They still can apply. They may also be persuaded towards a commission later on.
That said for most non-commissioned roles, during selection the preference may be given to a candidate with ambitions to go to OASC (given the number of applicants). There are those who enter non-commissioned careers from the UAS system though, but they are the minority and some will do it mid-degree if University is not for them.
The University Air Squadron (UAS) is a complex beast that managed to survive mainly against the odds. Its initial purpose was to promote âair mindednessâ in those who would go on to become the movers and shakers in our society, recruitment to the regular forces barely featuring as an objective. Regular entry for the GD Branch was through the cadet system and the RAF College. From the UAS, some might go on to become members of the Auxiliary squadrons and subsequently enter regular service by that route.
In the years after the Second World War, there was a shortfall of cadet entry officers in the middle to upper ranks as a very high proportion had been killed in the conflict. This void was filled by a former UAS members who retained an affinity for their old units. Thus the UAS system continued much as before with considerable emphasis on influence over recruitment. The majority of UAS Commanders of this period were former UAS students themselves. It would have been fair to say that a UAS of that period was in fact a university flying club that required no long term commitment.
By the late 1960s demographics were starting to affect recruitment. The cadet entry system was clearly in need of overhaul as the quality of applicant was perceived to be lowering. To counter this, greater emphasis started to be placed on recruitment at the UAS and graduate entry incentivised with more rapid early promotion. A few graduate courses were run at the Basic Flying Training Schools (BFTS) but these still had no connection with the UAS.
In the 1970s the decision was made to move to a primary graduate entry system that integrated the UAS into the training process. Entrants joined the University Cadetship Scheme either prior to going up or at the end of the first year. The UAS training was then tailored towards Graduate Entry (GE) at Cranwell. This required the entrant to have qualified for award of the Primary Flying Badge (PFB) and to have had a current Primary Instrument Flying Grade (PIFG) within 6(?) months of commencing Initial Officer Training (IOT). The PFB syllabus could be completed in approximately 95 hours although most entrants had nearer 120 hours on joining . At that time the BFTS course was 145 hours long but was reduced to 120 hours for UAS graduates.
From the BFTS perspective it was expected that the UAS would produce a product that had sound basic technique. We were not really interested in low level navigation, certainly not formation any aerobatics beyond the âbasic 5â. Sadly this was not always the case and BFTS instructors frequently found themselves having to completely re-teach some quite basic exercises. Whilst expectations for the UAS had changed, the culture was lagging. There were exceptions at both ends of the spectrum, some UAS produced a consistent product but regrettably some were still in âflying clubâ mode. I recall one student who arrived with over 180 hours on the Bulldog but regrettably little had been done to ensure that he got value from it. Others reached the bare 95-100 but spread over 3 years did it really make up for a 25 hour reduction in the BFTS course?
At this time; late 70s â early 80s; there was a view that started to be expressed that UAS flying should be reduced to the bare minimum during the 3 years at university and then delivered as a structured course shortly before IOT or BFTS. This clashed with the traditional view of the UAS and failed to gain much traction at the time, but times were changing. The end of the Cold War with its massive reductions once again cast the spotlight on the UAS. With reducing recruitment targets even those in the middle of university cadetships found themselves unwanted (by the RAF at least, quite a few became very competent airline pilots). This was the start of the process that brings us to where the UAS are currently. They are now integrated to a greater degree in the pre-service training role; along with the Air Experience Flights (AEF); and fulfil a broader function of being a RAF presence in tertiary education. I doubt that this is the end of the story and I believe that the UAS will continue but would venture that in 10 yearsâ time it will not be in the same form as today.
The UAS was initially seen a vehicle of influence and that persisted for many years, this was followed by an uneasy transition to pre-service flying training and ultimately pre-service training with flying taking a still important but lower profile. It owes its existence at all stages to the perceived needs of its parent service and that will continue. In that sense it has nothing in common with the MoD sponsored youth organisations.
exmpa
ermâŚsorry apology issued, i have checked, turns out it is back to three!!
When was it four?
The third one was split briefly at the âandâ in a batch of 3822s but that was years and years ago.
We could have a fourth ⌠prepare them for what they actually get in relation to their expectations raised in adverts, and, the general disappointments that life brings.
Come on now TeflonâŚIf you put a little more in your glass you might find it half full?
The AEFâs are doing their best to provide a safe memorable experience to Cadets. Accepted things have changed over the last few years, but any continued funding from the MOD for Air Cadet flying/gliding is a positiveâŚ
The alternative would leave the ACO with a lot less?
