MPs not holding back - MoD Annual Report.

[Al R]

Not seen the Defence Committee so rabid in a while. Re paras 8 and 9, what reasons for the outflow and what "other incentives" might work..?!

House of Commons - Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13 - Defence Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/653/65303.htm)

Overall Conclusion

1. The Ministry of Defence has made some improvements to its reporting of information since last year but much work is still needed before it meets the standards we would expect to see in its Annual Report. We have set out the areas where the MoD needs to provide more extensive information on its performance. (Paragraph 51)

2. The MoD has been reviewing its risk management arrangements and we look forward to seeing the results of its review. We are concerned that structural changes have led to a lack of clarity in aligning roles and responsibilities with risk management structures. Our major concern and, apparently the Defence Board's second strategic risk, is shortage of key personnel. This was evidenced by the increase in the number of pinch point trades, the high level of voluntary outflow and the continuing breaches of harmony guidelines. The Defence Board should take these shortages seriously. (Paragraph 52)

3. The provision of reliable management information is critical to the effective management of an organisation. It is crucial that the MoD improves its management information systems and the quality of the management information produced. In particular, the MoD should concentrate on improving its financial management information. (Paragraph 53)

4. For the seventh successive year, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) qualified the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Accounts for 2012-13. The qualifications were:

The regularity of the treatment of the impairment of the valuation of the German estate resulting from the withdrawal of UK Forces from Germany;
Non-compliance with international reporting standards on the treatment of some contracts; and
The valuation of inventory and non-current assets.
The latter two problems are likely to persist beyond 2014-15. The MoD needs a clear plan and timetable as to how and when it will achieve a clear audit opinion from the C&AG. (Paragraph 54)

Performance and risk management in the MoD

5. We welcome the MoD's implementation of the recommendation in our last report on the Annual Report and Accounts that it provide a useful commentary on the input and impact indicators. We are, however, unhappy with the quantity and quality of performance information available to us and to the public. We recommend that more information of the type provided to the Defence Board should be provided to us and put in the MoD's Annual Report and Accounts. We have identified those areas where we expect the MoD to provide information in its Annual Report and Accounts or where it should develop an improved set of indicators. These areas are set out in an annex to this Report. (Paragraph 6)

6. We are concerned that structural changes in the MoD have led to a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities. The MoD should report to us on the results of its work looking at this problem. We also wish to know how responsibilities are aligned with risk management structures and, how it is improving business continuity arrangements. We do not accept the assertion that because the detailed Strategic Risk Register is produced as advice to the Defence Secretary and the Defence Board, that fact should preclude members of the Committee from being able to see it. The Register is an important document with several functions, and it needs to be open to Parliamentary scrutiny. At the very least, the MoD should provide us with a commentary on the reassessment of the risks presented to the Defence Board and with the new Risk Framework documentation. (Paragraph 12)

7. We recommend that the MoD should tell us what it is doing to manage the risks resulting from the volume of change presently being undertaken in the MoD alongside business as usual. (Paragraph 14)

8. We are concerned that the rate of voluntary outflow from the Armed Forces is above the long term average. The MoD should identify the causes of this increased outflow and determine what measures it needs to put in place to reduce the outflow. (Paragraph 15)

9. The MoD should support the Services in addressing shortages in pinch point trades—key shortages which leave the Armed Forces vulnerable now and in the future. The MoD and the Armed Forces should explore ways of filling these gaps by offering financial or other incentives to Service personnel to encourage those in pinch point trades to continue in service and to encourage others to undertake training in these trades or by using reservists and private sector contractors. (Paragraph 20)

10. It is unsatisfactory that harmony guidelines are still being breached for some Armed Forces personnel, in particular that over five per cent of the Army is away from home in excess of the recommended time. The MoD should provide us with the annual figures for breaches of harmony guidelines over the last ten years. We call on the MoD to set out a timetable for reaching a point where no Armed Forces personnel are in breach of harmony guidelines. (Paragraph 23)

11. As Lord Levene said in his second annual review of the Defence Reform programme, management information is critical for the effective management of Defence. The MoD should update us on its proposals to improve its management information systems in particular its financial management information systems. It should also describe in detail its planned work on costing defence outputs, in particular, operations. It should tell us the planned future level of investment in cost modelling and data and systems exploitation. (Paragraph 27)

