PVR

[R-A-F-Off]

Since I was kindly excluded from the redundancy quota (probably for good reason), one of my remaining options is to hit the fabled PVR button on JPA. As it is only an option, I'm not wanting to reveal my cards to my Sqn or unit admin (JPAC were no help whatsoever).

Anyone out there of the two winged creed press the button recently? What's the latest gen on time before receiving an exit date, and when is that exit date likely to be? What happens to your flying pay now? All I've heard is rumours.

[StopStart]

Exit time is now 12 months unless manning pluck another figure from the air.

Flying Pay, I think, goes to 50% on application and then to 0% from 1 April 12. You do the maths.

[R-A-F-Off]

Is that 50% until you leave if you PVR now? Or is it 50% and then nothing from April?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I attended a Manning Brief for NCA late last year where the advice given was to speak direct with our desk officer BEFORE hitting the button as in the current climate they would bend over backwards to make the exit procedure as fair as possible by telling you WHEN to hit the button.

Not sure if that has a direct read across for pilots but maybe your deskie has the answers you want, what ever happens best of luck :ok:

[Farfrompuken]

RAFOff, the latter is correct.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

So if you get no flying pay do you stop flying? Or is that also part of the sour grapes and they stop you flying?

[letsgoandfly]

I was NCA and having recently pressed the PVR button on JPA I would very much advise speaking to your desk officer and chain if command - I have never known things go so smoothly in my 10 years and everyone involved, from the Gp Capt downwards deserves my sincere thanks.

Let the powers that be know and, in my recent experience, they will help you out to the best of their abilities. All the best whatever you decide.

[minigundiplomat]

With the greatest respect, if it is the right time for you to PVR then you'll know and won't need stats to come to a decision.

If you are going - get on with it. Trust me, its better for all, especially you, in the long run.

Good luck either way.

[thefodfather]

I will reinforce the need to check the management chain set up in JPA to handle your PVR and to make sure it ends up in the right place. After 3 weeks of some sterling efforts by the deskie and PSF to sort things out, I had to be given a theoretical posting so that my bosses could get at it. I gather the manning phrase is "Position Bouncing".

I can also agree with other posts that by keeping all informed once I had made the decision the whole process was one of the smoothest admin type things I had done in my entire service career. In the current climate, timing can be everything.

[greekbob]

Unless I am grossly misinformed, any aircrew who have PVR'd will lose ALL flying pay from 1 Apr 12.

Sounds like a costly final stab in the back for a bunch of people who must have already been at wits end to push the button in the first place.

With people working their PVR waiting times across the fleets are we shortly going to have a bunch of guys who down tools in 12 days?

Surely, no flying pay = no flying?

[SunderlandMatt]

Have a chat to your 1 up and your desk officer. They may be happy for you to PVR on JPA but keep the notification on JPA unactioned therefore keeping you your flying pay. Once you've got yourself a job lined up or at least close to a deal, you ask them to action the PVR, from which point you flying pay will cease (50% upto 1 Apr 0% after) and you leave a year after you original PVR or you ask for early release. Some 1 ups that I know of are happy to do this if you're a Bon Oeuf.

Good luck. There's a whole world out there!

[Stuff]

Sounds great in theory but isn't that a recipe for getting an overpayment notice and a whacking great big recovery just as you are leaving?

[SunderlandMatt]

It does sound like the DS solution but it's a lucky man who gets that kind of deal. Flying pay is only reduced or withdrawn once the PVR on JPA has been actioned by your desk officer or Adjt/MCM. So it pays to be in a. It with terrible admin!

I'm not saying that this is right but it does happen. One thing's for sure, being paid 50% flying pay when you're on Ops is just rude. Not being paid any flying pay whilst on Ops is outrageous! :ugh:

[Farfrompuken]

SM,

that does sound great but I reckon it'll end in a planet of pain; either far longer notice period (when JPA actioned) or a big bill!

The whole docking/ceasing 'retention pay' issue is as watertight as a sieve, TBH. But there you go!

