Yes, I can understand fully what your saying. It will be interesting to go into IOT and see what its like. I, like yourself, fell that after completing the course it should put me equally amongst all other serving UK personnel. I can fully understand that the length and physical/mental pressure the cadets are put under may not equal that of the Army/RM´s etc. I simply plan to do my best and make sure I dont turn out to be a ´condesending knob´(haha).
I completely agree with you on the issue of people such as colour seargents with alot of experience. As I have done a degree before starting at Cranwell, it means I will start at Flying Officer as opposed to Pilot Officer (or step up very quickly). This means that I will be extremely inexperienced within the real RAF (have been Air Cadet and UAS member) yet expected to lead men/women who may have been serving for many years. One things for sure - I´m going to draw on their experience and not be an arse!
Once again, some good points and great to be able to discuss them.
Seeing as I´m about to start at Cranwell, would you have any good tips on leadership/teamwork, or anything that may generally help me? I think the best way to learn is to listen to those that have a clue
I think to be fair it is the ones that I've met who I can't stand who probably left the lasting impression rather than the good guys so maybe I'm being overly harsh.
Leadership, you will hear many people who have not done a great deal give you leadership tips. I don't profess to know a great deal but at least I was fortunate enough to coommand a platoon on ops for 6 months.
The thing I realised, as someone once said, is that leadership 'is just plain you'. You will have been selected and trained to do the job, trust that and especially those around you. Some people put on an act, soldiers see through it and you get no trust or respect. Be honest and always, always look after your men first.
The problem with training establishements is that it is a somewhat false environment. Your command appointments will be over your peers. I would just say from day one always work hard, be willing to help others and keep your sesne of humour. The thing that people hate is people who are jack....they work hard in front of the DS (directing staff) but do bugger all the rest of the time. Also some people get stroppy when they're tired and so on.....never let your head drop.
I would also say that when under pressure always take that condor moment. Stop, think, make a decision and don't do it half heartedly. Make a decision and carry it out, if you need to amend it as the shit hits the fan, fine, but get on with it and don't arse about. In other words lead. You will have your own leadership style.....look at others (and DS) and think...would I do it that way? Has he just made himself look an utter tit? If some idiot's just running around in circles shouting....you'll see what I mean.
Mate, best of luck. Ultimately you can only ever pass what is put in front of you.
Last edited by sp10122 on Tue 19 Aug, 2003 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
i also accept some of your points in particular about the UAS being a waste of money and just free pilot training to students which requires no commitment at all to service in the RAF. But your comments on pilots being selected purely on aptitude are wrong. I was at OASC a couple of weeks ago and although a majority of people went out due to lack of aptitude, people on my board went out after their interviews, medicals and after completing part 2 of the course. But some godd points made.
Ok, we all go through officer testing be it RCB or OASC. But OASC selects all RAF Officers and not just pilots - selection to Branch is done before you attend IOT. I even know some people on the pilots course at ground school who had never even been in a plane! At least we got put through grading for 3 intensive weeks.
I´m a little worried about people believing the UAS´s are a waste of money. I admit I´m probably biased as I ws a member however I believe there are many good reasons for the UAS (which there must be for the RAF to continue their use in these times of defence budget reviews). Firstly, I´m fairly certain I´m correct in saying that 75% of all fastjet aircrew in the RAF are ex-UAS. Secondly, the money is not wasted at all. The UAS´s take on students on the basis that they have to show an interest in joining the airforce - thats hurdle number 1 (you may say an easy one to pass..fair enough). Hurdle number two however comes when they get applications to join the RAF pushed in front of them after a short period of time!! The instructors can weed out ther people who a) cant fly b) arent suited as officers in the RAF, pretty quickly.
Those aspects aside, the UAS provides a vast opportunity of activities which the majority of the students put to very good use. It encourages students to get out and do all the "good things" the RAF and other services want. It also provides a strong sense of "esprit de corps" amongst the students as would be found by a squadron or a station in the RAF, particularly when in competition or more seriously - the matter we are all trained for - war.
Does it matter what the degree is which applicants have? For example the degree I'm about to start I will be learning about the design and structure and basically how all aircraft work, does that influence the decicion based on the fact that although I wouldn't be able to fly (I'm not joining a UAS) but I would know a lot more than most of the other guys about what aeroplanes are really all about?
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
That all sounds fine mate, no, it doesn't matter what degree you have and you can join as a non grad.
But the big problem with UASs is cost. There'd be no harm at all keeping a couple of aircraft dotted around for people to get some exprience flights but maintaining effectively 12 versions of JEFTS everywhere (including arifields and support staff, instructors etc...) isn't cost effective. There will never be a recruitment problem for people applying to be pilots. Some people say well they might fly, fail and then join another branch! Brilliant, so you've got lots of failed pilots floating around at IOT and in the service.
There'd be nothing wrong with having a UOTC type organisation there to organise adventurous training, air experience and some military training. Whilst at Uni, as many RN and Arm pilots do, go and get 13 hours grading out of the way. But there is no requirement whatsoever to be JEFTS qualified whilst at Uni. It is a military training course. Many people start the UAS courses and drop out for one reason or another. Why bother...get them through IOT and then train them at a JEFTS type organisation. JEFTS was the RAFs idea but they pulled thier people out and sent them to UASs to help try to justify the massive cost.
Of course 75% of jet pilots went to UAS. That's probably about the proportion of UAS trained students going through pilot training....
