Mate just back from OASC - bursaries are stopping. Sign of things to come i guess? Dam, left that one a bit late!

Bandit


Typical uninformed opinion!! May I ask what your knowledge of UASs is? It would appear that you are confusing AEFs (which are staying) and UASs which may lose a lot of their flying! There are very few (one l in marshal by the way) flying with UASs!

And what justifies the comment "flying circuses"? UASs provide the RAF's Elementary Flying Training if that happens to be to university students, as well as RAF regulars, then that is the system that was decided upon!

value for money
 

RP,

Agreed that the UAS' provide EFT for regulars and pikey students, but the whople point of the discussion is wether or not this service is being provided at the best possible value for money......something that the modern armed forces must consider.

Army and Navy EFT is carried out at Barkston Heath on the Firefly, as you are all aware. DEFTS put about, at a guess, 45 (11 courses of 4) navy students and 65 (11 courses of 6) Army students through EFT each year, with the odd failure, you could say that they pass about 100 students a year, and do this with about 15 aircraft.

Each of the UAS' pass about 15 students through EFT each year and do this with about 7 aircraft. Which is clearly much less efficient and cost effective than the DEFTS system. Not to mention the cost of running all those airfields around the country and the wastage on students who do treat the UAS as a flying club.

Looking at the figures, any rational thinking individual would without doubt close the UAS down tomorrow and reintroduce a DEFTS style system. This decision has however benn left in the hands of a load of crab brasshats and politicians so one can only imagine that they will remain open.

All the figures used here are of the top of my head and are purely illustrative to demonstrate that the current system is costing too much.

Please keep replies and comments to the subject matter, any thoughts on my typographical and grammatical errors may be stowed back aft where the sun does not shine.

OTBL

OTBL

There's one obvious solution:

Scrap DEFTS and move the RN and Army studes out to the UAS system. That will improve the UAS utilisation/output stats, and so justify the UAS existence. :E :E :ok:

Money for old rope...
 

RP

What you passed off as mere "Typical uninformed opinion", is infact carefully considered opinion formed after serving on both UASs and the equivalent RN/Army unit. :ok:

I find it quite surprising that anyone with any notion of rationality could defend the UAS system.

In an ideal world with bags of cash then maybe the UASs would be feasible, however as OTBL put it the figures speak for themselves. With the cuts made to the RN and Army in mind, thank god some of the many inefficient appendigaes of the RAF are being scrutinised.

Absolutely indefensible.

VMT

AA

Nice one, flying clubs to replace military training. We may as well all start swaggering about in denim, at least the dubious output would be consistent across the board....

VMT

OTBL & Bandit - (our paths may have crossed!) You are spot on with your observations.

JEFTS worked despite being stuck out of the way in some cra**y portacabins and turned out some quality pilots using some pretty talented individuals. DEFTS continues to do its best - yet the light blue continue to flaunt the UAS system as a centre of flying excellence.

They missed the opportunity to have the JEFTS model as the hub with the UAS's as spokes and instead focussed entirely on the latter, closing down their own part of JEFTS in the process.

As a reward they got the Grob, with it's benign, underpowered handling and (initially) no clearance to fly IMC!!!

And throughout it all, the RN and AAC have simply continued to turn out regular courses of quality pilots.

Speaks volumes.

Rant off.

Do the UAS's do military training other than the flying ?

If so then they could be justified, just like the University OTC system.

View from someone who was on a UAS, but didn't join:

What's the harm in every pilot in the UK, or for that matter every pilot in Europe, doing the same basic training be they military or civilian?

Benefits - everyone knows what everyone else is doing in their airspace allocations (within reason).
Downside - not enough mil flying early on, and standard of instruction issues.

Put everyone in some sort of uniform and use it as pre-entry grading, saving everyone money for those who can't hack it. Certainly I can see a benefit to standardisation of an element of EFT with JAR syllabuses before military diverge to the skills required for military aviation.

My UAS time was great, but was it necessary? I certainly gave serious consideration to joining up that I would not have otherwise done, and many of my colleagues on the UAS who did join had never considered it before. Surely that has achieved its aims, and created in myself and other who did not join up a sense of - lets say - friendship or affinity towards the RAF?

