume that it worked! (It does make me wonder though whether the current system will now come under the same or worse threat in today's current climate of 'must make savings in defence'.)
The second time was when 'a study' recommended that the previous decision be reversed, but reversed without the funding being available to reinstate the old system as it was in its entirety. Therefore, some major policy changes had to be made to save money.
The money saving method chosen was to result in a major change of emphasis on how the UASs were to be run. No longer was the prime raison d'etre to be flying training. There was to be more emphasis on Sports, Charity, Social, Adventurous Training, Force Development, OASC Preparation, etc (as has already been stated).
Flying was still to be available, but this was also to have a change of emphasis. Now, instead of 'flying training' being available solely to those who 'intended' to join the RAF as aircrew, flying is now available to all who wish to take up the opportunity to fly.
In order to make this available to all and to stay within the budgetary constraints, the core staffing of UASs was changed. Now the baseline 'standard' staffing is a boss and a deputy OC (basically the old CFI post). The remaining requirement for instructors is achieved by the OC of the AEF being a QFI (now a mandatory requirement for holding the post), and a number of AEF pilots who are experienced 'basic' QFIs renewing their cat and instructing 'part-time'. Some of these 'part-timers' put as much time and effort into their instructing on the UAS as I have seen in the past from one or two full-time QFIs on the 'old system', but that is primarily a function of individual personalities.
Given aircraft availability and weather being suitable, I have not known a UAS student/cadet who wanted to fly not being able to. Incidentally, each student has the choice of whether he or she wants to follow the formal training syllabus or just fly 'AEF' type sorties just for the experience of flying. It is possible for them to start in one of those streams and subsequently change over to the other stream. If they find that their degree is placing too much pressure on them for them to devote enough time to following the formal syllabus, they can change to AEF flying. If - on the other hand - they get to a stage of their degree course where they find they can devote more time they can change from AEF to the formal syllabus. Needless to say, there are some who have the decision of which stream they will follow made for them!
Also, each of the UAS members is entitled to 10 hours a year, regardless of intended trade/branch etc and even regardless of whether they indicate that they may or may not intend to join the RAF in due course. 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!
As far as the 'drinking culture' is concerned, of course they drink. But on the UAS I know, there is now no formal bar available at town nights. The bar is stocked and opened specifically for functions and - yes guess what - they drink at those functions. What a surprise! I bet that whoever said there is more drinking and a worse 'drinking culture' at some of the other university clubs is very close to being right.
As far as 'are they worth keeping' is concerned, I'm afraid that my vote is quite definitely for 'yes they are'. In my past (coming up to) 46 years in the RAF, I have met people all over the world who have a very fond memory of their time with the UAS. Many of these people (who did not join the RAF) are in positions of considerable 'influence' and have a warm and fuzzy feeling of how valuable the RAF was, is and will be. This can do no harm and is immeasurable in terms of the cost-effectiveness/value of UASs.
So that's my few 'facts' and - yes - I am an 'old fart cold war warrior' whose views you can dismiss if you wish, but I know what I see on a daily basis and what I believe about the value of UASs, whatever form they take and whatever 'flying training' they give.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and - yes - I am an 'old fart cold war warrior' whose views you can dismiss if you wish
I was a UAS stude and subsequently had the privilege of being a QFI on a different UAS.
The ethos of the entire system, 70s and 80s was to foster good relations with the military: primarily the RAF.
The cost of the "old style" UAS hardly justifies their demolition: the benefits far outweigh the expenditure.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes mate I agree with you and I don't believe that I said anywhere that change for change's sake could be an improvement. In fact, I was careful not to say that and to try to explain just why the recent changes have come about. Because I 'explained' the reasons doesn't mean that I agree with them, but budget controllers are today the gods, like it or not.