[Climebear]

The AFPRB expressed concerns relating MOD's approach to Specialist Pay in this year's report (http://www.ome.uk.com/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=31180858-1580-4ED1-942C-C2882540A4EB)

Specialist Pay

3.25 Specialist Pay is paid to specific groups within the Armed Forces to assist with recruitment and retention. The rationale for payment may be internal (to attract existing personnel into particular cadres) or in response to external market forces, or a combination of these. Around 40 per cent of personnel receive SP at an overall annual cost of about £121 million, with the greatest expenditure on SP(Flying) and SP(Submarine). Some types of SP are paid continuously where the specialism is fundamental to the core role of the individual, and will remain so. The reserve banding arrangements described below provide a degree of protection for such personnel if they move temporarily to a non-SP post. Other types of SP are paid non-continuously only to those serving in a particular post, or doing a time limited task, that attracts SP...

...
3.26 In December 2010 MOD asked us to undertake a comprehensive review of SP during this round. It indicated it would submit evidence to us for a full review of all SP cadres, to identify how to deliver the most effective focus on recruitment and retention. We therefore sought views on SP from Service personnel in the course of our 2011 visits programme. It became clear to us that there were widespread misconceptions about the purpose of SP which many saw as rewarding skills acquisition or compensation for risk, rather than as a tool to support recruitment and retention of certain trades (its core rationale).

3.27 We also heard a range of concerns about the effective targeting and detailed conditions for receipt of SP. Some who did not receive SP questioned its payment to those who were not actually undertaking the activity for which SP was nominally paid; others were concerned that SP was not available to particular cadres for whom retention was a problem, or was not paid at a sufficient rate.

3.28 Under reserve banding rules, individuals receiving SP on a career continuous basis continued to receive full payment for the first three years in a non-SP post, with the rate then decreasing annually to 75 per cent, 50 per cent and 25 per cent before being stopped. However, MOD announced in January 2011 that with effect from April 2012, SP will reduce by 50 per cent for those in year three of a non-SP tagged posting before stopping altogether in year four. The announcement was not well received by Service personnel, particularly as there has been a move towards longer, three-year postings in some areas.

3.29 We continue to hear concerns about MOD’s announcement that it will completely withdraw SP from those who submit notice to terminate. This could mean, for example, that submariners may be required to serve at sea for several months during their notice period without receiving the same SP as those working alongside them. While we understand that it can be argued that if someone has said they are leaving, SP has not served its retention purpose, we have a particular concern when the situation relates to someone who has already served a full career, so demonstrating the effectiveness of SP in retaining them to date.

3.30 We strongly encourage MOD to reconsider its decisions on reserve banding and on withdrawing SP from those submitting notice to terminate, before the announced cuts come in to effect.

MOD evidence

3.31 MOD submitted evidence on a suite of proposals for change to the overall approach to SP, to reinforce its purpose as a recruitment and retention lever and to enhance flexibility. These included a change of name, a more flexible process for reviewing the appropriateness and levels of SP and proposals for further work on a number of detailed issues (such as receipt of multiple forms of SP and the interaction with return of service commitments). We also received detailed papers which set out the assumptions and bases for individual cadres, but these made no proposals for change this year. MOD explained in further evidence that its thinking on the review had developed since December 2010 and it now envisaged a more evolutionary approach, with some more fundamental changes to SP integrating with wider pay reform under the NEM programme.

Our analysis

3.32 We welcome much of the thinking underpinning the MOD proposals. The current system of SP has evolved over many years and gives rise to a number of questions about discrepancies in treatment between different groups. Issues include the justification of levels of payment and the interaction with other payments which have a recruitment and retention rationale, such as pay spines and Financial Retention Initiatives (FRIs). However, we believe MOD needs to do further work to articulate its strategic approach on recruitment and retention payments before we can consider properly the merits of detailed changes to SP. Clear guidelines are needed for testing the appropriateness of using SP (or other recruitment and retention tools) for specific cadres. Such work is, in our view, part of the essential underpinning for other changes to the pay system under the NEM, and should be progressed sooner rather than later. It would also promote a clearer understanding on the part of Service personnel of when such payments may, or may not, be appropriate.

