PDA

View Full Version : Why Not Let Aircrew Run The Raf


Phoney Tony
20th Oct 2005, 23:34
Discuss?

Radar Riser
21st Oct 2005, 00:44
It will never happen cos we would show up the adults..........
And they wouldn't like that:E
RR

stickmonkeytamer
21st Oct 2005, 01:49
Is that not where all the problems lie? Aircrew are in all the top jobs. Aircrew are born to fly, not always to lead. Who runs most Stns? If you take someone who has flown (single seat) for most of their career, they are proved not to be able to lead, but are led instead by those professionals below them, not always knowing what to do correctly- bit like Tony really. If a Stn need a manager, should someone with management experience run it- that would improve efficiency (and keep aircrew flying!!!).

Formula 1 teams are not managed by the drivers, M&S is not run by its checkout operators. The RAF sorely lacks good management theories as it tries to become more PLC.

SMT

Mr Wippy
21st Oct 2005, 04:40
The RAF is too top heavy with high ranking officers too interested in their own career, being yes men and not looking after their troops (which is after all what the majority are paid for)

It really gets my goat they way that the senior management of this 'company' are so out of touch with whats actually cracking off.

And then they wonder why people are voting with their feet
:confused:

Kim Il Jong
21st Oct 2005, 05:26
The NHS is run by managers and not docs and nurseys. It's f**ked I am led to believe.

allan907
21st Oct 2005, 06:01
Silly, silly boy Phoney Tony. as pointed out by SMT the RAF is already run by aircrew (and has been since 1 Apr 1918).

They call the branch the "General Duties" branch - not the "Pilot" or "Aircrew" branch - for the very good reason that Trenchard wanted managers who had broad experience of the whole RAF to run the show. That broad experience had to encompass the flying side of things - seeing as how that was the business at hand - and not everyone could or would be involved in flying.

Unfortunately, with the advent of more complicated aeroplanes the aircrew felt that they had to have more stick time to keep on top of the beasts and, as a consequence, General Duties Branch postings such as OC GD Flt and OC Admin were given over to the 'blunty' branches. Then, before you knew it - oops! - matey becomes a gp capt and takes up post as a stn cdr. Unfortunately some in that position had bugger all between their ears in the man management and broader view of things. Fortunately, most of those chose to be guided by the professionals under them. Unfortunately that gave them the right 'scores in the doors' and they became elevated to exalted heights where their word was bowed to. Result - great heaps of smelly brown stuff where the pile has appeared to reach so high that those under them are walking off the job.

Answer (and please refer to other threads viz 'secondary duties' et al) - retain the GD branch but only for those who wish to partake of a full career; who wish to involve themselves with the wider aspects of service life; who don't bitch about Command and Staff courses; and who retain a passionate interest in flying but don't mind the odd ground tour where they can see how the majority of the Service works and lives. Then create an 'Aircrew' branch. Fill it full of NCO aircrew - you don't have to be an officer to fly - and those that have the talent and ambition to lead then send 'em to IOT and transfer them to the GD Branch.

Still, it'll never happen - too much vested interest at the top now.

4fitter
21st Oct 2005, 07:05
Actually, M&S is run by a man who came up through the ranks and the reason they are underperforming is because the managers beneath him are pants. He is actually responsible for minimising the fall - just.

Bluntend
21st Oct 2005, 07:10
the RAF is already run by aircrew
Are you sure? For the last couple of years it seems to have been run by accountants.

The Swinging Monkey
21st Oct 2005, 07:43
quote:

'the RAF is already run by aircrew'

hummm, not sure what Air Force you are talking about here, but aint HM finest!!

I regret that the Air Farce (and it is pretty much just that at the moment) is run by a bunch of faceless, spineless nurds who seem to regard flying, and everything to do with flying, as an interference to what they believe to be the real purpose of the RAF. Just exactly what that purpose is, I'm not sure.

Sadly the RAF is run by Blunties, Stackers, Movers, PTIs, Rocks and the likes, who feel it their duty to f*ck up anything to do with aircrew, flying and aviating in general. You will notice that I do NOT in any way include techie/engineer types, for whom I have the utmost respect and who are also way down the food chain in this Air Farce - just like the aircrew frankly!