12. The MoD has presided over significant cost increases in the Carrier Programme mainly caused by repeated changes to the requirement. We ask the MoD to confirm whether the Carrier programme is now on track and whether it now expects the programme to proceed without further significant cost or time overruns. (Paragraph 32)

Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13

13. We are concerned that the MoD is still so dependent on external accountancy support to produce its annual accounts. The amount it spent on external accountancy support to produce the accounts is excessive. We ask the MoD to provide us with a timetable setting out milestones for progress towards producing its annual accounts without significant external resources. (Paragraph 34)

14. We call on the MoD to report the finding of its review of contracts likely to be affected by the International Financial Reporting Issues Committee Interpretation (IFRIC) 4. We also ask the MoD to inform us about the cost and manpower implications of the work required to ensure compliance with IFRIC4 and provide us with an undertaking that the steps it has taken would fully addressed the grounds of the qualification. (Paragraph 43)

15. We are pleased to see that the MoD is finally taking inventory management seriously. However, there is still much work to be done. We expect to see the relevant IT systems delivered on time and making a valuable contribution to inventory management by 2014-15. In response to this Report, the MoD should tell us what further measures it needs to take to remedy the poor state of inventory control in the MoD and the timetable to introduce them. (Paragraph 50)

Areas where the MoD should provide additional information in its Annual Report and Accounts (as recommended in paragraph 6)

1. Readiness levels

2. Manning levels for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks

3. Pinch point trades, both operational and manning

4. Harmony guidelines for each Service highlighting any subgroups which are regularly breaching the guidelines

5. Voluntary outflow statistics for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks

6. Recruitment levels against targets for each Service by officers and non-commissioned officers and other ranks for regulars and reservists

7. Indicators reflecting the delivery of Defence Transformation and structural reform priorities including the new employment model

8. Performance against Future Force 2020 targets

9. Performance of DE&S including the Major Projects Report projects and the supply and maintenance of equipment, all set against robust targets

10. Performance of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in managing the estate including that of Service personnel's accommodation set against robust targets

Other efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability measures of the MoD's performance in supporting the Armed Forces

[VinRouge]

Just shows that it isn't just the RAF that are critically undermanned; someone has been talking to the select committee and I get the feeling they have gotten the message.

[Bob Viking]

I love points 9 and 10 best.
The report says that harmony guidelines should be adhered to and financial incentives should be found to solve problems. So let's cut your budgets and make thousands of Armed Forces personnel redundant then. That should help.
BV:mad:

[Wander00]

And a "harmony guideline" is?

[Stuff]

From AFPRB 2013 para 2.11 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226576/CM_8571_AFPRB_42nd_Report_-_2013.pdf)

Harmony Guidelines are set to ensure balance between competing aspects of the lives of Service personnel: operations; time recuperating after operational tours; personal and professional development; unit formation training; and time with families. Each Service has different criteria for Harmony Guidelines (1), reflecting different operational requirements and practices. The guidelines are: separation levels of about 60 per cent for the Naval Service; 45 per cent for the Army; and 38 per cent for the RAF. Any personnel exceeding these limits across a rolling period will have breached these guidelines. Quarterly figures show that the levels of breaches have been fairly constant over the past two years within each Service at about one per cent for the Naval Service, almost three per cent for the RAF and just over five per cent for the Army. However, these figures mask higher individual levels of harmony breaches in specific trades and ranks.


Note 1 - Royal Navy – In any 36 month period, no one to exceed 660 days of separated service; Army – Over a rolling 30 month period no one to exceed 415 days of separated service; RAF – not to experience separated service in excess of 280 days (all codes) in any 24 month period.

[CAndyPOB]

A 'guide' to the amount of time an individual/unit (Formation.) should be spending on Ops/Leave/Training etc. The idea being that the pain is spread.

However, if you are in a pinch trade, or have very specific skill sets, then you can end up deploying way more than someone else of similar trade/branch, but different qualifications. There has been some disconnect, certainly in the FJ sqns, whereby do training deployments (A few weather flying days at a different airfield, for example.) count as time away from base in the Harmony plan?

