The UAS certainly no longer is, although sadly the ignorant stereotype still exists, even though there is no formal flying syllabus. There is a high volume of training which in the near future will hopefully be directly transferable into the Reserve/Auxiliary units. Despite the low rate of recruitment into the RAF, the quality of the personnel on leaving the UAS system is, overall, better than it was a decade ago.
[quote]URNU/OTC/UAS sit under the Reservist umbrella the same as the Cadet Forces (Staff and Cadets) that does not make them reserves.
[/quote]
Incorrect. They are attested members, in the UAS case, of the RAFVR, and are paid for their time and work (up to reasonable limits).
Again, some people obviously know little about the UAS system.
As and example, without too much thought, on a single UAS I know of a couple of UAS Cdts who are VGS instructors, and a UAS cadet who teaches PPL ground school. I can also think of a UAS Off Cdt who is a DofE assessor. Add to that Off Cdts who are qualified service adventurous training leaders and instructors, or sports coaches and officials.
I can only conclude that the UAS student can only be condemned as utterly useless and a complete waste of space. 
They could add nothing as instructors in the Air Cadet system.
(As an aside, I too query how you can stay as a staff cadet when are an attested RAFVR Off Cdt, or, quite possibly commissioned as an APO, which is quite possible before the age of 20 if a student is good enough and born towards the rear end of the academic year)
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=4743]If that is indeed the case, then it could be argued that as UAS cadets’ training is focussed on getting those destined for aircrew through their basic flying syllabus they have limited extra skills and little experience to offer (save drinking). Those destined for other professions in the RAF get virtually no training in their specialisations although I know that OTC cadets receive basic soldiering training so they could help with elements of field craft, but that would be about it. I know nothing of what the URNU does.
I realise this will be controversial, but what can a UAS cadet actually do for the benefit of the cadets on your Sqn? As has been mentioned before, I think quite a few want to come back to meet their old mates and well, show off![/quote]
Your post is correct up to about 2005. After 2005/6 (when UAS students no longer completed EFT) the waters muddied a little until the UAS syllabus got where it is today in the last couple of years. In short, the General Service Training element of the syllabus, is equal, if not larger than the flying element.
Sadly, flying training, although the most visible element of the UAS system (certainly to Cadets attending an AEF), is no longer the be all and end all of the system. There is a structured flying syllabus, but of course there is no credit to EFT (however it does give a very strong indication of a student’s potential). Only a few finish the syllabus, fewer complete the “value added” flying after than. Probably about 50% achieve first solo. That said, as we end up with the RPAS (UAV) flying brevet, UAS students who’ve completed the syllabus up to PFB may well find a smoother path to Reserve service operating the Reaper perhaps?
Alongside the flying, there is a dedicated Force Development unit at RAFC Cranwell, which most weekends will be found operating with UASs providing what used to be known as “greens” training. There are also numerous longer exercises held at various military training areas throughout the year. In these exercises, which are very similar to the major exercises run on IOT, students are given the leadership roles, and deal with the same type of scenarios given during officer training. In addition, some UASs provide support to IOT, providing personnel for the exercises on that course. The training they give may well soon be counted as a major element of Phase 1 training for service in RAuxAF units.
Also outside of flying, there are also opportunities for study into Air Power and leadership, through the provision of UK based and overseas Staff Rides, and opportunities for adventurous training, which again develops both character and leadership, particularly as most of these visits and expeditions are organised and run by the students themselves, with the Staff providing mentoring and support where required.
A personal development programme is also in place, which, should a student wish, is accredited with either or both the Institute of Leadership and Management, and the Chartered Management Institute. This is based on a two year period of continuous development and attainment.
It may also have be noticed, that last year, at a major public event, one of the two flights of the Queen’s guard was made up of UAS personnel. The other, next to them, happened to be the Queen’s Colour Sqn. That is the regard in which the UAS system is now held within the service. The event was in London, and televised live across the nation and abroad - the unveiling of the Bomber Command Memorial.
So whilst it used to be a flying and drinking club (the same could have been argued about the RAF in a certain era, but thankfully no longer), it now is actually quite a serious deal, and if you don’t take part and put the effort in, your time in the unit is limited.
If you went to any university you would find a similar cross-section, not involved with a UAS, maybe not the VGS perhaps, but the others yes. If these you mention are on paper so good, why don’t you hear of them contacting squadrons local to the universities they attend? In all my years in the Corps I’ve never heard of one.
My biggest concern is when would I see these wonderkids if I took them on my books? I have found university students to be wholly unreliable and or only available during holiday periods. This seems from chatting to mates running other squadrons the general opinion is offer much and deliver little. Plus if they are on a UAS doesn’t that take precedence, just like service committments with proper SIs?