I donât think anyone would disagree with you there.
But, however positive you want to be, you can not escape the fact that some cadets get a better service than others. 10 AEF hasnât flown cadets for months, and will not fly cadets until the runway is resurfaced (whether the MOD will choose to do That, is another storyâŚ). The gliders that were released to our VGS have now been removed again.
All of this is at odds with our the RAFAC website and recruiting material.
âJoining the Air Cadets opens up lots of opportunities, including the chance to fly! Itâs our aim to get you airborne as often as possible, as a passenger in a light aircraft, a glider or even on-board RAF aircraft such as our Typhoon fast-jet or a Chinook helicopter.â
I can be as positive as you like, but it doesnât make the above quote from the RAFAC website any less misleading for my cadets.
[quote=â109115, post:128, topic:2939, full:trueâ]The AEFâs are doing their best to provide a safe memorable experience to Cadets. Accepted things have changed over the last few years, but any continued funding from the MOD for Air Cadet flying/gliding is a positiveâŚ
The alternative would leave the ACO with a lot less?[/quote]
Itâs easier to be positive when you are getting the service you expect and for this read broadband, mobile phone etc. My mobile service is fine as is my broadband, but I know people who arenât getting the service they expect and do not take it lightly. If your mobile phone service or broadband provider was not up to scratch youâd go elsewhere and may into the bargain accept any breaking contract costs. We in the ATC affected by no/poor service have been denied going else where wrt flying and gliding.
As for safe, canât get any safer than not doing it.
God knows where the funding for gliding is going, except into several pension pots and the funding for several AEFs is running down a wall somewhere.
Since 5 AEF moved to Wittering weâre still nowhere near getting the service we expect or maybe what I expect. There is little or no information coming out as to where they are in getting back to ânormalâ as this would mean showing more failure. At no time since it became apparent that fliyng wasnât happening, did the âflying clubâ or HQAC fully acknowledge the complete failure of the service and come up with an alternative or give us free rein to organise our own. Read a similar situation for gliding. As they are too busy implementing self protectionist postures and coming up with excuses why we canât go elsewhere, rather than making it possible.
We have thousands of cadets who have been failed by poor management at the top level for 3 years if not longer. Itâs left to the poor sods like us at sqns are having to disappear up our backsides trying to make their time as a memorable as we can and getting frazzled as a result. I feel sorry for any staff with children aged 4-16 and trying to fit their demands and maybe work as well around those of the ATC. When our kids were in these age group my ATC activity dropped as they were my priority.
The runway issues at Woodvale and a VGS without aircraft in your region is obviously frustrating.
Things arenât going to return to how they were before, if thatâs what is referred to as ânormalâ The VGS community is slowly recovering and not as quickly as any of us would like and will only recover to 10 sites across the U.K. The Tutor fleet has its own issues and the planned MFTS dates slip to the right, putting more pressure on the Tutor fleet.
The ACO doesnât have the appetite for another Cadet fatality and everything we do now with cadets is âriskyâ and our hierarchy will stop an activity rather than put a young person at risk. Thatâs the world we live in.
With that in mind, thinking as they do, I understand but donât necessarily agree with their thought processes.
My honest opinion is that we need to be grateful for what weâve got. Itâs not what we had but itâs better than the alternative. Less or nothing!
As an adult, i understand that. My cadets? Not so much.
Theyâve joined an organisation that boasts about the aviation experiences that it offers. Then they find out that the opportunities arenât quite as readily available as theyâd been led to believe. Or, in the case of the wings served by 10 AEF, cadets getting up in the air is the exception, rather than the norm.
Itâs all very well looking at the holistic view that some flying is better than none, but that is of no comfort to the cadets that currently get none.
If just under 25% of the AEFs are experiencing issues providing their core output, perhaps now is the time to take a good look at the viability?
As a squadron served by 10 AEF, the sad fact is that my current cadets would be in no worse a position if the AEF system was shut down tomorrow.
But less or nothing is what we are getting currently in many areas of the country, because the model that weâve had for years is broken/in disrepair and there seems little enthusiasm to change this situation.
Itâs the risk averse twitchy bum attitude espoused by HQAC that has dragged this organisation from where it was to where it is now. It is folly to allude to doing things off our own bat would end up with fatalities and plays directly into HQACâs hands.
As you say it is easier to stop something and if Iâm perfectly honest I wish they would and let us know just what we can do without any fear and just let us do that. It would mean theyâd have to either do a proper retireeâs job and not scam thousands a year from the taxpayer.
