Aircrew Sustainability

[Party Animal]

Taken from the latest RAF Personnel Bulletin:


We have insufficient Regular aircrew, especially pilots, to fill all of the flying and flying-related ground posts; moreover, this manning gap will endure over the next decade unless remedial action is taken. To mitigate this issue we are undertaking an Aircrew Sustainability Review which will be conducted in 3 discrete phases.

Phase one, to bound the issue, has already been completed with the reporting of recommendations to the AFBSC in December 13. We have agreed to delete or reapportion around 400 aircrew-annotated posts over a 6-year period to either non-regular aircrew or other branches, and to introduce the requirement for all aircrew posts to be prioritised in their order of importance to remain as aircrew annotated. This prioritisation has the added benefit of ensuring that the number of aircrew posts filled by Regular aircrew in the future will be directly related to the prevailing Regular strength.

Work to establish the prioritised list and identify which posts should be deleted or reapportioned (Phase 2) is at a very early stage and is being taken forward by the Manpower Requirements team. This phase will involve discussion with the key stakeholders (including the capability owners) and any recommendations challenged through red teaming. This work will consider, amongst other things, the requirement for the majority of operationally focussed appointments to be filled by Regular aircrew and the contribution that the other Services should make to filling aircrew-annotated staff appointments.

In the final stage of this work we will look to model the impact on aircrew strength of the NEM, the new pension scheme (AFPS15),MFTS, and other changes, such as longer tour lengths, and assess if and what type of retention incentives may be required to improve aircrew return of service.


400 aircrew annotated posts seems like a huge number to soak up by other branches. I can see FTRS aircrew taking over at UAS's etc but are we going to replace all those in HQ staff appointments with adminers??

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Sounds to me that even more aircrew will be needed for Manpower Review, Red Teams and any other HR bullsh!t they come up with in the meantime.

In any case, I would suspect the Red Team interactions would consist of
Red: "Why don't you...?"
RAF: "There's no budget for that. It's not policy. (Insert your favourite management excuse here)."
repeat ad infinitum

May I suggest what the Chivenor crowd came up with for the Robson Report (twenty years ago review of same problem)
They just asked for great wads of cash, on the basis that significant changes anywhere else were nigh on impossible given the bureaucracy, so just make sure the bucket of cash is heavier than the bucket of sh!t.

[Wensleydale]

An awful lot of "Uncles" are needed!

[jayteeto]

Who wrote that management tosh?

Stakeholders, capability owners and WTF is red teaming????

Speak in plain English you morons.

[Wander00]

Aah, the Robson Report - best bloke for the job, great report, but was it ever going to be implemented......no, never.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'm sorry but this is a complete crock of sh**e. Allowing the reapportionment of 400 aircrew annotated posts will only serve to further undermine the aircrew branch. There has to be a very good reason why any number of those posts have been aircrew annotated in the past; that usually comes down to a necessary skill set, level of specialist knowledge and intuitive understanding of certain issues. Those skills do not come from inventing a new branch or just removing the aircrew annotation! :rolleyes:

I am afraid that this all links to the fact that the RAF (and RN and shortly the British Army) are already too small to do what we are being asked to do. As General Nick said at RUSI last night:

...the dawning reality is that, even if we maintain the non-equipment budget in real terms, rising manpower costs raise the prospect of further manpower and activity cuts. Unattended our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure: exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it. ... We are not there yet; but across Defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms

The only thing I would change is the ending, which really should have read: "I would identify the RN and RAF as being beyond its critical mass in monpower terms". This 400 reannotation is proof positive that [elements of] the RAF are already beyond critical mass!! :{


Party Animal

I can see FTRS aircrew taking over at UASs Hate to tell you this, but of the 2 or 3 pilots on each UAS, all bar the Boss will be FTRS already. All the AEF flt cdrs are FTRS and quite a few of the EFT QFIs are FTRS. I've lost track of where we stand with the Tucano, Hawk, King Air and DHFS sqns, but there was quite a smattering of FTRS (or civilian) pilots in there already; this is only going to get worse under MFTS.

PS. Where did you find the quote from? I don't remember having seen a Manning Bulletin in years

[Stuff]

PS. Where did you find the quote from? I don't remember having seen a Manning Bulletin in years

RAF intranet homepage. Second link down in Latest Information (under CAS Christmas Message)

[Roland Pulfrew]

RAF intranet homepage. Second link down in Latest Information (under CAS Christmas Message)

Oooh! Glossy!!