Kind regards to all
TSM

Incipient Sinner
21st Oct 2005, 08:08
A907,

What do you mean 'you don't have to be an officer to fly'?? How could a chap have even the slightest concept of flying if he's not ridden a horse.

Do get with the times old chap.

IS :E

ORAC
21st Oct 2005, 08:17
Maybe we could farm it out as a PPI and get someone like MOL in to run it. He´d get costs and numbers down........ :E

Flap62
21st Oct 2005, 08:27
Have to say that from the outside, it often looks like the Air Force isn't run by anybody at all!

An Teallach
21st Oct 2005, 08:40
Oh no! I find myself in agreement with Flap62 again :uhoh:

Having been involved in a major goat-****, I often have the feeling that if I could have sat down with someone with a brain, it could all have been avoided / fixed a long time ago.

Half the problem is the tendency for officers to run away from problems and just to do the minimum required by their little bit of the bureaucracy. Nobody sees the 'big picture' and the hotter the potato, the fewer want to even look for the big picture. If you can hire-in 'consultants' to take the difficult decisions for you, all the better. :(

Sadly, the route to promotion seems to be do nothing, therefore you can do nothing wrong.

PerArdua
21st Oct 2005, 08:49
There are many units around where the Staish is a bluntie (normally admin wahhah) and they don't seem any better. The CO is a figurehead for the unit and if all the respective managers/workers pull in the right direction it is a very successfull concept. The problem I see for the modern RAF is it is often very difficult to see which direction we should all be pulling and it is often seen that an opposing 'team' is pulling in the other direction. Just when you think you know where you are going they lean up your organisation and tell you its your fault you can't produce twice the widgets with half the manpower for half the cost in half the time.... Whinge over

PA

Climebear
21st Oct 2005, 09:02
allen907

Answer (and please refer to other threads viz 'secondary duties' et al) - retain the GD branch but only for those who wish to partake of a full career; who wish to involve themselves with the wider aspects of service life; who don't bitch about Command and Staff courses; and who retain a passionate interest in flying but don't mind the odd ground tour where they can see how the majority of the Service works and lives. Then create an 'Aircrew' branch

They already have. The GD Branch is manned by officers of Wg Cdr rank and above (excluding specialist branches: Medical, Dental, Legal, Music). The Flying Branch is manned by aircrew officers (including those not electing to enter the career stream) up to an including the rank of sqn ldr.

I read with interest as regular contributers complain about the 'blunties' in PMA when for aircrew their desk officer would be from the flying branch, his/her supervising officer would be GD Branch (though aircrew) as would the Deputy Director, Director, Air Sec, AMP/CINC PTC and CAS - not a 'blunty' in sight! I think contributers credit the 'blunties' for having far more influence than they actually have.

Swinging Monkey

real purpose of the RAF which is to provide capability to component commanders (LAND/MARITIME/AMPHIB/AIR/SF/LOGS) for the prosecution of joint operations.

Bob Viking
21st Oct 2005, 09:36
I'm sure with their vast experience of COMAO planning and flying operations, a blunty officer would make a fine figurehead for an organisation that aims to deliver air power!
BV:rolleyes:

Jackonicko
21st Oct 2005, 10:08
Ah, but Bob V, you are from a community that has provided the wider RAF with some superb senior officers, a series of impossibly great Staishs, and one in which even an outsider can discern many of tomorrow's best and brightest Air Rank blokes - if they stay in, and barring unforseen tragedies of the sort that have already deprived us of at least one 'future Air Marshal'.

And looking at the last AOC-in-C of No.1 Group, it seems that the Harrier Force is still producing some absolutely stunning senior officers too, and I'm not excluding the Tornado force, either.

The day the Army opt to fill the General Staff with blokes from the Logistics Corps, the Catering Corps, the RMP, and REME, and when the Admiralty deliberately promote only those officers who haven't spent their careers messing about in boats is the day that the RAF should dispense with officers with experience of leading in the air within its wider management/leadership structure.

This whingeing and whining is poorly directed, in my view. The RAF has one of its better CAS's at the moment, and a solid AOC-in-C Strike. The problems come because they don't run the RAF - the politicians and civil servants do. All that they can do is implement the policies and try to minimise the damage!