You can go anywhere or do anything and end up dead and many will be dead by the end of today doing day to day ordinary things or through natural causes.
Sadly Woodvale has been hit by many issues over the last 12 months and everyone on station is as disappointed as you and your cadets are.
Most if not all of the staff at Woodvale have been or are currently active in some shape or form with the ACO. Believe me when I say we are fighting for funding as hard as we can to have the runway repaired but there is only so much shaking of the tree that The Station Commander can do.
Pressure needs to come from our main business. You. Put pressure on your WGLOs and RFGLOs who should in turn put pressure on the RCs who should then put pressure on the AOC.
Unfortunately a runway which is reaching 60 years old and in need of major resurface is not a cheap fix.
We are continuing to keep our pilots current and are training new pilots so that when we become active again, we can hit the ground running.
Budget cuts means there is very little or no money available for anything.
So. Let me get this straight?
You want the cadets at your squadron to get some flying, but you want to disband the AEF system that provides it??
Suggest you have a think about that one??
I think that youâre assuming that the AEF system as it stands is the only way in which the ATC could provide flying training to young people?
I learnt more about flying during my IGT on the viking, than I ever did flying in a Chipmunk, Bulldog, or Tutor.
As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I do believe you, and appreciate your comments, thank you.
The staff (in my wing, anyway!) are very aware that the lack of flying is not the fault of 10 AEF!
Youâre right. The AEF gives Air Cadets a flying experience/training and VGS gives gliding training.
They provide two different experiences for a Cadet.
Each VGS also has a PTT and there are others at so called AGS around the country. These provide cadets with a synthetic experience.
These facilities provide quality training to our cadets and are all an invaluable integral part of the overall Cadet experience.
During the gliding pause and before cadets have been given gliding scholarships and flying scholarships at various CAA/BGA clubs. There are plenty of scholarships out there for cadets to apply for.
To me you appear intent on bashing what we have rather than appreciating it? Compared to what youth in other countries are offered its pretty good!
The runway issue at Woodvale has created an issue but is not the fault of the AEF.
WRT AEF and doing things differently, we have seen things change in my workplace and beforehand people thinking it wonât work / canât do it like that, on occasion me included, but have been proved wrong. Whoâd have thought 35 years ago that every manager wouldnât have a secretary, or, we wouldnât have to refer all documents to the typing pool for typing/preparing, or, sending things to reprographics for printing, or, we would book and pay for our own training/hotels/courses etc without needing forms going back and forth, or, we would do the sort of things we do now using all the electronic gadgetry. All of these changes have been liberating and made the workplace more interesting as you can do things for yourself, without constantly referring to or waiting for someone else. Not all have been good, losing our staff canteen wasnât good.
So providing a flying experience without AEFs is perfectly feasible, it just needs someone with the kahunas to push it. There are a lot of things we do, that we could access perfectly well outside of the protectionist military bubble and the military would still get the presence the CF provide. The only problem is that any change like to AEF, would eat into the shrinking empire of the flyers in the RAF and places for people to ascend the greasy pole. I would imagine a lot of officers pass through the flying training side and get promoted as a result. How much in the forces is now contracted out, that was done in house not so long ago? The question is who is the AEF (and CF in general) system for the cadets or as I suspect easy non jobs for the boys and girls?
As for Woodvale, that has fallen foul of financial considerations and if the AEF is the only flying happening, would they spend the money on resurfacing the runway? It would appear not. Like potholes in roads, the deteriorating surface of runway doesnât happen overnight, but gets left and left. Then something major has to be done, which could have been prevented if tackled earlier.
Iâm not bashing the AEFs at all. When it works, itâs a valuable asset to an organisation that is trying to encourage a lifetime interest in aviation.
But at this moment, for whatever reason, there are cadets who will not be given the opportunity to undertake AEF flying during their time in the RAFAC.
The crux of the issue is that there is not enough money. That will not better. So, do we continue with a system that is failing a portion of our cadets, or do we proactively search for alternative ways to provide flying?
I, for one, would not be surprised to lose AEFs altogether when the Babcock contract finished. If the MOD canât find spare funds to fix a runway, how will they be able to justify paying for a new contract to run, what is essentially, joyrides for young people.
An important question is who pays for AEF. Does the AEF piggy bank off the UAS system or does HQAC pay millions to the treasury to âPayâ for the aircrew, ground crew and facilities.
IF HQAC are pay their way than I feel that there is a future for AEF. If the RAFAC are getting AEF for nothing as was said above after the current contract expires so will AEF.