Thanks Stuff, you live and learn. :ok:

[Party Animal]

RP,

Agree with you completely. If:


Hate to tell you this, but of the 2 or 3 pilots on each UAS, all bar the Boss will be FTRS already


is already the case, then that just makes things worse!

P.S. We missed you yesterday at the M.

[Biggus]

How long ago did we make over 400 aircrew redundant? About 3 years wasn't it! :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Wander00]

Biggus - careful, just saw big black cars coming your way. (Anyone thought of rewriting "The Emperor's New clothes"?)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I am related to a man who was the chief aircrew poster about 30 years ago. He reckoned the aircrew requirement followed a 7 year cycle and was almost always 180 degrees out with aircrew numbers, and that this had been the case since 1918.
Plus ca change!

[N2erk]

I don't usually respond to posts on current issues, or political stuff, but I have to ask- what does " to bound the issue, ",or 'red-teaming' mean- paradigm shift, stakeholder, think-outside-the-box, collegial I've got but... Thinks: maybe they meant 'red herring' :rolleyes: oh, and if they're short of "uncles", would they consider 'grampas' ?? :ok:

[Wander00]

Fox3 - certainly applied in the 60s, 70s, 80s...............................Why can the RAF not "do" manpower planning!

[Biggus]

N2erk


Red team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team)

[N2erk]

Biggus- thx. i guess its an organizational version of playing the devil's advocate, or being 'the mystery shopper' in retail...
seriously tho thx.:ok:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Wander00 - my relative reckoned it was a consequence of the time in post of Defence Ministers and VSOs. Neither of these has changed much since 1918. By the time a programme gets established, in comes someone else with different priorities - and the expense is always a factor.

[Just This Once...]

What a mess.

Nice to see that they have identified the true issues:

...NEM, the new pension scheme (AFPS15),MFTS, and other changes, such as longer tour lengths, and assess if and what type of retention incentives may be required to improve aircrew return of service

But have consigned these to:

...the final stage of this work

When bleeding to death the application of direct or indirect pressure to the wound should be the first thing you do, not the last…

[Madbob]

Sadly, all I see round the corner (if it's not happening already) is an ALMIGHTY train crash ahead.......

There used to be a balance between operations (okay when there wasn't a war being fought, the front line), training (flying) and career progression (ground tours).

There was also a critical mass. This is essential to prevent burn-out of your front line, rotation between roles and to allow for rapid surges. eg. QFI's being recalled to ops as happened in OP CORPORATE.

Now with increasing use of civilian's/ex-military pilots being employed at UAS, BFT, MTFS, and now the civilianisation of SAR we are dining in the last chance saloon. With the RAF, FAA and AAC shrinking where will the next generation of current QFI's etc. employed by the likes of SERCO & BABCOCK come from? With the airlines looking to recruit new pilots will there be any ex-service pilots interested or young enough to fill the vacancies that will start to appear when the current ex-service aircrew retire?

The training pipeline gets turned off all too easily to save money in the short term but is very difficult to turn on again. As we will no doubt find out only at considerable cost.

MB

[Dan Winterroll]

As usual the wheel comes full circle and I bet if you pull out the PA'd file establishing the Ops Support bunch you will read it was because we didn't have enough aircrew to fill all the slots required and we needed to prioritise etc etc

Ca plus ca change ca plus ca mem chose (with apologies to Mr Forster my French teacher)

Bet you wish you didn't get rid of all those Navs in the redundancies eh? :D

[Sideshow Bob]

Bet you wish you didn't get rid of all those Navs in the redundancies eh?

How would having a talking map to show you the way to the train crash help? :E

[High_Expect]

Let's not confuse 'Aircrew Shortage' with 'Nav Shortage'. There is a pilot shortage and an even worse QFI shortage. I would guess that proportionally a lot of those 400 in aircrew annotated ground jobs are already filled with people who can only fly in circles and cutting the jobs won't fix the pilot shortage.

[Wensleydale]

"We have agreed to delete or reapportion around 400 aircrew-annotated posts over a 6-year period to either non-regular aircrew or other branches, and to introduce the requirement for all aircrew posts to be prioritised in their order of importance to remain as aircrew annotated"




I also assume that any aircrew volunteering for these posts risk having their flying pay reduced or even lost as the post no longer carries the aircrew tag? Sounds like a way of saving money to me.....