[Easy Street]

The Navy have the best harmony compliance rate because they take it very seriously. They are also meticulous in recording even single nights away from home towards the stats.

The Army take it seriously, too. I believe a 2* officer has to authorise individual deployments that breach harmony.

The RAF doesn't take it anywhere near as seriously. Most units I know use the "separated service" days from JPA as the harmony measure, and that only starts counting after 10 days away. This means that most routine dets and business trips do not count. And that's assuming units even "move and track" their pers in the first place. The RAF needs to take harmony more seriously because "undetected" breaches are starting to cause dissent at the front line, especially on RW and the Tornado force.

By the way, one reason for the differing harmony standards between the services is the fact that the RAF tends to work longer hours when "at home", eg providing QRA or the AT/AAR hub. Less time "in barracks" and no POETS day in light blue :-)

[Just This Once...]

Didn't I read recently that the RAF has just relaxed its Harmony to match those of the Navy?

[theboywide]

I love that in our place, when harmony was introduced we totted up all days away from home.
We all exceeded harmony limits so it became ops and op training.
We all exceeded harmony so it became ops only....

[Easy Street]

JTO,

RAF harmony has recently been aligned with the Army's, although I think there are still a few days' difference. The Navy still has its higher figure, which has its roots in the idea that "you join the Navy, you get a lot of time away on a boat". It's part of the deal when you choose which service to join...

[Just This Once...]

Thanks Easy and I agree with your points regarding recording actual sep service. I spent some years with a fleet that spent most of the time away but usually less that 10 days at a time. On top of that we did big dets that did count in the figures… clearly the difference between the two were lost on the family. I think the accounting needs to be sharpened-up.

[alfred_the_great]

By the way, one reason for the differing harmony standards between the services is the fact that the RAF tends to work longer hours when "at home", eg providing QRA or the AT/AAR hub. Less time "in barracks" and no POETS day in light blue :-)

Ah ha, ha ha ha ha, ah ha. ha ha ha ha, ho ho ho, ha, ha, ha.

No seriously, stop. My sides can't take it.

[thing]

I can't believe that anyone joining any branch of the armed forces in the last 15 years or so ago didn't know they were going to be away for long periods. You are/were all volunteers guys, you chose the job, if it doesn't suit you, walk away. I might add I did my 22.

[Just This Once...]

Get real thing. We are supposed to treat people and their families humanely; I know of pinch-points and individuals who have done 2 years away in a 3 year period; which would not sound too awful if they hadn't done exactly the same thing in the preceding 3 years. With repetitive and overlapping RoS requirements even PVRing is not an option for some.

This is not an issue that should be resolved by repeatedly relaxing the harmony guidelines. This is not a prison sentence and the families have done nothing wrong!

[thing]

Get real thing.So are you seriously telling me that someone joining up since say 2000 didn't know that they would be spending long periods away? I'm all for family harmony etc, I spent long enough periods away during my service but that goes with the job. It's part of it. It's like teachers complaining that the job would be great if it wasn't for the kids, it's nonsensical.

You volunteered to do the job, you knew what it entailed, you're quite happy to take the money and pension. I can't understand why people stay in a job that they obviously dislike so much. I'm not aiming that specifically at you by the way. If you don't like it, don't do it. It's that simple.

[Ken Scott]

Pretty much everyone on my sqn is harmony red except for the new guys, but then we've had crews rotating on ops continuously since 2003.

[Ken Scott]

Thing: whilst there is some truth in what you say things have got worse as overall numbers are reduced & harmony guidelines have been ignored. So the cumulative effect is to disenchant those who may have been doing the job for some time & it gets harder to cope with as family responsibilities for example change & increase. Partner starts to complain & the individual looks to leave or gets a divorce. Either way it leads to massive discontent & a steady outflow of expensively trained personnel which reduces the overall numbers etc.

Next you'll be saying, 'they volunteered so they should expect to get killed', as one hears so often from idiot civilians.

[m0nkfish]

thing

I think thats the problem. Long time away might be okay by you, but for many of the current generation it is not and they are walking with their feet as you have suggested!

Telling these people 'it comes with the job' will not stop the flow. Those who did join the military in 2000 joined a considerably larger organisation and have seen funding, personnel, bases and equipment cut repeatedly whilst the amount of work required just goes up and up.