Personally when they are at uni they should be doing what kids at uni do and come back to us when they’ve entered the real world. I’ve worked with too many graduates who haven’t got a scooby and think the world owes them something, which has to come from perpetuating the “school experience” by spending 3/4 years at uni. Even my old mates who went to uni, 30 odd years ago were the same.
[quote=“chaz” post=4871]. The training they give may well soon be counted as a major element of Phase 1 training for service in RAuxAF units.
[/quote]
Already has for at least one bloke. I posted about it on a thread, but I can’t remember which one now. From the sound of your post, though, you may already be aware of him?
I stand by my point though: UAS is Phase 1 Training. Troops under Phase 1 Training (and possibly Phase 2 Training) can’t be Service Instructors.
Tango Lima, not sure that is correct. I was a SI as a Phase 1 and Phase 2 trainee. In fact in my role my P1+P2 together takes 3 years, does that mean no one in my job can be a SI for that time?
[quote=“tango_lima” post=4873]
Already has for at least one bloke. I posted about it on a thread, but I can’t remember which one now. From the sound of your post, though, you may already be aware of him?[/quote]
I think I may well do. 
Much as it may be surprising, given my defence of the quality of the modern UAS student, I quite agree. 
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4872]
My biggest concern is when would I see these wonderkids if I took them on my books? I have found university students to be wholly unreliable and or only available during holiday periods. This seems from chatting to mates running other squadrons the general opinion is offer much and deliver little. Plus if they are on a UAS doesn’t that take precedence, just like service committments with proper SIs?
Personally when they are at uni they should be doing what kids at uni do and come back to us when they’ve entered the real world. I’ve worked with too many graduates who haven’t got a scooby and think the world owes them something, which has to come from perpetuating the “school experience” by spending 3/4 years at uni. Even my old mates who went to uni, 30 odd years ago were the same.[/quote]
Yep, this is true. Within the UAS there number one priority is getting a good degree, only then does the UAS and any other activities come along. Do too much and you’d be spreading time far too thinly. The only exception would have been VGS instructors, however 3FTS recently directed that UAS students are not to be current on the Tutor (not that it is a current problem! ) and either Viking or Vigilant.
Reality bites … welcome to the real world.
Tango Lima, I know that is incorrect regarding regulars in Phase 1 + 2 being ineligible to be SI, or at least it was back in 2002 when I was in Phase 1 and later 2 and was a SI at my old Squadron. The ACO is lacking in staff so why would we turn away willing individuals who have something to give, especially as most SIs are ex-cadets/ex-staff anyway.
There are problems with some I’m sure but I hear the same arguments regarding Veterans in the ACO. There will always be individuals who are not suitable but there does seem to be an attitude in the ACO against anyone with real experience. And from what I have seen, much of it is from those who are really Walter Mitty types in the ACO who don’t know their own regulations or how to do anything properly. They then take umbrage with being told the fact.
[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=4743]OK, so the policy directives are contradictory, but Is it not the purpose of Service Instructors to bring certain skills and experience to the cadet forces that existing staff members may not have? [/quote]I would argue that - given the current status of staff manning in the Corps - that the purpose of SIs is to bring skills and experience to the ATC full stop.
That is the purpose of all staff regular or volunteer is it not?
Interested to see what your take on Staff Manning in the corps is right now?
Does depend somewhat if they bring the experience with humility or are complete O2 thieves about it. I do feel however that the “real experience” has to offer something tangible to the squadron and not just a “I’ve been in the RAF etc” experience. Because that has little or no value. I’ve met a few ex regs over the years who have banged on about I can do this or that and been a real disappointment for different reasons.
Going OT … As for regulations, if not working to it doesn’t endanger anyone’s health, does it really matter. The whole working world is full of regualations and rules, which if you followed them to the letter, you would achieve nothing. So you look at them and apply the regulation of commonsense and workking to the principle. Always bear in mind the regulations of the ATC are set by people who have never been staff on an ATC squadron. This is the same as rules etc set by politicians, who say you will do it like this with not the faintest clue about how practical it is on the ground.
Interested to see what your take on Staff Manning in the corps is right now?[/quote]
Not just that but the use of the word status in this context.
On the subject of SIs in general. Given the current and continuing draw down of the armed forces will the remaining personnel be able or even willing to give time to be an SI, unless their base is within easy reach of a cadet unit.
You are probably right MattB, in the current adult recruiting climate, but ideally you would, I suggest, want SIs to bring ‘something extra’ to your Sqn that existing staff (and by that Leeroy I mean the ‘average’ CI/SNCO/WO/VR(T)) can’t provide. Again ideally, this should be current experience with airframes, engines, communications, aircraft ops and the like, which we (existing staff) wouldn’t and often couldn’t have. Of course, SIs should always bring a certain level of ‘Service ethos’ with them and that can’t be a bad thing if applied properly!