PS. Anyone else having trouble with the "Quotes" button? Stopped working for me.

[BEagle]

Now with increasing use of civilian's/ex-military pilots being employed at UAS, BFT, MTFS, and now the civilianisation of SAR we are dining in the last chance saloon. With the RAF, FAA and AAC shrinking where will the next generation of current QFI's etc. employed by the likes of SERCO & BABCOCK come from? With the airlines looking to recruit new pilots will there be any ex-service pilots interested or young enough to fill the vacancies that will start to appear when the current ex-service aircrew retire?

The training pipeline gets turned off all too easily to save money in the short term but is very difficult to turn on again. As we will no doubt find out only at considerable cost.



Well indeed. Just what I've been saying for years.

Where would the necessary QFIs, aerodromes and training aeroplanes come form, should it be necessary to support a training surge?

I also consider that these mercenary-employing civil contractors should be required to demonstrate a 30-year manning sustainability plot, rather than just some alleged short-term budget savings.

If (when?) MFTS falls flat on its face, how many of us will say "We told you so....but you wouldn't listen!!"

[Just This Once...]

It is an aircrew shortage, not just a pilot shortage - but the 2 are linked. The RAF got too comfortable with the traditional higher retention rate for non-pilots compared to pilots and this helped to offset the creeping disaster area that was (initially) pilot retention.

Two things changed:

- The massive reduction in non-pilots due to restructuring/front-line need
- The push/pull retention issues that have triggered a loss-rate of non-pilot aircrew at an unprecedented level

I guess someone in the ivory towers thought that the highly motivated and career aware single brevet types would just soldier on in their current rank on repetitive aircrew-only ground tours with little or no development opportunities. Then came the pension changes, NEM, pay restraint, PAS restrictions, reduced promotion rates, removal of FRIs etc etc. Seeing how many of the recently retired/PVR'd are now working as contractors on £500 a day providing substitute manpower to MoD I do wonder at the sanity of our leadership and those that remain.

[BEagle]

- The push/pull retention issues that have triggered a loss-rate of non-pilot aircrew at an unprecedented level

Not just non-pilots! A couple of years ago there was an excellent retention measure for pilots - accreditation towards civil pilot licences. But then 22Gp destroyed it - presumably expecting qualifying pilots to stop leaving for the airlines. Whereas all they have actually done is to make pilots realise that there's no real point in staying in longer than necessary - they might as well do their civil exams and leave as soon as they can.

Well done, chaps....:rolleyes:

[VinRouge]

I also assume that any aircrew volunteering for these posts risk having their flying pay reduced or even lost as the post no longer carries the aircrew tag? Sounds like a way of saving money to me.....

That's the way it reads to me too. And it's not just those volunteering, get stuck in a non aircrew pic desk job for too long and you will be getting nada flying pay.

It's just an excuse to cut the most highly paid (but also experienced) personnel from those jobs. The problem is, as we have seen with the ops world, the output standard can't be maintained when you put people into these posts without the suitable experience (although I have had some recent examples where the output from ops has been excellent).

Put inexperienced people in those jobs and don't be surprised when your frontline units are getting constantly bothered with phone calls and emails asking for SQEP advice and your ultimate output standard falls through the floor.

[Just This Once...]

^^^^ Yep, agree with BEagle above - another massive own-goal.

The list goes on.

[Party Animal]

The problem is, as we have seen with the ops world, the output standard can't
be maintained when you put people into these posts without the suitable
experience


I honestly don't mind if my current 'aircrew' position is handed over to a ground branch ops support dude.....



Providing they have the same 5,000 hrs of deep tactical knowledge and hard earned operational experience that I've gained over the last 30 years!

[Mr C Hinecap]

Perhaps some of those posts are not filled with a steely-eyed two-winged warrior. Perhaps some of those posts haven't been actually filled for years, either by aircrew or indeed by anyone.
Things change. My own Branch went through a big re-structuring and shone a bright light in the corners of the manning plot and did some mature thinking. Some posts were not a priority - not for the Branch or even for the RAF as a whole. Things around the posts had changed and things hadn't caught up.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but it will probably be part of it. It is always interesting, for those who can, to access the spreadsheet on the manning website and sort it by Branch. There are some strange and wonderful posts out there that don't get filled or have little, if anything, to do with the Branch.