I think those who would always have joined up regardless were an ever-diminishing pool in my experience around 2000. That would on one hand make UASs more invaluable than ever before, but on the other hand with a smaller budget, a more cost effective solution could be tailored that doesn't impact so much upon the fact that people are at university for a degree, and result in an EFT product that isn't devalued as it taught while students at uni have to prioritise either their degree or the flying, which is to the detriment of both.

Remember that there is a significant difference between progress and destruction of tradition. Don't use the latter as an excuse not to think outside the box, but equally destruction of the UASs are not necessary to achieve a wholesale change to meet the current day requirements.

serf

I believe there is the odd bit of military training here and there, the paucity of what there is however would make the teddy bears' picnic look like a section assault.

Absolute sham.


AlltrimDoubt - BZ

VMT

Bandit/ATD

As OTBL says his figures are purely illustrative, and wrong! The figures do not therefore speak for themselves! The RAF still has a requirement for some 100+ ab initio pilots per year (not sure of the latest OASC figures but it is over 100). These 100 personnel are trained by the UASs. Some are direct entrant and do the full EFT course, some have been members of UASs and go back to the UAS to finish their EFT and some complete their EFT whilst at university and then go straight to the next stage of training after IOT. As to cost effectiveness there are a lot of frontline pilots out there who will admit that they joined the RAF because they joined the UAS and had not thought about it before that. Cost effectiveness is one of those ideas deployed by bean counters and accepted by people who cannot think deeper. How many personnel have joined the RAF in branches other then aircrew because they had their first experience of RAF life as passing interest at a fresher's fayre. That cost cannot be calculated but UASs do provide a lot of personnel to branches other than pilot/WSO. How do you cost that?

Now I am no blind defender of the UAS system but the RAF do have an organisation that provides EFT and that was one of the main reasons they pulled out of J/DEFTS. Why pay for two systems when you already fund one? The future of DEFTS is not as secure as some would like to think. The AAC want to go to an all helicopter training system so that would leave the RN as the only user of DEFTS. What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs). Lots of benefits all round, particularly in these days of jointery. It would benefit all 3 services in learning more about each other, it would provide regular students for the QFIs on UASs, so they would get to instruct the full syllabus more regularly. And lets not forget all 3 services need to grow instructors somewhere to feed the front line OCUs with QFIs. With the draw down at Linton and possibly the UASs where are these QFIs going to come from? Cost effectiveness? (Although I agree the Tutor is not as powerful as the Firefly lets not forget that the Firefly was not without its own problems when it came into service, it has just been around a bit longer).

As someone who had to deal with the end product of JEFTS/EFT I can assure you that the product is not as sound as some would like to think and certainly not as good as personnel who went through a BFT system. Now if the reason for removing flying from UASs was to fund a system where all personnel went through the same BFT system on say the PC21 then I would support the reduction in UAS flying. As for the lunacy of putting EFT on civil flying clubs - utter, utter madness (and I know that is taring a lot of good civil flying instructors/clubs with the same brush - to them I apologise in advance). I understand the CFS world are now receiving instructors who have hardly flown formation let alone lead any. Have done minimal low level time and Linton have a large number of ex multi engine pilots who have never flown the Tucano so have to be trained how to fly it before they start the CFS Tucano course. More cost effectiveness?

Bandit (without blowing your cover) may I just ask when your experience of UAS and JEFTS was?

hahaha
 

:p :p

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."

:p :p :p :p

again.....do it again

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."



Please....just one more time

"What would be more efficient than getting rid of the DEFTS unit altogether and doing the RN EFT on the RAF EFT system (otherwise known as UASs)."

:p :p :p :p

I will post a proper reply once I stop laughing......probably next week some time:p

Quality Reply :mad: I meant, on the assumption that UASs remain (possibly a big assumption) and DEFTS goes (not such a big assumption). Who is going to provide the RN with their EFT? RN EFTS?

UAS & EFT Experience.
 

RP

In and around 2003.

I don't think you were on the correct wavelength when you read my post about flying clubs. I was inferring that merging RN/Army EFT into the UAS system would be akin to farming out military training to University "Flying Clubs". A big step backwards in the opinion of all those who have been through those institutions.