3.33 Regarding MOD’s detailed proposals, we particularly welcome the intention to develop a system for annual review of manning in SP cadres, enabling a more flexible and agile approach to aligning levels of SP with the defence requirement. We also agree that Specialist Pay is a misnomer and that another term is desirable to emphasise that these payments are intended to address issues of recruitment and retention in particular trades.

3.34 We believe that some important issues need to be resolved before proceeding, and we invite MOD to develop further proposals before we endorse any specific changes. The issues on which we seek further evidence are:

• The MOD’s strategic approach to recruitment and retention payments, including the respective rationales for pay spines and for SP. It is not clear to us why some groups are on pay spines, which provide certainty of long term payment (which is pensionable), while others receive SP which is in principle a temporary payment (and not pensionable), although in practice the expectation of many receiving it is that it will be permanent. The career-continuous basis of some SP reinforces this and appears to us to resemble a pay spine. Clarity on the underlying rationales would enable a strategic review of their appropriateness in relation to specific cadres and the potential interaction with other return of service commitments including FRIs;

• Safeguards which would be needed in a more agile model in which SP might increase or reduce in the light of revised manning needs. Given that many service personnel have been in receipt of SP for long, continuous periods, and have made commitments in expectation of its continuation, we expect to receive proposals which would ensure individuals have a degree of protection from sudden reductions in pay. Options might include preserving payments for individuals already receiving SP, or reducing payments progressively over a period of years, to ease the transition;

• Fuller proposals on how the more dynamic review process would work to enable us to consider an annual analysis of the manning of SP earning cadres, and associated proposals for changes to the levels of payment which would be better matched to current recruitment and retention requirements. We would welcome a presentation of evidence on a ‘shadow’ basis next round. We can then consider this in detail and assess whether the approach would provide the evidence we need to make firm recommendations in future. The evidence should also cover arrangements for assessing the case for SP to be awarded to a group or groups not previously covered.
3.35 We would like MOD further to develop its proposals to ensure SP better supports current recruitment and retention needs, including a more dynamic review process, to enable us to make detailed recommendations in 2013.

[sidewayspeak]

If you lose the pay for flying, just stop flying. Nobody can actually make you fly - as I understand it there are a plethora of reasons you can use which cannot be 'proven' invalid or held against you. By the same token, just don't go on Ops - glass-back as required. If the system wants to screw you over, it is just as easy for you to push back.

Other than the loss of some money, seems like a good deal to me. Stop flying and get on with the courses, career transition workshops that will prepare you for life outside.

[VinRouge]

Heard a rumour that a pressed man may have "accidentally" deleted some rather important work data that wasnt backed up.

There is a reason big companies fire/make people redundant then escort them to the door. Having people hang round for 12 months on 20% reduced pay isnt good for anyone, least of all colleagues who are trying to make the most of a bad situation. Is anyone going to deny themselves 12 months' currency before looking for a job on civvie street? Unlikely. But I wouldnt say it was the safest plan to put a pressed man on a flight deck/cockpit.

[StopStart]

Declining to do any aviation will affect no one except you. People leave when the bull**** outweighs the good ****. "Sticking it to the man" by refusing to fly will consign you to a year of solid bull****. No one will care and you'll just be miserable.

Additionally the whole "not in current flying practice" will look a bit crap on your airline application. :hmm:

[BEagle]

There is a reason big companies fire/make people redundant then escort them to the door.

When you fire a bulldozer driver, take the keys off him first!

Wasn't there a tale of a software 'bomb' in some submarine, left by a disgruntled software writer. When a certain date was reached, a message popped up daying "Your software application has been suspended. To reactivate the application, send $ lots to [email protected]" or something to that effect?