[MSOCS]

It's about time we stopped saying we can do more (or the same) for less. Personal career performance is assessed almost exclusively around accomplishing tasks which then multiply exponentially at each and every level below the very top tier VSOs. Activity replaces valuable work and a vicious situation of burn out and malcontent creeps in. Some very smart people are getting bored and are leaving.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

This is already a room full of elephants, but if I might point out another one - flying hours.
This may come as a shock but a lot of RAF pilots joined to..fly aeroplanes!

[Wander00]

Big mate of the admin persuasion has just had nearly 5 years in the Far East as Air Attache and Defence Attaché in some very interesting places, and I bet his post was annotated "GD" or whatever it is called these days.

[BEagle]

This may come as a shock but a lot of RAF pilots joined to..fly aeroplanes!

Quite so. On my first tour, I averaged 297 hours per annum (24.7 per month).

A couple of days ago I learned that a Luftwaffe Tornado wing is giving its pilots 41 hours......per year....:eek:

Is it any better in the RAF?

[VinRouge]

First tour averaged 500 per year, second tour slightly lower although next year is expected to be monster... 500 plus I reckon. Some of us are currently doing 80 hour+ months if you are (un)lucky (depending on perspective!).


Best 31 day month was 123 hours with over 150 sectors.

Dont want to do that again! Its very fleet dependent, heard rumours sentinel guys max out on their hours pretty much every year due to the "on station" nature of the job (plus a bit of 'freelance' I hear).

The big issue I forsee if the airlines go spastic recruitment wise is retention. Whilst current rating is a requirement for now, having lots of experience monging round without a ROS is a dangerous place to be, when your experience is stuck behind a desk and finds out what home stability is like. Especially if rumours of overseas airlines hubbing LGW Are to be believed. We are much smaller as a force and any individual experience now leaving forms a bigger percentage of the lost pie. Not to forget the 130+ front enders needed to establish 400m, plus fleet growth (voyager), plus the result of pretty much most 1st/2nd tourists having a ticket in their pocket and no pension to stay in for. Not grumbling, just the very difficult situation we face.

Retirement of 130K Tri* and VC10 should help.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aircrew training and retention is just like every other part of the Military

There is never time or money to do the job right the first time, but there will always be time and money to do it over after everything is FUBAR'd.....

[Biggus]

While numbers of aircrew, and retention, may be an issue, it would appear that Manning are not using, or not being allowed to use, all of the tools at their disposal....

About 10 months ago, with retirement looming, I was considering my options. I spoke to my desk officer at Manning about a possible extension beyond 55, to be told they were virtually impossible to obtain. Apparently it would require a business case written by a Wg Cdr/Grp Capt before going in front of some sort of board for a decision to be made.

While keeping my skills might not have been considered vital to the RAF, my retention would have freed up a younger individual who could have been better employed elsewhere other than doing the job I was then undertaking and which still needed doing.

All this was over a possible one year extension, which would still have seen me out before the magic cut off date of Apr 15.

It appears that FTRS is easier to achieve than an extension in the regulars.

[Willard Whyte]

Bet you wish you didn't get rid of all those Navs in the redundancies eh?

Glad to be gone, a LOT would have to change to in the extremely unlikely event of being invited back: more ca$h, less stress, more fun, fewer hours. Oh, any posting would have to be South of the River Thames too.

[Sideshow Bob]

more ca$h, less stress, more fun, fewer hours
Mate would it actually be possible to do fewer hours than you truly did?:) (Happy Christmas by the way)

[kintyred]

No mention yet of the truly unbelievable number of ground posts that need to filled in an organisation with so few frontline aircraft.

[A and C]

The biggest problem in retaining aircrew is that following the draconian cuts in the military there is no realistic prospects of a career in the military as clearly it is a shrinking industry.

As most aircrew are realistic about this fact the first move once the OCU is finished and they are fully on line is to start on getting the civilian licences so as to be in a position to get a job when the defence cuts axe falls.

It is a sad prospect that even the keenest most pro military pilots who would in the past seen the military as a thirty year career ( and do still want that ) are preparing for the next career only two or three years into the their first career.

While from an aircrew stance this is disappointing from a national point of view it is a disaster as the brightest will have gone to the airlines long before they get a sniff of a staff position leaving the military to be run only by those who's only concept of risk is to make sure that any decision they take is of zero risk to their career, and with no consideration to the good of the service.

[Talk Reaction]

I think the licenses as soon as you're off the OCU is confined to possibly just one airfield in the south? Perhaps sweeping generalisations aren't helpful, especially the moronic "the brightest and the best are leaving" - this phrase and it's variations are getting much too much bandwidth on this forum these days, pretty insulting to all those who remain don't you think?