I think you'll find that Church Fenton and Barkston Heath combined weigh up far more efficiently than god knows how many UASs scattered around the bazzars. There are so many different justifications for this I'm not inclined to waste my time spelling them out, just talk to any Fenton/Barkston grad and he/she will fill you in, before or after discussing the relative merits of both systems.

Merging RN EFT into the UASs, just the kind of muddlebrained crab blundering that set JEFTS up in the first place before deciding to pull out.

VMT

Go on then!!! By the way what is at CF? JEFTS left some time ago!

And by the way I do, on a regular basis. Its part of the job! The system has changed since 2003. Regular EFT on UASs works, suggest you ask any recent grad of the "new" system. The RAF still cannot justify paying for 2 systems!! It is NOT cost effective. (And the EFT product is still not as good as a BFT product)! :E

Well start listening shippers and they'll set you straight. Because you're obviously labouring under the misaprehension that over 100 tutors (inferior, benign, low-powered) giving 100 grads per year is comparable to less than twenty Fireflys (almost twice as powerful more advanced aircraft) giving the same number of grads through;

1. One, singular well (and efficiently) standardised institution, ie. for those slow on the uptake, no offence RP :confused: does not invole touring the UK to keep standards in check.

2. A full time Military training unit.

etc etc etc

VMT

BTW poor emergency banter.

OK I promise to listen if you will.

1. The RAF CANNOT afford to pay for 2 systems of EFT! (They might not even be able to pay for the one they HAVE got if the report has its way!

2. The Firefly is still a light aircraft and performs nowehere near as well as the JP/Tucano/PC21, even if it can out perform the Tutor. I am not suggesting that 100 grads = 100 grads (because the UASs grad a lot more. The 100 ONLY refers to the RAFs EFTS requirement). The UASs have 2 roles and are not dedicated to a single task like DEFTS. I would hope that a full time students can achieve more annual graduations, but then would DEFTS be able to meet the RAF requirement as well? Answer No. The second reason for the RAF withdrawing from JEFTS.

3. A full time military unit........you must be refering to the UASs then, because you cannot be referring to DEFTS!;)

4. And for those equally slow on the uptake, bandit, the UASs are not just about pilots and navs! The well scattered UASs are used to recruit to all branches in the RAF. The navy are not taking their boats from the URNUs (indeed I undersatnd that they are looking at providing 2 more). The army are not restricting their OTC by limiting the number of hours in holes in the ground. Without flying the main attraction to joining a UAS goes.

5. Whilst we have UASs, then they are capable of providing RAF EFT. It is called irreducible spare capacity. And the recent product from RAF EFT is just as happy with their training as those that DEFTS produces (as I said the system has changed in the last 2 years). Who wouldn't be they are just starting their careers and will do whatever it takes to get to the end point!

6. Ultimately this is turning into a pointless p:mad: g contest you are right, and so am I, but for different reasons!

I am a "recent grad" of "the new" system. Finished as a DE on a UAS earlyer this year. Worked for me!

NFS

I'd say you're about half right, not so sure about the last part of that sentance.

If you can't pay for two flying training systems, scrap one and stop bleating!

You are right in one respect though, this is turning into a p:mad: g contest. I'll therefore cut to the chase and just say that DEFTS is far better than the UAS system, Tutors are rubbish long live independant RN EFT!

Still not listening I see.....:rolleyes:

We have scrapped one, we got rid of JEFTS, no bleating involved!

"Independant RN EFT", hasn't existed for a long time and unlikely to do so again!

Nothing like an arrogant fishead to liven up a friday. Off to HH now!! Byeeee

"The navy are not taking their boats from the URNUs (indeed I undersatnd that they are looking at providing 2 more). "

Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so.

The Boats are a useful tool for the RN as they are cheap and can go to a lot of ports that biggers things can't, thus keeping the RN in the public eye and getting nice publicity. They also do other tasking for the RNR and other organisations.

The fact that the URNU scheme has been running since 1967, and since that time has not to my knowledge produced a single known captain of industry or Admiral is of course irelevant :)

(I say this as an ex URNU stude and TO)

"Without flying the main attraction to joining a UAS goes"

I would say, without flying the ONLY attraction to joining a UAS goes.