[light_my_spey]

Thing,

Technically you are correct, but irrespective of people knowing what they were getting into when they joined, they are now voting with their feet.

I did 22 years as well, but the truth be known after all those years of constant stints of separation I also had enough by the end. It wasn't me really, I loved all the detachments and the ops, it was watching my family suffer that made me finally pull the plug.

What do you propose?

[thing]

Next you'll be saying, 'they volunteered so they should expect to get killed',No, there's a risk that they may get killed, different thing.

I'm being Devil's advocate a bit, sorry if I sound mean. I still have very close contact with the RAF and know what is happening at grass roots and above. I hear what you say.

I genuinely think that a lot of guys never consider that it's something that they can actually stop doing if they wish. JTO mentions prison sentences, I sometimes hear guys talking about it as if it were. It's not. You can walk away at any time.

I did 22 years as well, but the truth be known after all those years of constant stints of separation I also had enough by the end. It wasn't me really, I loved all the detachments and the ops, it was watching my family suffer that made me finally pull the plug.

What do you propose? I propose that people should do as they are doing and vote with their feet. I'd had enough by 22 as well. Thoroughly enjoyed (well most of the time) it. But it's a young man's game and by the time I was 39 I wanted to be a grown up.

Edit: Yeah I know, I never achieved it...:)

[Ken Scott]

You can walk away at any time.

With a minimum 12 months PVR notice anyway.

[thing]

I'm not sure what the notice is Ken so apologies for that.

[Easy Street]

Thing,

I think you missed the point: people ARE walking away. So your proposal is really an observation. The question is what are the hierarchy going to do about it? They only have 3 options, really:

1-Improve pay and conditions to compensate (possibly with FRI)
2-Scale back overseas commitments to a level commensurate with harmony
3-Do nothing and hope that they've retired/been promoted by the time the house of cards collapses

My money's on 3, because it is significantly de-risked by the forthcoming end of Op HERRICK, so I suppose it's 2 as well. Certainly not 1!

[VinRouge]

12 month PVR time with a 25% pay cut. Yep, can walk away at any moment...

[thing]

12 month PVR time with a 25% pay cut. What's the 25% pay cut for?

[alfred_the_great]

Because he hasn't been retained by his retention pay, they're not going to be paying his retention pay to him.

[Easy Street]

Removal of flying pay. Ground trades have no such barrier, just a 6-12 month notice period.

[thing]

So if aircrew PVR are they taken off flying?

[Easy Street]

No, they fly with no flying pay. I bet some Manning wallah got promoted for that idea, which only came in a few years ago. A poor man's FRI... a financial exit disincentive or FED, if you will...

[thing]

Crikey, no wonder all of my playmates look miserable. Mind you, even without flying pay it's not bad is it; but then you get used to earning what you earn I suppose.

[Jumping_Jack]

Seems entirely logical, why would you pay a retention incentive who isn't being retained? :confused:

[thing]

But on the other hand aren't they being retained for a further 12 months?

[FODPlod]

But on the other hand aren't they being retained for a further 12 months?

Not of their own volition so an incentive (reward) no longer applies. They have to stick around for up to 12 months to enable a suitable relief to be recruited/found, trained and assigned with all the knock-on effects (e.g. manning turbulence, unplanned extra work, inconvenience and cost) their premature departure incurs.

[thing]

Not of their own volition so an incentive (reward) no longer applies. They have to stick around for up to 12 months to enable a suitable relief to be recruited/found, trained and assigned with all the knock-on effects (e.g. manning turbulence, unplanned extra work, inconvenience and cost) their premature departure incurs. So why can't HM Forces cope like any civvy business? eg if I want to leave my job I give one month's notice. I'm a highly trained professional, whats the difference?