[Failed_Scopie]

The elephant in the room; I am reliably informed that the Army has 98 Regular SO1 posts at E2 currently gapped. For the life of me I cannot work out what they all do...

[5 Forward 6 Back]

TR, while I agree with you that some of the brightest and best do indeed decide to stay, I have peers at airfields including the most northerly one who have completed ATPLs during first tours as well. It's not confined to Brize although I imagine it's much worse there; good old Facebook generally shows me a photo of a shiny new CPL(A)/IR or ATPL about once or twice a month from mates at Benson, Odiham, Marham, Lossie, Leuchars, Waddington.....

[High_Expect]

Talk Reaction are you one of those staying in perchance?

[Talk Reaction]

HE, does that make a difference?

Yes I am still in

[VinRouge]

I think the licenses as soon as you're off the OCU is confined to possibly just one airfield in the south?

cheers! now we know where all the FRI needs targetting then! :ok:

[Whenurhappy]

Several years ago I was part of a multidisciplinary team of Light Blue in MB. There were 2 aircre, 2 engineers, ATC, FC, Admin and a Trainer made up this happy band. Then the SO1 posts were deemed 'flying related', principally, it seems, to allow the retention of flying pay. Result? Some pissed off GD Wg Cdrs who weren't going to get a sqn command and some equally pissed off ground branch officers who enjoyed the work but were now no longer allowed to breath the same oxygen and contribute to some very valuable work.

Sadly, a number of Attache slots are still tied to brevets for 'presentational purposes' however Ground branch officers do fill a significant number of them these day. Not that Branch means much when at the Mission, as the locals (once you are outside W Europe) regard all Attaches as spies!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Several years ago I was part of a multidisciplinary team of Light Blue in MB. There were 2 aircrew, 2 engineers, ATC, FC, Admin and a Trainer made up this happy band.

Heard a rumour that one of the key multidisciplinary light blue MB teams may be going FTRS as part of this study! More evidence that the aircrew branch in particular, and the RAF in general, has gone beyond critical mass? :uhoh:

[Jet In Vitro]

Critical Mass in the context being used in several defence debates means what?

I would have thought implode was a better term to be used as it implies disappearing up your own RRRRs.

[VinRouge]

You go below a certain figure and the entire system shuts down. Read Haddon Cave if you want a clue.

I do remember a pretty high up individual stating a while back that the RAF's next Haddon-Cave would end any right to self-regulation. I imagine that would be pretty terminal for the MOD as they would actually have to start playing the game and not agree to everything despite the current manning level disaster we have.

[BEagle]

Perhaps this is the way that the current manning policy is taking a once-great RAF.....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/jenga_zps452896a5.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/jenga_zps452896a5.jpg.html)

Utterly ridiculous for the RAF, as reported in the 'squadron uncles' thread, now to need venerable consiglieri to provide an avuncular comfort blanket to the squadron. Or is it that the thrusters either don't care or are simply incapable of looking after their squadrons properly?

[Biggus]

I believe it was SDSR 2010 that set a manning limit (let's call it 33,000) for the RAF to achieve by April 2015. It is also my understanding that FTRS posts don't count towards the limit.

Therefore, assuming you can afford the wage bill, it is possible to have an RAF of 70,000 people - 33,000 "regulars" and 37,000 FTRS! I thought this was one of the reasons for the recent (massive?) increase in FTRS posts being created.

Would anyone care to put me straight?

[N_1]

Short of career stream aircrew to fill the necessary staff posts that make the system work? No problem just post those pilots who have just accepted a PA Spine offer into them! They have no flying pay marker so can be used anywhere in the system; a desk officer's Joker card :-) They have to do what you want for the first 5 years but after that...

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, my understanding too. In theory they are in time-limited posts. Equally in theory they were initially aimed at 55 yr JOs which would also be time limited.

[Just This Once...]

Short of career stream aircrew to fill the necessary staff posts that make the system work? No problem just post those pilots who have just accepted a PA Spine offer into them!

A process that appears to be in full swing at my particular ivory tower. The upside is that we have a bunch of very experienced and current aircrew filling key appointments. In even better news these 'individuals' are just that and are proving to be less pliable than those still gripping the slippery pole.

The downside is the emptying of the frontline of very experienced aircrew and that the PAS chaps are not exactly welcoming the unexpected move. A number have already hit the JPA button despite their original desire to stay.