Work data not backed-up? What a mistake-a to make-a!! Of course CIS-plod probably doesn't allow data to be copied to a USB stick and kept safe by air gap, do they? Back in the days of 'Word Perfect' or 'Word for Windows' or whatever it was called, most people who had to write reports kept their work safe on a private floppy disk. But that was before the A: Drives were disabled and everyone had to rely on the world's worst (and slowest) network system........

The way that Flying Pay is being used as a PVR punishment speaks volumes about the RAF of today, to my mind. Good luck to those few who elect to stay, you'll need it, I'm afraid

[SunderlandMatt]

Sidewaysspeak, I think I know where you're coming from but as stopstart said (between the lines) people tend to PVR when they get taken off the flightline.

If people refuse to fly the system won't care. In fact, it needs people not to want to fly because then someone can do all the bunty BS which pilots don't want to touch.

There is a balance to strike but I think most pilots would do anything to get airborne but you'd be hard pushed to get them into a desk job with no prospect of flying again.

[Pontius Navigator]

My ex-boss had cause to speak with me, via email, some months after I departed. He asked where all the files were from my PC; apparently the HDD was empty :)

I pointed out that the PC he referred to was 6 years old and had been replaced by Dii hence I had not used it and any relevant files would be on Dii.

It just went to prove that the Government wipe algorithms had worked a treat :} The Dii files had probably been etherised after I closed my account; I was the control officer after all :cool:

[seafuryfan]

1. Negotiate an exit date with the poster. Mine was 3 months from when the poster RECEIVED the JPA input, not from when I hit the button. This was non-negotiable for me.
2. Understand that your application has to 'do the rounds' just like a piece of paper. Find out from HR who it goes to. My recollection is OC PSF, Sqn Boss, OC PMS, Poster. Let them know in advance that it's coming and if you have any time considerations for its swift forwading. They should give your request pretty high priority on their 'to do' list. OC PMS may ask you why you're leaving. WARNING: if one them is on leave, your application may not be forwarded for actioning. This left me tearing my hair out for a few days.
3. Hit 'Return' and savour the moment.

[Lima Juliet]

Seafuryfan

Almost exactly the same as my experience - you have to "walk it through" electronically.

LJ

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Losing FP on PVR is a bit of a kick in the slats, but I at least understand roughly what they're getting at. I think the "it's retention pay; you've not been retained so no retention pay" thing is a bit simplistic, but there's some logic to it.

On the other hand, if they post you to a non-flying-related job, and you choose to stick it out, they take it off you then, even though you have been retained. The excuse being that you're not in a job that requires the "specialist skills" that they're paying FP for.

So which is it, MOD? If it's retention pay, fine; take it off me if I PVR, but don't take it off me if you choose to post me into some arb non-flying job. If it's payment for specialist skills, give it to me whenever I'm in a flying job; including one I'm PVRing from!

[m0nkfish]

If I PVR after April my pay will drop below 50k and I get my child benefit back!!! Doesn't quite make up for the FP I know, especially as I get it all right now!

[PVRhelp]

Anyone know where the RAF stands on return of service these days? I heard they had gaffed it entirely because they are trying to get rid of people. Not that I am thinking of leaving whilst inside a trg RofS ;)

[Chinny Crewman]

I believe people are still being held to their RofS. A couple of pilots and a crewman at Odiham PVR'd last year in the middle of all the cut backs and had their PVRs rejected by manning as they had not fulfilled their RofS. The reason was one of cost; ie the RAF getting their monies worth, manning levels did not come into the equation. At least one of the individuals had not signed any paperwork promising to honour the RofS however he was told this is irrelevant as attending and completing a course (OCF, CFS, QHTI etc.) implies acceptance of the T&C.

That said if they have changed their minds recently and not told anyone please let me know ASAP!

[Stuff]

A friend of mine PVR'd from a course mid-way through and has been told he will have to honour the RoS. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I thought RoS only kicked in from the successful completion of a course.

[Climebear]

Stuff

Current policy is in 2011DIN01-128.