"Slight difference there, the URNU is not a training organisation per se, rather it exists to provide experience of the Navy to quote "future captains of industry". If you decide to join the RN afterwards then thats all well and good, but there is no pressure to do so."

Delete 'URNU', 'Navy' and 'RN' and insert 'UAS', 'Air Force' and 'RAF' and you could be describing what the UASs were all about until the idiots ruined them with the lunacy of pre-BFT streaming recommendation based upon UAS performance.

And don't anyone kid themselves that the RAF wants 'younger' people than UAS graduates because they're easier to teach and generally fitter - it's purely so that the beancounters can squeeze another 3 years 'productive' service out of them before their 38 point or whatever it is these days. Pure and simple.

I wonder whether the MoD-box beancounters have woken up to the current moves in ba's recruiting..... Once that ramps up even more (as it surely will), they'll be back to competing with the airlines for those few people who seem to want a flying career these days. No UAS APOs flying their ar$es off when not working for their degrees, no bursaries (worth less than a few months of supermarket shelf stacking to most students) = no interest except for the RHS of an A320.

And we'll all chorus "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

But it'll be too late then. Tough!

Roland,

I'd ignore bandit. Remember, to win a pi$$ing contest, you need a kn0b!

:ok:

kipper

...so you'll be volunteering as one then!!!


:cool:

Bandit - RP
What a couple of twits you two are. This is no place for silly playground arguements, my plane's better than yours etc etc. Give us a break please.
Is there anyone out there with an informed opinion/knowledge of the fate of DEFTS?
FEBA

FEBA, on the contrary, the debate between the 2 of them is highly interesting.

JEFTS, DEFTS or whatever it's called had a different objective to the UAS scheme. Just as RNEFTS used to have a different objective to the UAS scheme.

Muddled Purple prose led to the stupidity of trying to force unacceptable compromises upon everyone - and neither the Firefly nor Das Teutor are as suitable for Elementary Training as was the Bulldog.

What would I do, given a clean sheet?

1. Retain the UAS scheme, but replace all QFIs with real RAF QFIs, not time-expired ex-senior officers. Abandon the concept of attempting to stream students based on their UAS performance.

2. Re-introduce University Cadetships.

3. Re-introduce a common BFTS at Cranwell on the Tucano for ALL RAF and RN pilot students.

4. Let the RN and Army do their own thing with RW training.

But of course the RAF can't afford any of that.

BEagle

There are some who are most definitely in the loop as it were not just to the history, but some of the proposals for the future.

Some of your statements ring true, but as one who has experienced all 3 types mentioned, then the Firefly is suitable for EFT. A 250'MSD clearance a la 'dog would be an advantage, but it still does the job very nicely and sorts the men out from the boys in prep for BFJT in a way the Grob cannot. (I should imagine that use of the rudder, energy management and the ability to think ahead in aeros to maintain base ht rather than gain during a sequence you would deem acceptable)

And yes, I've also taught BFJT - so I can compare the end product!

Agree that ideally we woiuld all complete BFJT. That would also remove the current snag of QFI's not having previously experienced the syllabus and platform on which they teach!

But please don't lump the RN with the AAC as advocates of pure RW throughput. We value our fixed wing time and gain some useful skills, streaming etc from it.

B*gger - cover blown - chaff banter quick! (Bl**dy Crabs!)

FEBA

You need to re read some of the previous posts. There is no willy waving about ac types (apart from the fishheads);) . I accept that the Firefly is probably the better EFT ac, even though the Tutor can gain height during aeros. Both would ideally be on the military register to allow 250 low level (500' is just @rse) and PFLs to 100' with out worrying about CAA rules regarding PVVS.

And "Yes" about DEFTS!

Why is the EFT fleet civil registered? How does it differ from the Squirrel and Griffin RW training fleet that is contractor owned and maintained but fly as military registered aircraft?
The multi engine training Super King Airs have also just been allocated military serials so what is so unusual about the Grobs and Tutors?

Any news yet guys?

To avoid the time and expense of going through Boscombe?

Why is the EFT fleet civil registered?


simple, to save time and money.

Have heard another rumour that the tutor is apparently to easy to fly and enough people aren't getting chopped so they are going to do EFT on the tucano; like they did with the JP for a bit; as they have spare airframes.