Some would call it 'rebalancing' as we are now triggering PAS PVRs at a similar rate to the career spine - neat trick.

The image of Jenga above has it in one, pulling out the PAS bricks and putting them on top. It can only end one way.

[fin1012]

So, I've had a long think over the Christmas break and decided that after nearly 31 years in the Royal Air Force, 2014 is the year that I too shall draw stumps. I wonder how many (if any) others have come up with the same idea. I have always been loyal and I feel bad for leaving yet another gap to be filled. That said, I will be very interested next week to find out if the system and/or my command chain even notice.

[The Old Fat One]

About 10 months ago, with retirement looming, I was considering my options. I spoke to my desk officer at Manning about a possible extension beyond 55,

What...The...****!!

Biggus, given that I pretty much agree with everything you post, gotta ask why would anybody, in any job, work past their full pension payable point?

It simply cannot be for financial purposes (do the math). Must be something else in play here. Get retired mate....it is awesome!!

PS retirement does not mean not going to work. Retirement means going to work, when, and only when, you want to to.

[Just This Once...]

I don't know, for a PAS bloke on AFPS05 an extra year or 2 could make quite a difference financially.

[The Old Fat One]

I guess we have a different view of what this means...

quite a difference financially

I retired early at 47, not only losing 8 years of increments, but also getting only PVR rates (10% less).

My pension is much, much smaller than my Sqn Ldr peers who have just retired in the past two years. But it is still substantial and I've now had ten years of unearned wonga hitting my bank account each month. I get going the full term if you don't fancy a second career, but going past it and throwing away good boozing, cruising years for the sake of a few more quid (work it out per day spending money...it's the only figure that matters). Sorry, can't get my head round it.

[Just This Once...]

Perhaps not a different view, just reflecting different goals. As it happens my goals are similar to yours but for those who had kids late, say in a 2nd marriage, then service to 57+ and never having to work again does suit some.

[Evalu8ter]

Well, I'm most surprised at another manning co*k up...after all, we only post HR professionals into those jobs not amateurs looking for the 'tick' before inevitable progression. All without repercussions when these 'future leaders' are proven to have made mistakes. I'm effectively being forced out at 44 as there is no route back to a cockpit for me...and I refuse to spend the next 11 years being shunted into those SO2 jobs too boring (or intellectually challenging....) for the 'Executive Stream' to consider. Sort this mess out before all that's left are first tourists (all doing their ATPLs...) and chisellers pointing the finger at each other over who caused the train wreck.

1. Reconnect proper military accreditation to professional licences.

2. Stop the FTRS creep; part of the problem is the lack of genuine 'rest tours' - for pity's sake we had these 'rest tours' when a static RAF in the UK/RAFG, we need them more than ever now (esp RW) and they're rapidly vanishing.

3. Prevent bean counters covering up for their errors by cutting AFT hours to claw back funding from other areas; it's a false economy to cut flying - crews do not get the requisite experience and a lack of flying de-motivates people.

4. Be honest and show integrity all the way up the chain; 'can do' is laudable but we risk killing people in the next 'near-peer' conflict as senior hands have been using smoke and mirrors to convince politicians that you can cut hours, platforms and people and deliver the same capability. Madness.

5. Let's have fun. The appeal of military flying was the sense of fun, freedom and camaraderie that it engendered; I think the biggest shock to me over the past 5 years flying with JPs has been that they don't know what it's like to have fun - it's been scared/beaten out of them by people worried about their careers in case the press got wind of (shock) people actually enjoying their work. Effective Supervision requires experience (and properly current and competent crews) not tracking tools and a 'No' mentality.

Anyway, back to that ATPL study....:E

[Guest_22]

The perfect storm for Manning is fast approaching (all branches, most ranks): economic recovery, NEM & pension changes, and a potential mass rejection of the offer to extend which would fill some gaps for a few more years at little extra cost.

And not forgetting another SDSR next year post election...

[CofG]

Spot on there Evalu8ter!

Hit the nail on the head, couldn't have summed it up any better, lets hope a few of our lords and masters are reading this thread because as I sit in the sand pit as we speak those ATPL exams are getting more tempting!

[Just This Once...]

Evalu8ter - spot on.

:ok:

[minigundiplomat]

Evalu8ter - spot on.


As usual - I miss our chats in the crewroom or as we passed abeam Sipovo, putting the world to rights.