Trg RoS usually commences from the completion of training; however, the requirement is incurred from the course's start date and can be applied at any time irrespective of course outcome.

Chinny Crewman - the individual who hadn't signed any paperword may wish to read sub-para 5e of that DIN.

That said, IIRC the signing of acceptance of Trg RoS for officers is not a legal requirment but policy. It is a requirement for airmen as they have the legal right to give notice (this is different to PVR) enshrined in the RAF Terms of Service Regulations (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/650/contents/made); therefore, it is a legal requirement for them to waive that right (Section 12(1))). (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/650/regulation/12/made)

[Stuff]

Careful now Climebear, you're in danger of giving out seriously good advice on PPRuNe.

TVM :ok:

[PVRhelp]

OK, next question: If "a friend" was to PVR halfway through training (which has a 3 year return of service) and wasn't yet productive, what possible point is there in the RAF keeping him in? I thought we were trying to reduce costs and personnel numbers at the moment.

[sargs]

If only we had some sort of officer, sat behind a desk somewhere, trained in manning issues. We could call him, perhaps, a Manning Desk Officer. Then, if we had questions that fundamentally affected our career we could ring him up and ask him directly, instead of having to rely on anonymous PPruners who have mates who's mates heard a rumor from the bloke down the pub who did National Service in the 50's and thinks he vaguely recalls what it said in King's Regs.

[StopStart]

I'd put that suggestion in if I were you, it sounds like a great idea. :hmm:

Sadly there seemed to be no one suitably equipped or inclined to answer the questions that fundamentally affected my career so I just gaffed it all off and left.

[sargs]

You mean he gave you answers you didn't want to hear? There are many good reasons to leave the RAF; having a poor perception of your Desky isn't really one of them.

[StopStart]

Not quite sure how you read that into my post but bless your condescension nonetheless. So from what you've said I take it that those considering PVR should a) go and speak to their Desky and then b) take everything he says as career enhancing gospel, cast all doubt aside and thence proceed, per ardua, ad astra? Good advice. :rolleyes:

For what it's worth my PVR had zero to do with what did or didn't come out of the Desky's mouth, I merely opined in my previous flippant post that what did come out weren't quite the pearls of wisdom you seem to suggesting.

[sargs]

No condescension meant or implied.

Yes, of course everybody considering PVR should speak to their Desky, why wouldn't you consider speaking to the man appointed to manage your career? I wouldn't ever suggest taking anybody's advice as gospel, but nevertheless he should give you information worth considering.

The point of my original post is why seek career advice from unknown anonymous Internet lurkers? There are people just a telephone call or email away who actually know what they're talking about.

[Farfrompuken]

Sargs,

You are right, however be very wary about taking career advice over RoS etc over the 'phone. Even from the God-that-is-the-desky. The desky might not know every finest detail, sometimes those micro details can be painful.

There is plenty in print in JSPs etc, and that is what the RAF will hold you to, not some verbal agreement made by a previous desky who may be long gone.

There are some very helpful Terms of Service people who can give you the exact low-down on what you're really signed in for.

Also double and triple check with the pensions lot too!

However if there is anything that could be contentious, get the other party to send an email and print it out.

[Whenurhappy]

I concur. I was offered (and accepted) a years' Fellowship vice ACSC and advised by the Desk Officer that it had the same weighting. Unfortunately it didn't, and even though I had an email to that effect, the system still regarded me as a 'Mainstream' officer, 'cos I hadn't gone to Swindon Polytech. Mind you, I also got a proper Masters' from a prestigeous university.

[BBadanov]

You are right, however be very wary about taking career advice over RoS etc over the 'phone. Even from the God-that-is-the-desky. The desky might not know every finest detail, sometimes those micro details can be painful.

Yes quite right for any circumstances. I was about 36 on Buccs when I was advised at blue letter time for SQNLDR (yes, was late as I joined at 30 from RAAF!!). Now we know that promotion is 3 yrs return of service, so there goes the 38/16. :*

"Ok", I said, I will accept only if I go to Tornados. "Yes", said the desk officer (over the phone), but you lose the chance of 44/22 option. WTF !! :confused: I should have challenged that, but I didn't, as I was really into leaving at 38 mode anyway.