[dallas]

3-Do nothing and hope that they've retired/been promoted by the time the house of cards collapsesThat's been the policy of many a flight commander (SO2/3) for the last 15 years, although swap 'do nothing' with 'change something; anything'. I'm still convinced the study makers are asking the wrong questions. You can't see underlying reasons if you just pop up every year, ask a list of pre-decided questions and bugger off with the answers to make a graph. You can't measure the good guys having to take on more duties because of the shirkers exploiting get outs for OOA; you can't measure the impact of junior officers being posted every 2 years just as they get fairly useful at something etc etc. I wrote a letter to the RAF News in 2006 from Det about the deskies' seemingly cavalier attitude to managing OOA dates, such that people were constantly getting short notice, avoidable, date changes (usually forward) that the incumbents dates were never going to work for from their arrival 4/6 months earlier. It's perhaps notable that RAF News seemed to be the best way to raise the issue in the absence of other obvious means, and while it was a valid morale issue for 25+ people due to RTU in the next calendar month - so not an isolated moan - the respondee at PMA never bothered to pen an 'official reply' so it wasn't published (ergo highlighted). Result: still happens, people get fed up and leave, not necessarily because of the duty commitment, so much as the cock around factor. 13 years after 9/11 changed the landscape the RAF should be really good at OOA det management as, as far as I can see, we're contracting not invading anywhere new.

[Tourist]

Couple of points.

1. People on here are talking as if lots of time away is a new thing. Talking to my dad about his time doing the same job in the 60's he definitely spent a lot more time away, in far larger chunks, too.

2. If you PVR, it is not necessary to work the full 12months. They will tell you it is, but it isn't. This has been pressed to tested recently by a couple of mates of mine.

[VinRouge]

2. If you PVR, it is not necessary to work the full 12months. They will tell you it is, but it isn't. This has been pressed to tested recently by a couple of mates of mine.

Tourist, pray tell? What streams were these chaps and how did they manage to quit early?

Jumping jack, I would have no issue with loss of flying pay, if the pvr times remained at 6 months, but by increasing them to 12, you have effectively left individuals trapped as they can't tolerate a 25% pay cut for that long.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Tourist, a friend of mine leaves this month; but the only abatement to his 12 months PVR time was a few weeks of terminal leave and unused annual leave. It did knock a significant amount of time off (to the tune of 3 months or so) but if you have any information on how to cut that 12 months to something significantly shorter.... share! :ok:

[Once A Brat]

...Interesting thread.

under the radar breaches of harmony have been going on for years because getting them recorded was a right pain, but you have to keep at it and at it - not only for yourself, but for your troops as well. Interesting also that people don't seem to know that Sep Service reduced from 10 days to 5 in about 2009 so how many sep service payments are not being claimed? Harmony and more specifically harmony breaches was one of the reasons I decided to jump during the last redundancy tranche.

When I was a Fg Off, I remember an arrivals interview with one of my Cpl MT Fitters returning after 4 months in the FI where he had replaced the person who had replaced him 4 months earlier and trying to justify that he had been put on DWR to replace the same person again 4 months later!! It was one of hardest interviews I have ever had to do; 2 guys from an entire trade covering 1 OOA for 6 rotations cannot be right - it wasn't a specialised post either. We fought it until somebody in PMA (as was then) called my SO1 (the Unit CO) and told him to put me back in my box! The NCO, a rising star, in question PVR'd shortly after - I wonder why? This was early in my career and reinforced my belief that manning doesn't actually care about right person, right place it just has targets like the rest of us, slots to fill and service numbers to do it with.

[FODPlod]

So why can't HM Forces cope like any civvy business? eg if I want to leave my job I give one month's notice. I'm a highly trained professional, whats the difference?

If your specialist role and background is generic enough so that someone else can step into your place at relatively short notice, then fair enough. However, it will still take time to find a suitable relief.

If you happen to be one of a small plot of specialists in terms of rank, branch, system knowledge, experience, etc., in whom the Service has invested hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pounds' worth of training and career development, then it might be difficult to replace you in such a short time.

As a "highly trained professional", you of all people should appreciate how difficult it would be for the Service to replace you from such a small pool of similarly qualified and experienced personnel. Unlike HM Forces, the outside world of "civvy business" contains a much larger manpower pool from which to recruit with more scope for incentives, not to mention ease of hiring and firing.

[alfred_the_great]

I would also point out if you want to take the "civvies do it, why can't we" route, there are lots of things that we have, collectively, dripped about (pension, redundancy, time away) that are considerably worse outside. Be careful for what you wish for.