Guys I'm not trying to have a go but the reason UASs are there is because they always have been and it doesn't make sense. You look at the money going into these things and baulk as you look at what soldiers are being paid and some of the lack of kit that is ongoing.
Well, once again some good points (its quite good fun to discuss these things). I must say I can´t think of a good reason why students at University should be put through EFT. I dont know enought abou the financial side of things to defend the fact that they are incredibly expensive. However, for example, at my old UAS (London) which is based at RAF Wyton, we have ourselves (ULAS), Cambridge UAS, 5 Air Experience Flight (Air Cadets) and a small police helicopter flight. Nevertheless, we are the largest (and best!) UAS in the UK so the airfield is not only being run for us. The flying aside, RAF Wyton has a large Engineering contingent and the Mess members are extremely happy to have us there to restore flying to the airfield and lower the average age!
I´m afraid I still consider the UAS´s to be a great thing!
there is no reason to fully train students to eft standard when at the end of it they can say 'no thanx, don't want to do this for a living'. I say do the flying grading in the first year and then if they like what they see, send them to oasc before the second year and only allow students with an aircrew bursary onto a uas because then a) you have a firm commitement to joining the raf and b) you don't get future intel officers learning to fly!
I think this point must be made clear - they (UAS´s) do require the students to commit to joining the RAF by making them apply for sonsorship through University, or simply to join as a graduate after their degree. No student completes the EFT syllabus and then has the option of saying "no thanks"!
I personally know of at least one person who completed two years of UAS and then left. But people don't even have to commit initially and they can still fail. After completing grading very few people fail at EFT stage.
Also centralised training is much cheaper than running inumerable airfields all over the country. Rather than spreading it over years you can condense the course and do it in a few months rather than keeping all of those staff on at many different locations. JEFTS was an RAF idea which the Army and RN were forced into and then the RAF pulled out to Church Fenton and then closed that to send all EFT pilots to UASs to justify the large cost.
The AAC used to complete the whole course, including helis, in 9 months. After being forced into JEFTS and the Defence Helicopter School at Shawbury (because the RAF is the primary flying organisation) it is now 18 months. And you're not even trained on an operational type by the end of it.
i have been accepted as a de pilot so may be slightly synical but even so I agree with what you are saying about the JEFTS and the transfer of EFT for RAF pilots to UASs to justify cost. But like you said about students completing 2 years of EFT then dropping out, it is people like that who are boosting up the costs. So if they only let people on to EFT you were under a bursary then at least if they dropped out then students would have to pay some of the money back as well as the fact that only students dedicated to joining the RAF get to play with Joe Public's taxes.
The official requirement for pilots in the RAF is perfect vision, however when a pilot's eyesight who is already trained deteriorates they can continue flying and just wear glasses because the moneys already been spent on them. The thing is is you have someone with perfect eyesight and their eysight eventually deteriorates then it won't be as bad as if you had someone with non perfect eyesight which then began to deteriorate.
However, there always seems to be exceptions, for example I heard of one guy who was in the RAF as a navigator and who then got on the pilots course despite wearing glasses. And hes going onto fast jets. Obviously the fact that he was already in the RAF helped but the fact is that he got accepted for the pilots course, despite needing glasses.
There's no reason why you can't fly fast jets with glasses, and many fast jet pilots do as their eyesight has deteriorated slightly. They can be easily worn with the helmets and I know because I have one and when you tighten the ear pieces in the helmets it will hold your glasses in place so even negative G wouldn't get them out. And if somehow they did manage to fall off you can always put on the spare pair you are carrying, which I assume must be a requirement for RAF pilots with glasses as it is a requirement for civil pilots and it's also common sense. I have flown with glasses and contacts in aerobatics and have not had any problems with them. However it all comes back to the investment they are making in yiou and if they can pick a guy with perfect sight then he's got that over you.
Very interesting point about the AAC. I did research them and their official line was that you did need perfect eyesight to be a pilot. I will have to look into that further.
Not quite, people wear glasses (or contacts) to fly. There is also one other guy on the course.
I'm not sure on the RN line but I think it is the same. If you really need to know, I'll see if I can get hold of the exact requirements for AAC but you do not need perfect eyesight, as long as it corrects ok.
Last edited by sp10122 on Thu 11 Sep, 2003 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hi everyone! Interesting to read all your post's. My experience with the RAF and eyesight requirement wasn't a great one. I passed all tests for Pilot for a Sixthform Scholarship at the tender age of 16, but failed aptitude on Navigator so subsequentley not given a scholarship!
Then re-applied 5 years later for Pilot only as Direct entry. At Cranwell i was told my eyesight was fine but my eye alignment was out of the parameters for Pilot, but ok for Navigator. Didn't succeed in that application for other reasons (don't know what they are as RAF likes to keep things to themselves) so re-applied year after for Navigator, Regiment and Intelligence. After another medical at Cranwell i was told my eye alignment was outside of the parameters for Navigator (although the when i asked my eyes hadn't deteriorated or test hadn't god harder). I was also failed for intelligence.
I resigned myself to a ground branch (REGIMENT). I failed to get in again as i was told at my debrief at my AFCO it was decided that i didn't have the Toughness to be a Regiment officer, but would have been accepted for Provost Officer if I had put it on my application.
Just waiting for a date for PRMC now for Marines.
Had a rough ride with RAF!
"ARE YOU SMILING BOY"
"NO SIR JUST GRITTING MY TEETH"
876 Troop