[Stuff]

Well, I'm most surprised at another manning co*k up...after all, we only post HR professionals into those jobs not amateurs looking for the 'tick' before inevitable progression.

Really?

AMP is a pilot not an HR professional. Most desk officers are from the branches they represent. The support staff under them are normally E grade civ servants fulfilling a clerical role.

Where are these HR professionals you attribute the blame to? A look at the Career Manager's org chart shows me there are 2 HR professionals out of 45 posts.

It might be good to vent your anger but don't just invent things to blame the issue on, it makes you look daft.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Stuff

Where are these HR professionals you attribute the blame to? A look at the Career Manager's org chart shows me there are 2 HR professionals out of 45 posts.

I think you may have missed the irony in Eval's post!!

[Sand4Gold]

it makes you look daft.

Really? Roland got in first.

[VinRouge]

Might be time to change the role and get in full time reservists into the post who can be selected as suitable, receive the correct training and stay in the post and provide continuity. But odd you have a poster responsible for promoting their peers (competitors!) especially in the uber competitive promotion environment we have these days.

[Wander00]

Am I understanding this correctly - 2 HR professionals supporting the posting and career management of how many? Reminds me of the phone call I got in 1987 - "The RAF had 6 professional accountants - 5 have retired and one is on terminal leave - would you like to take the Chartered Institute of management Accountants course with the Army" - two of us were due to start - one jumped ship (my desk officer who had offered me the place) because he got a place at Staff College...................

[Canadian WokkaDoctor]

Evalu8ter said:
I'm effectively being forced out at 44 as there is no route back to a cockpit for me...and I refuse to spend the next 11 years being shunted into those SO2 jobs too boring (or intellectually challenging....) for the 'Executive Stream' to consider.

Now, if only there was a CH147F Squadron standing up - hang on a minute!!!

[N_1]

If we are serious about saving money and maintaining military capability why don’t the four stars/ Senior Civil Servants that actually run the Armed Forces run it like a business? Retain your core personnel and know their value both in terms of what you have invested in them and their worth outside. If within the Armed Forces some groups of individuals are expensive to train and/ or their skills are essential to your output (could be engineers/ aircrew/ insert category here) then why on earth would you let them walk without trying to entice them to stay? It doesn’t make sense from a financial or capability view. The people in the Armed Forces are quality individuals that UK industry values highly; particularly the SNCOs and Officers. I have not known, over the last 20 odd years, of anyone leaving the Armed Forces not gaining useful employment; I know there will be the odd case but they are the exception. The 3-month notice period required by the individual or organisation post 1 April 2015 works both ways….
The perfect HR storm has been forecast for some time and the winds ahead of the front are here now and increasing. NEM is seen by your workforce as a cost saving exercise, the pension changes as flawed (even if you get an extension to age 60 what are you going to do for the next 7 years?) and your workforce only knows the reality of the continual salami slicing of their and their family’s quality of life and yes the decreasing ability to have any ‘fun’ anymore. None of this is going to keep people in.
If one hundred aircrew walk how much will it cost to the MoD replace them? How does this match against your anticipated cost savings?

[Evalu8ter]

Now now CWD...don't tease!! :E

MGD - Me too fella....

[kintyred]

Evalu8or, I don't understand the phrase "executive stream". From my perspective (former Flt Lt), anyone who has taken their eight pieces of silver on promotion becomes an "executive"....end of. You can't expect to crawl back into the womb at will once you have started your way up the greasy pole. If I had been king for a day I would have offered PAS to Flt Lts only. I might, if I were feeling generous offer some senior officers PAS as Flt Lts. Sqn Ldrs are too easily plucked from their primary duty (experienced aviators) to fill all sorts of nebby jobs.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Kintyred

Executive Stream and Main Stream differentiate all officers at or above wg cdr (or is at sqn ldr?). I can't quite remember the full details but it is basically have you done ASC or not? If yes you're exec stream, will get shorter (2-ish year tours), be expected to move around more regularly in the hope that greater things will be coming your way. If you are a main stream wg cdr, you can expect (but not be guaranteed) longer tours giving stability for family and in your job.

Posts are supposed to be annotated ES or MS, so expect the nice sqn/wg command tours to all be ES and the (how should I say this?) duller staff tours that aren't need for the career thrusters be left to MS officers. Of course, the exigencies of the Service will over ride all of the above as required.