[Willard Whyte]

Tourist, a friend of mine leaves this month; but the only abatement to his 12 months PVR time was a few weeks of terminal leave and unused annual leave. It did knock a significant amount of time off (to the tune of 3 months or so) but if you have any information on how to cut that 12 months to something significantly shorter.... share!

Mate of mine shortened his PVR by a few weeks, got a friendly flight commander to plead his case. He did have a firm job offer and fixed start date to meet though.

[thing]

Unlike HM Forces, the outside world of "civvy business" contains a much larger manpower pool from which to recruit with more scope for incentives, not to mention ease of hiring and firing.

What I was trying to provoke was discussion on the merits of rehiring ex service members. There's your larger manpower pool. Why do the Armed Forces want or need to take raw recruits, train them at-as you say- massive cost and then when they are done discard them? How would private business deal with that?

Let's not forget that aircraft engineering/flying etc is done in the civilian world. Commercial ops hire pilots and engineers without the need to have them from year dot. If there are pinch points in the system why not put a short term contract out for personnel to relieve it?

I would also point out if you want to take the "civvies do it, why can't we" route, there are lots of things that we have, collectively, dripped about (pension, redundancy, time away) that are considerably worse outside. Be careful for what you wish for.

Which was my point back in the thread re being happy to take the pay and pension but not the more onerous side of service life. Having been self employed, partially self employed, and all permutations besides being fully employed I know what it's like out there, because I am out there. I get a bit fed up with people on v. large salaries (for what they do) in the mob whining about this that and the other while nipping off early to go to the gym at lunchtime.

[BK1]

I PVR'd in 2011 with a firm offer of a job in place. My future employer required me to start work within 4 weeks. After speaking to my deskie, he said not a chance and that the waiting time was 6 months (I was FC). After relaying this to my SO1, he then spoke to the same deskie...within 24hrs I was informed that I could exit once all my clearances had been completed (and provided the SO1 was willing to absorb the gap). Needless to say (and with a heavy heart) I left - it took no longer than 2 weeks from the point of pressing the button to walking out the door!!

[The Old Fat One]

I PVR'd in April 2002, did my last day of work in Nov 2002, took up my new job in Nov 2002 and got paid by the RAF (and actually left) in May 2003.

Didn't need anybodies cooperation - just a sound knowledge of QRs, the relevant APs and a very helpful coffee with the Chief Clerk, to get his expert opinion on my exit plan.

Even got to tell the resettlement officer where to stow his hat when he tried to interfere :)

PS Thing has got a very valid point...but I doubt it will go down to well on here.

[Biggus]

As a very broad generalization:


People who are still "in" exhibit a certain amount of reticence about leaving, a mixture of some remaining loyalty, not wanting to admit defeat, still enjoying some of the job, unsure what they will do when they leave, risk aversion, etc........


People who have already left wonder what all the fuss is about....

[dallas]

Which was my point back in the thread re being happy to take the pay and pension but not the more onerous side of service life. Having been self employed, partially self employed, and all permutations besides being fully employed I know what it's like out there, because I am out there. I get a bit fed up with people on v. large salaries (for what they do) in the mob whining about this that and the other while nipping off early to go to the gym at lunchtime.
Yeah that's valid and mid-naughties there were still way too many folk who pulled the 'ingrowing toenail card' to get out of an OOA, yet who still seemed to manage full pay, leave and peacetime perks back home. But, towards the end of the naughties sufficient people were leaving/busy for manpower levels to bite, and the perks weren't as accesible - either due to money, staffing or both. Now the cossetted lifestyle you allude to isn't as prevalent, yet the war commitment remains (obviously!), and for many the benefit amounts to little more than free medical and dental that's essentially fattening you up for the front line! It used to be halcyon 20 years ago - it isn't now.

[Whenurhappy]

People who are still "in" exhibit a certain amount of reticence about leaving, a mixture of some remaining loyalty, not wanting to admit defeat, still enjoying some of the job, unsure what they will do when they leave, risk aversion, etc........

True. I've done over 28 years now and the last 13 years have been pretty fantastic, apart from a couple of months at the end of my last tour in MB. Yes, I bitch and moan about some of the administrivia (warning, don't get me started) but when I look at my current package and my next posting (ignore this 'assignment' Americanism nonsense) I am quietly pleased with myself. OK, I've got the CEA golden handcuffs, but the luxury apartment in London, unbelievable training and education opportunities, the pretty damned good pension (AFPS 75, albeit) and a soon-to-be job that I've aspired for, for over 10 years, yes I am a happy bunny. And let's not forget the life-long frineds that my wife and I have made.

