RAF EFT
Not to mention the damage this may be doing to the wider reputation of the RAF outside of the UK. Some countries hold the RAF training system and its products as their "holy" (pbuh) grail. They might even pay a packet to have a piece of it; that might be embarrassing.
Any sensible student would join URNU or the OTC instead. Who on earth would wish to bugger about at a non-flying UAS?
Just guessing. I don't now, I was only on a UAS, didn't fly (out of choice) and then joined up. And did all that this century.
Some countries hold the RAF training system and its products as their "holy" (pbuh) grail.
No longer, it seems.
Because an URNU or OTC would be bugger all relevance to someone wanting to be in ATC, Logs, be an ABM or any other of the entire gamut of ground-based roles and deprive them of the opportunity to be around career RAF pers in an RAF environment?
I was only on a UAS, didn't fly (out of choice)...
The purpose of the RAF is to fly and fight. The purpose of those who don't is to support those who do. A UAS without any flying would hardly be a sensible environment within which to inculcate prospective members of any other branch.
You don't need to fly to be able to learn about the RAF. The UAS allows it's students to do Summer Vacation Attachments every year, shadowing officers on station during their day-to-day work. For 99% of them no flying is involved. Does that mean they don't learn anything? If so, why do it?
You should damn well have been ordered to get your sorry blunt backside off the ground! Not having the opportunity to fly is one thing, choosing not to do so is emphatically something else!
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
Because an URNU or OTC would be bugger all relevance to someone wanting to be in ATC, Logs, be an ABM or any other of the entire gamut of ground-based roles
Logs - Purser/QM are direct equivalents.
ATC/ABM - navigating an URNU PB would build skills. Reading/using a nautical chart, dealing with tides/tidal flow, using navaids etc. might look different on paper, but is still good experience. Met is met whatever uniform you wear and as important to the seafarer as it is to the aviator.
RAF Regt are slightly interchangeable with the infantry
The whole purpose of URNU/OTC/UAS is to deliver a more rounded individual. I can't see any disadvantage in a future FJ pilot (or any other RAF officer role) knowing how to do a section attack or plan and execute an entrance to a harbour, in fact I can see lots of positives.
shadowing officers on station during their day-to-day work. For 99% of them no flying is involved.
BEagle, those prices might be "way out of date" outside with civvy flying clubs but take a look at the prices of a SE(P) with instructor at Waddington or Halton Flying Clubs (or others) and they charge about £100 all in per instructed flying hour in a C152. Looking at Halton's website they charge £15 per CAA exam.
So for a CAA NPPL with 32 hours that is £3200, plus £90 for the exams, plus a £50 GP's medical => easily within reach of my ~£3500 estimate.
For an EASA PPL with 45 hours then that is £4500, plus £90 for the exams, plus a Class 2 medical around £150 => £4740 which is slightly over, but they may be able to do a deal?
Look at the RAF Microlight Flying Association and you can fly a 3-axis 80hp all-metal low-wing bubble-canopy EV97 Eurostar for just £70 per hour with an instructor!
So, no, I do not believe my numbers are "way out of date"...
I agree that the idiotic commercial business folks would want to go to "invitation to tender". However, I would have thought that you could recognise the value-added of learning to fly at a Service Fling Club that a commercial flying school can't offer? Ethos? Military and ex-Military members? Government Aerodromes? Military oversight? Use of Military Mess accomodation?
The "invitation to tender" would have to be written to include these as part of the statement of requirement and then that would exclude the majority of civil flying schools.
Also, they used to give flying to non-flying branch UAS studes, so why not gve them trial flying lessons? That is the point that I was making.
There is every reason not to join URNU or OTC if you want to join the RAF and you like flying and/or aircraft.
Sorry, mate, but I see this as a very workable solution if UAS had to go in it's current guise. As we start to feel another budget squeeze for SDSR 2015, then why not? We are already skint you know!
LJ
So for a CAA NPPL with 32 hours that is £3200, plus £90 for the exams, plus a £50 GP's medical => easily within reach of my ~£3500 estimate.
For an EASA PPL with 45 hours then that is £4500, plus £90 for the exams, plus a Class 2 medical around £150 => £4740 which is slightly over, but they may be able to do a deal?
Look at the RAF Microlight Flying Association and you can fly a 3-axis 80hp all-metal low-wing bubble-canopy EV97 Eurostar for just £70 per hour with an instructor!
So, no, I do not believe my numbers are "way out of date"...
I agree that the idiotic commercial business folks would want to go to "invitation to tender". However, I would have thought that you could recognise the value-added of learning to fly at a Service Fling Club that a commercial flying school can't offer? Ethos? Military and ex-Military members? Government Aerodromes? Military oversight? Use of Military Mess accomodation?
The "invitation to tender" would have to be written to include these as part of the statement of requirement and then that would exclude the majority of civil flying schools.