[kintyred]

Thank you RP, I shall sleep well tonight! I guess I didn't pick up much about my commanders in my 27 years as a Flt Lt! On a serious note the thread is about retention and I do think that there's more fun to be had as a JO. By giving ex thrusters a second chance to get back to basics as JO aircrew, it would bolster the experience level of frontline squadrons and reduce the chance of these valuable individuals being taken away from these positions. Lets face it, most us joined to fly the big green toys....how great to be able to spent your final years back doing the thing you love only this time with a bit more capacity. It would also ease the supervisory burden and workload for the grown ups.

[Roland Pulfrew]

By giving ex thrusters a second chance to get back to basics as JO aircrew, it would bolster the experience level of frontline squadrons and reduce the chance of these valuable individuals being taken away from these positions. Lets face it, most us joined to fly the big green toys....how great to be able to spent your final years back doing the thing you love only this time with a bit more capacity.

Oh yes, totally agree. I would leap at the chance to get back into a cockpit and finish my time doing what I love doing. If I could keep my pay, or covert to the appropriate level of PAS, I would happily stop doing "staff" and return to fill a JO PIC on a flying sqn. Leave the staff tours for the young thrusters and allow the older non-thrusters to return to the cockpit. Gets my vote.

The ES/MS thing has only been around for 2 or 3 years by the way, so it is still bedding in.

[BEagle]

Leave the staff tours for the young thrusters and allow the older non-thrusters to return to the cockpit. Gets my vote.



In the past, that's why we had Spec Aircrew! If you wanted to stay flying for a career, you became Spec Aircrew and gave up any thoughts of promotion. But it also avoided us having to polish chairs in Whitehall or work until midnight furthering someone else's career. I used to refer to Main Building as the 'Spec Aircrew recruiting centre' - one visit was enough to convince anyone teteering on a Spec Aircrew decision!

An ex-thruster at Sqn Ldr level reverting to Spec Aircrew Sqn Ldr could often cause some friction - such folk could have returned to the cockpit, but why should they continue to hold the rank?

Spec Aircrew was a bit of a weird system though - when they finally promoted me, I suddenly dound myself with more seniority than the Flt Cdrs...:hmm:

Populating cockpits with ex-thrusters won't exactly do wonders for a sustainable manning plot - and doubtless would seriously hack-off those poor souls waiting years to start flying training.

[Party Animal]

N_1,

There are many issues running the Armed Forces as a business. Not least of which would be the option to readily give one months notice if a better job option came up or you didn't like the particular war that you were just about to engage in for 9 months.

[Roland Pulfrew]

and doubtless would seriously hack-off those poor souls waiting years to start flying training.

BEags - part of the problem would appear to be a lack of poor souls waiting to start flying training - the frontline is now so small and OCU throughput has been turned down so far to avoid too much dilution, that we cannot get enough aircrew through OCUs and on to the frontline to sustain the aircrew branches. One option would be to take suitably experienced aircrew and return them to the cockpit to provide an element of continuity, reduce dilution rates, bring back some experience and (hopefully) put them through a refresher rather than a full OCU. The sad fact is though that with the loss of so many types in recent years (Harrier, Jaguar, VC10, Nimrod, C130K and shortly Tristar and Merlin) there may not be enough types left to refresh on.

If we are having to try and get rid of 400 aircrew annotated ground posts (probably many with some form of SQEP requirement) then one might argue that we are already below critical mass and its no longer that the bracnh is on the verge of implosion but has already started imploding - it may now just be a matter of how quickly the implosion accelerates. :{

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Quite so. On my first tour, I averaged 297 hours per annum (24.7 per month).

A couple of days ago I learned that a Luftwaffe Tornado wing is giving its pilots 41 hours......per year....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

Is it any better in the RAF?


Depends where you are. I have managed at least 300 hours per year for the last 12 years. I say this not as an 'Ooh look at me' but just to point out that some of us are still lucky enough to enjoy plenty of flying month after month, year after year.


The biggest problem in retaining aircrew is that following the draconian cuts in the military there is no realistic prospects of a career in the military as clearly it is a shrinking industry.


Are you sure? I would suggest it's the turbulence/instability/op tempo, compared with what is available outside, which is causing retention issues.


shortly Tristar and Merlin


and Sea King.

[A2QFI]

I have been retired for ever, it seems! I got 440 hours in 50 minute sorties at 4FTS in 1965 and I got at least 35 hours a month working a 3 day week on a UAS in the 90s but not every month.