There are some dreadful, self-serving, ineffective, careerist senior officers, of course, but I'm not sure that they're any more common in the GD(P) branch as they are in any other branch, though I speak purely as an interested observer, and not as a 'sufferer'.

And some might say that the ground branches - like the ranks of aviation and defence journos - are swelled by large numbers of blokes who weren't good enough to be aircrew!

LuckyBreak
21st Oct 2005, 10:09
quote:

"Formula 1 teams are not managed by the drivers, M&S is not run by its checkout operators. The RAF sorely lacks good management theories as it tries to become more PLC"

I think you'll find a lot of F1 and MotoGP teams are indeed run by ex-drivers (Jackie Stewart, Nikki Lauda, Kenny Roberts, Carl Fogarty etc.). And checkout operators are not the equivalent of the aircrew......

An Teallach
21st Oct 2005, 10:29
looking at the last AOC-in-C of No.1 Group, it seems that the Harrier Force is still producing some absolutely stunning senior officers too
Jacko, I'm sure the chap concerned will be utterly flattered that you feel that way. However, couldn't you have lent us a hand in the gay pride thread? ;)

southside
21st Oct 2005, 10:44
Why is the Station CO a serving RAF Officer. Wouldn't it be cheaper to employ a civilian to run the Station?

Bob Viking
21st Oct 2005, 10:48
Are you kidding?! With the amount of responsibilities involved you would probably have to pay him/her a substantial six figure sum. Discounting the years of training, I think a Grp Capts salary comes in a bit below that!
BV

An Teallach
21st Oct 2005, 10:51
BV

Sad to say but you've just given our resident shapeshifting troll a bite. :ugh:

How's about we all agree to ignore him?

Maple 01
21st Oct 2005, 10:56
You mean AOC-in-C of No.1 Group is a Harrier mate? What kind of sick perversion is that? Should we suffer our wives and servants to witness displays of rampant and unabashed vectored-thrust flying while decent, God fearing Jag drivers are passed over again and are forced to wander the mean streets of Norwich wondering where their next flying posting is coming from?

If I had one, I’d resign my commission in disgust

Bob Viking
21st Oct 2005, 12:02
It wasn't a bite, but you're right, it did come across a bit like that. I shall have to watch what I say.
Lets not be too harsh though. I bet his mother still loves him.
But not as much as we all love his mother!
BV:}

FOMere2eternity
21st Oct 2005, 13:16
The problem isn't that we have pilots running the RAF - I hate to think what moronic ideas adminners would come up with without some form of restraint - the ONE catalyst to so many other problems is that few officers on their way to greatness stay in a job more than about 2 years, so their decision making is often accordingly short-term and, dare I say, headline-grabbing for promotion.

If your boss is a w@nker that can be a good thing because you won't have to put up with him for as long, but on the down side you will tend to inherit the consequences of said short-term thinking for a long time after their departure. The theory is that by changing jobs many times an officer comes out more well-rounded; unfortunately this pays scant regard to the concept of '...master of none'.

But then why bother being good at anything if you're going on to command other people doing it ? Why does it matter if you're in a job perhaps developing policy for it , based on your fleeting knowledge of the subject. Fortunately there are safeguards in place for your limited knowledge on a subject - your subordinates - who sometimes have a whole two years experience in a subject and are less than willing to say 'I don't know' to their boss. Oddly, this rarely passes their lips, so the baton of inexperience is passed on, resulting in many of the states we find ourselves. Until we can communicate properly within the organisation all bets are off for progress.

After 85 years in business it doesn't take a captain of industry to see our core problems - we keep demonstrating our lack of ability to learn every time we do something 'new'; but we're also missing a trick if we think a certain rank needs to do a job. In many management jobs it doesn't matter that I am a LAC, Sgt or Sqn Ldr - time builds experience, not rank or flying ability.

Roland Pulfrew
21st Oct 2005, 13:58
Actually I believe that aircrew lost control of the RAF when RAF Telephone Directories were changed to alphabetical order rather than the traditional and far more effective:

Squadrons, Ops Wing, Eng Wing, Admin Wing

;) :p

D-IFF_ident
21st Oct 2005, 17:06
Weren't a lot of the major airlines that failed over the last number of years (PanAm, TWA etc) run by pilots? There are a few airlines facing financial difficulties right now, that are also run by pilots. Whereas SleezyJet, SouthWest, and a few others that are run by managers and accountants, are doing just fine.