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4938]
Going OT … As for regulations, if not working to it doesn’t endanger anyone’s health, does it really matter. The whole working world is full of regulations and rules, which if you followed them to the letter, you would achieve nothing. So you look at them and apply the regulation of commonsense and working to the principle. Always bear in mind the regulations of the ATC are set by people who have never been staff on an ATC squadron. This is the same as rules etc set by politicians, who say you will do it like this with not the faintest clue about how practical it is on the ground.[/quote]
Yes, of course it matters! You cannot have 900+ Squadrons (and 36 Wings and 6 Regions) doing their own thing. You only have to look at some of the topics on here to realise that this already goes on and it creates a huge amount of confusion and frustration at all levels. Granted, some of our policymakers have little or no experience at the front line of delivering a military youth organisation, but instead of sitting back and criticising them, we should use the chain of command and existing methods to point out where policy/regulations/publications etc are not fit for purpose (MoD F765 exists for that very reason for APs and ACPs).
You are probably right MattB, in the current adult recruiting climate, but ideally you would, I suggest, want SIs to bring ‘something extra’ to your Sqn that existing staff (and by that Leeroy I mean the ‘average’ CI/SNCO/WO/VR(T)) can’t provide. Again ideally, this should be current experience with airframes, engines, communications, aircraft ops and the like, which we (existing staff) wouldn’t and often couldn’t have. Of course, SIs should always bring a certain level of ‘Service ethos’ with them and that can’t be a bad thing if applied properly![/quote]Not necessarily - I’d be perfectly happy with an SI who had exactly the skill set of an ACO volunteer.
Likewise and you raise an excellent point that properly motivated people are our scarcest resource, wherever they come from.
My point was that ideally I would have a good base skillset across my CIs and ATC/VR(T) adult staff to allow me to cover the basics of most subjects that I would want to do. The addition of an SI should allow me to expand those subjects based on his/her greater and probably more current, experience. Sadly, the volunteer cadre are often not suitably equipped to do much more than scratch the surface of some technical subjects or regurgitate what is already in the ACPs. It is also sad that the ever-shrinking Regular Forces are also hard-pressed to do as much as they have done with us.
I want to find someone on the average squadron who follows things as laid down to the letter. We get these issued and then have to make them work for us. Yes it may give us XYZ, but I imagine that on every single RAF unit, the same happens. In my day job we should get routinely searched on leaving, ensure pass coded doors are shut and so on, but in reality doors are left opened and we only get searched when management moan at secutity and doors shut when senior management are on site. These are only a couple of examples of real vs imaginary. I know people who work in schools, local govt, emergency services, other firms etc etc and they say exactly the same.
Pointless. Speaking to RTOs and WSOs who raise these at their own behest or because of concerns raised, say that the staff at HQAC are not open to policy and regulation change or willing to challenge things instigated from the regulars, because of fear and they think they know best. The biggest problem as I have said is the disconnect between HQAC staff and the real ATC which the comments from RTOs and WSOs demonstrates.
Hi I’m an officer cadet in the OTC. I’m in my second year with them, I have passed my mod 2 exam which means I am a half trained TA officer. I have also done a defence instructional techniques course so I am qualified to teach. I went on annual camp last year as an SI and ran the field craft and leadership exercise aspect of the camp and stayed in the officers mess as i’m entitled to do as an officer cadet and was treated as an adult. Whereas now due to the new ruling I am going on a camp to cranwell as a staff cadet Sgt. with the same camp com. its going to be weird. I’m probably not going to be of as much use.
I want to be able to give back to the atc and use my knowledge of field craft learnt in the otc but when I turn 20 what do I do I can’t be a VRT officer or sgt atc as I am already in the reserve forces so my only option is CI and not be able to teach field craft the thing i’m most qualified to do.
I hold a rank in the reserve forces but according to the ATC it is invalid.
I feel I would be an asset to my sqn but it sounds like the ATC doesn’t want me.
The ACF on the other hand are constantly inviting us on there camps as service helpers as me know a lot more than there instructors as we are being taught and teaching the current syllabus from Sandhurst.
[quote=“Gullon” post=5242] Whereas now due to the new ruling I am going on a camp to cranwell as a staff cadet Sgt. with the same camp com. its going to be weird. I’m probably not going to be of as much use.
[/quote]
That shouldn’t happen IMHO. If you are an Off Cdt in the UAS or OTC (or whatever the URNU have), you shouldn’t remain as a Cadet.
You make a valid point. Actually the OTC are probably better placed to offer assistance as SIs due to the nature of your training, and how it can be directly transferred to Cadets (as opposed to a UAS stude - just because he’s got budgie wings doesn’t mean he can teach a Cadet to fly!).
How long does that take you?