:confused:

My rumour control says an announcement is expected soon after the election.

They are real QFI's

They are time expired ex-senior officer nontheless - and why should they be employed as UAS QFIs when there is an alleged surplus of ME JOs who would surely benefit from the opportunity to become QFIs at less than half the age (and pay?) of the old timers?

BEagle,
What has come over you. You are WRONG.
The University Air Squadron is staffed by "normal" serving RAF Officers, all QFIs except for the odd one who was as above but has now "retired" and been reincarnated one rank lower and is a Civvie in Uniform. (Sorry, can't remember the correct technical term for this.)

The Air Experience Flight is commanded by a full time RAFVR officer, the only full time member of the Flight, supported by volunteer pilots who must have gained Service Wings (any Service) and may be serving or retired members of the forces.
Admittedly, some of these can be a bit gash, blokes like Cliff Spink, Sir Roger Austin, the late Ken Hayre(sp?).

The Aircraft are the same ones shared between the two competing users.

Mike W

Edited to add:-
The C.O. of the only AEF Flight I have any knowledge of, a man of vast experience, his last posting before "retirement", in a training role, personally vets any applicants, does their conversion to type and continuously monitors their performance. I have known him to sack pilots who were not performing as required.

M.

... which reminds me of popular crewroom rants at training bases I've seen. Why should AEFs be full of retired officers supplementing their pension when there're dozens and dozens of post-BFJT and post-AFT holding officers doing SAC ops clerk jobs up and down the country?

It's a good way to crush a guy's morale. Well done on getting your wings, mate, now off you go to do an SAC's job left gapped because we're making everyone redundant. And you have to do it for 14 months, because our training system's a bit busy with another air force...

Be nice if they could do a flying job, and exercise those shiny new wings.

5 fwd and some back

You are wrong about them supplementing their pension...they get home to duty and max 28 days pay per year...hardly a huge amount of dosh.

5F6B - as a 'user' of the Air Experience Flights for many years from the Air Cadet perspective (having experienced about 8 of the AEFs around the country over about 33 yrs), I maybe have a different take on it. All of the pilots I have ever met (well, nearly all!!) have been walking talking recruiting posters for the RAF, many of whom genuinely use all of their service experience to enthuse cadets about an RAF career. I believe that to be eligible for consideration as a pilot, they have to have been Combat Ready and have a minimum of 500 hrs total time with 300 hrs as PIC (I'm sure Beagle will be able to correct me on this!). I'm not sure that your average stude after BFJT on a holding posting will meet these criteria and certainly are unlikely have the presence / stature to be able to 'wow' the cadets.

These are genuine enthusiasts (such as former ACM Sir Michael Knight, who was re-ranked to Fg Off with 4 AEF at Exeter!).

That's fair enough; apologies for not getting the books out and doing some proper research before posting!

Re: Circuit Basher's comments, I believe it's 500hrs P1 and they must have previously been combat ready. Currently, there are a handful of post-BFJT studes as test cases flying on AEFs (If I remember right, they needed a "high average" pass from Linton to be eligible.).

I didn't intend this to be a rant against AEF pilots. Obviously a lot have some spectacular experience, some great dits, and they're all very nice guys (certainly every one I've encountered has been).

Rather, as BEagle was saying, I think it's a bit off the mark that we're filling what are effectively RAF flying posts with a lot of retired officers, when we have a massive overflow of young, still enthusiastic, capable pilots who are left kicking their heels and making tea for anything up to 18 months between courses. Fair enough, especially when young and inexperienced, they need to spend a hold or two on the front line; learning what happens there, how a squadron runs, and what their future job'll be like. But if you spent 6 months as a squadron holding bod after IOT, then 9 months after EFT, then maybe 14 months after Linton... there's only so much tea making you can take when you wander away from Valley with your eyes on TW in 6 months' time.

Don't want to knock the gents who do a great job on AEFs, but I'm sure that while cadets must be enthused by tales of Phantom and Lightning derring-do, wouldn't they also be quite interested to fly in the seat next to a chap 3-5 years older than them who can tell them a bit about how to get into his job now? When I was a cadet, I never thought for a second I might actually end up like any of the guys who took me AEF flying; but if it was a 22 year old post-BFJT stude, I might have thought differently.