Personally, I'd rather be flying.

In times of conflict we need leaders; aircrew mates with experience, training and common sense. In peacetime, and running our human resources departments; we need managers with experience, training and common sense. And never the twain should meet.

Ewan Whosearmy
21st Oct 2005, 23:24
The Yanks seem to manage pretty well letting pilots run the show. With a few obvious exceptions, they seem pretty good at it.

DEL Mode
22nd Oct 2005, 07:11
Last time I looked the RAF was run by pilots.

The Yanks get lots of money to spend, so being good or bad is somewhat irrelevant.

Ewan Whosearmy
22nd Oct 2005, 10:57
Not so.

The Yanks might have more money to spend, but their projects are proportionally more expensive (Typhoon £45m per airframe, Raptor $329m per airframe, for example).

In relative terms, therefore, they're no different from us.

Megaton
22nd Oct 2005, 12:17
USAF also has numerous senior civil servants in top jobs advising blokes in uniform. These civvies stay in their jobs for ages giving the continiuity that the RAF lacks.

Ewan Whosearmy
22nd Oct 2005, 12:51
Correct, and many of these people are former pilots.

Take a look at the top civilian directorate jobs in the Pentagon and you'll see they're often filled by former wing/squadron/directorate/MAJCOM CCs. They're there specifically to provide continuity.

FrogPrince
25th Oct 2005, 14:20
Without wishing to become a bullet magnet, I wonder if your man management and project management issues are in part caused by your 'closed shop' system, which breeds its successors exactly in the image of the forefathers.

There are very few organisations in the world nowadays where one has to be a company man 'man and boy' to get to the top. In fact, most CEO's have a breadth of experience in several companies, not necessarily in one industry. Likewise, the Civil Service actively recruits senior managers from outside and the police will accept older recruits.

Now I'm not necessarily suggesting a secondment to Sainsburys after Staff College as a career enhancer but you get my drift. Surely, if you are the 'Top Man' / 'Top Woman' destined for great things, then a tour with the Army or RN must be of benefit to your wider understanding of the military art ? Likewise, could an Army officer do the Staish job well, possibly bringing something different to the party ? (I presume that the nice cushy USAF exchanges are mainly for aircrew).

Probably too simplistic, eh ?

FP retires to lily pad....

P.S. There aren't many accountants in the Civil Service, just lots of civil servants in Finance positions, CRM or not.

snapper41
25th Oct 2005, 15:13
This new common GD branch at wg cdr and above seems designed purely for the aircrew; let them take over other people's jobs, keep them happy, and more importantly, keep them in...

S41 dives for cover...

Blacksheep
26th Oct 2005, 01:30
All those who want to run away to civvy street just because 'the management' are screwing up the RAF are in for a really terrible surprise! :}

dirty_bugger
26th Oct 2005, 14:05
so, if the aircrew are screwing up the RAF and we want a change, how much will it cost to bring in professionals to screw it up for us??

The best thing about having aircrew run the RAF into the ground is that they do it at supersonic speeds.

twusan
26th Oct 2005, 15:27
Would anyone wish to hazard a guess as to when, if ever, the aircrew branch would no longer represent the greater number of entrants at JO level. Could the reduction in the requirement for WSO/navigators and the possible introduction of unmanned systems in the future result in another branch having the lions share of the base of the manning pyramid and therefore get more senior officers at the top of the pyramid, thus outranking and outnumbering the aircrew branch and getting seats on the AFB. Or would the system ensure that aircrew would still reach the top of the pyramid?

T

Crashed&Burned
26th Oct 2005, 16:37
Although there are differences between the military and the civil service, they both have a public sector culture.

The freedom to act is given by those above, by the rules or by precedent. To act outside these limiting authorities is not encouraged.

If you use your initiative and it doesn't come off, everyone for miles will sh*t on you from a great height; if it does come off, everyone will tell you how easy it was and they would have done the same ('rushing to the aid of the victors' syndrome).

Enjoy your flying but don't for a moment believe that success in the air will open the door to promotion and power; they aren't in any way connected.

Wonder why they teach leadership in the RAF. No one gets a chance to use it...