Also, they used to give flying to non-flying branch UAS studes, so why not gve them trial flying lessons? That is the point that I was making.
There is every reason not to join URNU or OTC if you want to join the RAF and you like flying and/or aircraft.
Sorry, mate, but I see this as a very workable solution if UAS had to go in it's current guise. As we start to feel another budget squeeze for SDSR 2015, then why not? We are already skint you know!
LJ
The flying scholarship scheme of the past was one thing - professionally run commercial flying training organisations provided 30 hours of training.
With the best will in the world, you couldn't expect a RAFFCA club to push its members aside just to fly students which the RAF couldn't manage to train itself. The infrastructure (aeroplanes, instructors, facilities) is unsuitable for more than a few trainees at a time. A handful of enthusiastic part-time instructors and a non-uniform fleet of aircraft are inadequate for such a task - anyone agreeing to a contract to do so would be on a hiding to nothing. It would be unlikely for even the best run flying club to be deemed appropriate for the task; in the past, CFS used to take a very close interest in the training organisations used for flying scholarships and I cannot see that being any easier with the advent of MAA et al....
Incidentally, microlight training has been considered before - and rejected.
Train properly, or don't bother.
Indeed! On the UAS at which I instructed, ground branch students were expected to fly air experience trips. But of course we didn't have non-RAF ground branch trainees back then. If a ground branch APO had asked not to fly, Questions Would Have Been Asked! We also tailored the air experience to suit their potential branch - I well remember doing some flight profiles for an engineering branch student who wanted the information for his thesis, for example. And one of our more enthusiastic young ladies was an admin branch APO who subsequently did very well in her service career.
Join a UAS and choose not to fly - ridiculous!
With the best will in the world, you couldn't expect a RAFFCA club to push its members aside just to fly students which the RAF couldn't manage to train itself. The infrastructure (aeroplanes, instructors, facilities) is unsuitable for more than a few trainees at a time. A handful of enthusiastic part-time instructors and a non-uniform fleet of aircraft are inadequate for such a task - anyone agreeing to a contract to do so would be on a hiding to nothing. It would be unlikely for even the best run flying club to be deemed appropriate for the task; in the past, CFS used to take a very close interest in the training organisations used for flying scholarships and I cannot see that being any easier with the advent of MAA et al....
Incidentally, microlight training has been considered before - and rejected.
Train properly, or don't bother.
That's another big change then. On the UAS I flew Lightning, Jaguar, Wessex, Hawk (8 trips). I was given pole time on all of them, oh, and 2 weeks in Gibraltar - very educational.
Join a UAS and choose not to fly - ridiculous!
If a ground branch APO had asked not to fly, Questions Would Have Been Asked!
Questions were asked. And I answered them in the exact same way I have done on here. And they were accepted in the manner in which I hoped they would be; not so much a case that I didn't want to fly, just that I didn't feel I'd get more out of an hour's AEF than a potential pilot wanting to improve his/her skills would.
Perhaps had I been offered a "tailored" trip like you describe I might have thought differently, but at the time it was not an option nor possibility I was aware of.
I was one of the last full time EFT QFIs in the RAF. As the EFT in all three services was going to the lowest bidder, one question constantly being asked was "What if the provider goes bust or fails/refuses to provide the service". The answer was "That won't happen as there are enough contractural safeguards to prevent it".
We all thought the whole system was badly thought out and naieve in it's concept - and estimates to how long it would take to fail seemed to be a fairly consential 10 years amongst us cynical QFIs.
OK, it's taken nearly 20 years - longer than we anticipated. But we did know it would come.
What a farce!
We all thought the whole system was badly thought out and naieve in it's concept - and estimates to how long it would take to fail seemed to be a fairly consential 10 years amongst us cynical QFIs.
OK, it's taken nearly 20 years - longer than we anticipated. But we did know it would come.
What a farce!
BEags
Looks like a "uniform fleet of aircraft" to me. They could teach aeros in the Citabria as well. This RAFFCA Club has 2X full-time instructors, 1X Examiner, 1X RT Examiner and 3-4X part-time instructors. They could take half a dozen UAS studes a month and turn them into PPLs and the airfield they are based at has plenty of accomodation should they need it.
The same airfield uses 2X EV97 Eurostars (yes, they are "uniform") to provide a 30 minute AEF 'trial lesson' to Recruits who want to fly. The small cadre of instructors are annually CFS checked.
I'm pretty certain that if there was a possibility of being funded then plenty of RAFFCA Clubs would raise their game and get a business model that worked. Seeing as the RAF are unlikely to need more than 60-80 pilots per annum for the foreseeable future, then training the 'lucky few' at a Club would be doable in my humble opinion. Don't forget my 'pie in the sky' suggestion is that we only replace the UAS flying element, the 2X EFT Sqns would carry on as normal - maybe with Fireflies with prop blades that don't fall off!