So the moral of this tale...
- Regrets? Probably not, but I have often thought about it (as I was only "gash shag" aircrew, and not "personnel savvy"), and a shiny jet would have been fun, even though you couldn't fly very far from base !!
- But primarily, don't take advice over the phone - get it in writing! :ugh:

[Climebear]

Sargs

If only we had some sort of officer, sat behind a desk somewhere, trained in manning issues.

Yes, if only we did have that it would be good. Unfortunately we don’t. A typical desk officer receives basic induction into the mechanics of the manning process. However, they do not have the training in or experience of the vast amount of personnel policies and procedures that are in place (often spread across numerous policy documents, JSPs, DINs, APs, Staff Instructions etc). Once in post they are incredibly busy and generally don't have the time for self-study to become experts in all things 'personnel' before they move back into the mainstream for their branch. They are -in the main- not Personnel specialists.

On the other hand, there are some on here who do know about these policies (indeed, there are some on here that have been involved in the drafting of these policies) that can help steer people in the right direction. I agree that action based on rumour (whether that be on here or in the crew room) is generally ill-judged; however, you will see that several that post give clear direction on where the policy can be found.

Whenurhappy - isn't the University of London (through KCL) considered to be a 'prestigious university'?

[back end o' the bus]

Guys 'n gals...for wot its worth, I jumped ship to the RAAF after 23 yrs and you have a financial year window to move across within, the desky was extremely helpful with ensuring that any 9/12 mth out time was reduced to the 3/6 mth window that I needed. The Sqn were very gd at CO, Exec level....just depends on personalities I guess.....:ok::D

[Melchett01]

I concur. I was offered (and accepted) a years' Fellowship vice ACSC and advised by the Desk Officer that it had the same weighting. Unfortunately it didn't, and even though I had an email to that effect, the system still regarded me as a 'Mainstream' officer, 'cos I hadn't gone to Swindon Polytech. Mind you, I also got a proper Masters' from a prestigeous university.

Not having done ACSC, I might be barking up the wrong tree, but from the briefing we had during ICSC, it appeared that ACSC is little more than accreditation of prior learning. Effectively, what you are learning as a senior military staff officer is translated into an academic equivalent, and then with a few extra KCL modules added on, you get your MA. Hence the reason why ACSC attendance does not mean you will automatically come out the other end with an MA.

From that perspective, I would have thought that a degree in something relevant from a prestigious university (I think KCL is somewhere in the 50s in the world university rankings, I guess that counts as prestigious) would be more relevant than military theory in the outside world. Then again, I would say that as I already have a postgrad MSc without going to Swindon Poly :}

[obnoxio f*ckwit]

I was about 36 on Buccs when I was advised at blue letter time for SQNLDR (yes, was late as I joined at 30 from RAAF!!). Now we know that promotion is 3 yrs return of service, so there goes the 38/16

You were almost exactly the same as me (apart from the Bucc bit, no FJ for me!), but i didn't lose my 38/16 point, it just slipped to the right. I stagged on for the extra year and left anyway, but with the bigger pension.

[Whenurhappy]

KCL is not in the top 10 global list of universities. Cambridge is...

This refers: BBC News - World 'reputation' rankings: US universities in lead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17368108)

Moreover I have not been impressed with the intellectual rigour of some of the so-called Masters' convocated by KCL, and this has been confirmed by colleagues who have done both the Cantab MPhil (International Relations)and the MA at Shriv.

[Climebear]

Off Topic

In the Times list, KCL is 56th in the world; 12th in Europe; 8th in the UK.

Anywone know why the individual colleges of the University of London are listed seperately but not the individual Oxbridge colleges?

[radar101]

The University of London is a federal university with all the colleges being self-governing / autonomous. I don't know about Oxbridge.


radar101
Royal Holloway College 1969-73