LJ
Looks like a "uniform fleet of aircraft" to me. They could teach aeros in the Citabria as well. This RAFFCA Club has 2X full-time instructors, 1X Examiner, 1X RT Examiner and 3-4X part-time instructors. They could take half a dozen UAS studes a month and turn them into PPLs and the airfield they are based at has plenty of accomodation should they need it.
The same airfield uses 2X EV97 Eurostars (yes, they are "uniform") to provide a 30 minute AEF 'trial lesson' to Recruits who want to fly. The small cadre of instructors are annually CFS checked.
I'm pretty certain that if there was a possibility of being funded then plenty of RAFFCA Clubs would raise their game and get a business model that worked. Seeing as the RAF are unlikely to need more than 60-80 pilots per annum for the foreseeable future, then training the 'lucky few' at a Club would be doable in my humble opinion. Don't forget my 'pie in the sky' suggestion is that we only replace the UAS flying element, the 2X EFT Sqns would carry on as normal - maybe with Fireflies with prop blades that don't fall off!
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 3rd Jun 2013 at 05:21.
Perhaps had I been offered a "tailored" trip like you describe I might have thought differently, but at the time it was not an option nor possibility I was aware of.
Using RAFFCA or RAF Microlight hobby resources for a formal training task is emphatically NOT the way to go!
Some prospective students now prefer to stay with their ATC squadrons for as long as possible, rather than join the UAS. I don't blame them - UASs have been destroyed by the appalling Marston report.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincs
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E. Therefore, EASA has yet to determine that an unsafe condition exists. This continues to suggest to me that the issue is one of MOD duty of care and that the contractor will not be liable for the costs.
LJ: The Evektor you illustrate is certificated on a Permit to Fly. I would expect some regulatory issues with the CAA if it were to be used in the way you suggest.
LJ: The Evektor you illustrate is certificated on a Permit to Fly. I would expect some regulatory issues with the CAA if it were to be used in the way you suggest.
Thread Starter
LJ
They might be
But I would argue they aren't "in uniform".
I'm with BEags on this one. We (the RAF) should own our own fleet of aircraft to provide UAS/AEF flying training. NOt sure that anyone actually makes an aircraft that meets the requirements anymore, although the Tutor was pretty good at meeting the requirement.................
right up until the prop blades started falling off!!
For EFT, what we really should have is this
:
Dan
What about 15 (R), 57 (R) and 85 (R) (although the latter is now disbanded) sqns?
They might be
"uniform"
I'm with BEags on this one. We (the RAF) should own our own fleet of aircraft to provide UAS/AEF flying training. NOt sure that anyone actually makes an aircraft that meets the requirements anymore, although the Tutor was pretty good at meeting the requirement.................
right up until the prop blades started falling off!!
For EFT, what we really should have is this
: Dan
I was one of the last full time EFT QFIs in the RAF
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That G120 TP full certification has been delayed by a gear up landing and still has many of the G115e issues re: vis and wide canopy arches, low wing loading effects at LL etc.
It does have an MT prop though but costs $$$$ cf basic piston trainers.
But Singapore is interested. India and Botswana went for new version of PC7 instead.
It does have an MT prop though but costs $$$$ cf basic piston trainers.
But Singapore is interested. India and Botswana went for new version of PC7 instead.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Flying Scholars
Several of those Civvi FIs who taught RAF Scholarships in the early 1990s were invited by CFS to look at employment JEFTS with Huntings. Quite a few are still working for Ascent and Babcock today - now several with 17 years QFI experience being examined through both Military and CAA tests every year to keep the stds and skills up. The need for aeroplanes to fly is being resolved - just not a quickly as most would like.
Instructors are now very hard to find in Civvi street due to the shiny jet syndrome, P2F and entitlement culture - no need to build hours if you have 150k to burn on Integrated/MPL plus TR for 6 month job !
Instructors are now very hard to find in Civvi street due to the shiny jet syndrome, P2F and entitlement culture - no need to build hours if you have 150k to burn on Integrated/MPL plus TR for 6 month job !
Matador,
An aircraft can be airworthy but totally unsuited to the task of EFT/UAS. If it is deemed not to be certified for aerobatics/spinning for example then it may be perfectly safe to fly but has fallen outwith the parameters of the contract therefore the contract provider is responsible.
An aircraft can be airworthy but totally unsuited to the task of EFT/UAS. If it is deemed not to be certified for aerobatics/spinning for example then it may be perfectly safe to fly but has fallen outwith the parameters of the contract therefore the contract provider is responsible.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB still to report
"Returning the the airworthiness aspects of the situation, I can find no EASA emergency airworthiness directive having the effect of grounding the Hoffmann propellers fitted to the G115E."
AAIB report on last prop loss imminent.
Previous one: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_030406.pdf
AAIB report on last prop loss imminent.
Previous one: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_030406.pdf