Things I don't like? (See, I warned you)

Massive reduction of GYH travel for those who are INVOLSEP; massive reduction in London Weighting (per se), near-criminal reduction in LOA, bonkers rules in Germany (who'd have thought almost 70 years after the end of WWII, there'd still be a British Military Government still in Germany?), a procurement system that makes my eyes bleed and wallet shrink, a promotion and career 'management' system that (still) only recognises personnel who stick rigidly to a well-worn (and rather boring) path; as a corollary, the career risks taken by stepping away from the Light Blue/Mainstream careers and being referred to in the perjorative sense as the 'diaspora'. The accumulated risk from a vast range of change programmes that is delivered to the men and women on the shop floor or in the cockpit (and in spite of this being identified and high-lighted in H-C report, nowt has been done to reduce this turbulence and increased risk); the painfully short corporate memory of the Air Staff and Air Command.

But otherwise happy to stay in until they kick me out. With my Zimmer frame.

[The Old Fat One]

F*** me whenurhappy, that is an excellent post.

I guess it's a question of perspective. For all the Sh1te in the mob, there remains many huge positives - as those who have actually experienced civvy life can testify to.

And, as Thing says, if the Sh1te is overwhelming - get the **** out.

Stop worrying about the mess you might or might not be leaving behind - that's not your problem. Having a great life is your problem.

[Whenurhappy]

F*** me whenurhappy, that is an excellent post.

Why, thanks. I should have added, perhaps most importantly, how I really, really enjoyed being on operations (please, please don't tell Mrs WP!). Bosnia, Kosovo, KSA & Kuwait, Aghanistan, plus edgy trips to Africa, Asia and South America.

The chance to make decisions on one's own (without upwards and sideways referrals), the daily challenges which demand that one make the 'best guess' or, perhaps the 70% solution; seeing people - indeed, whole populations that are much, much worse off that any of us could really fathom, seeing air-power delivered in all it's glory, seeing the best (and worse) of Joint action, seeing guys and girls putting 110% in without any 'encouragement' and finally, doing the job for real.

Few 'civvy' jobs could have delivered such a rich tapestry of experiences. Just restore the London allowances and a decent GYH for those INVOLSEP.

[Tourist]

The secret to going early is not to ask, it is to tell.
Something along the lines of " I have a new job starting on x. I will be leaving the military the day before. Feel free to disagree. If you do, be aware that I will still not be attending work and here is the address of my lawyer."

Takes some balls, but it has been effective in at least 2 cases that I know of.

[kintyred]

Would it not be possible to compensate those whose "harmony" has been breached? For each day the individual exceeded the guidlines an extra - say - 20% salary uplift might be an appropriate reward without breaking the bank at the MoD. Alternatively rather than just upping the X factor, target the money at those who deploy.

[Willard Whyte]

I guess it's a question of perspective. For all the Sh1te in the mob, there remains many huge positives - as those who have actually experienced civvy life can testify to.

Free dental care, and...

Yup, free dental care.

[gr4techie]

Free dental care, and...

Yup, free dental care.

A friend of mine, still in the RAF, has some dental problems. He said not even the dental care is immune from cutbacks.
After a lengthy drive (as they couldn't do the procedure on his unit) he was informed the RAF would no longer do the procedure he needed for free.

Basically, you have free dental care but only the basic bare minimum that doesn't cost much.

[Heathrow Harry]

bit amused that our Lords & Masters are worried about "long-term retention rates
currently being below average"


Of course the Armed Services should move body and soul to ensure that they NEVER fall below the average...

what's the definition of average again..................

[Greenbrownvisitor]

Speaking as a visitor from another service, retention is horrendous in green as well.

Blokes are signing off left, right and centre. This of course leads to manpower shortages resulting in more work for the remaining few therefore starting the circle of more sign offs again.

Obviously time away while serving is a given, however knowing about it in advance eases the burden.

Getting told with less than a weeks notice that you are off on a 7 week long exercise is going to :mad: blokes off!

Sadly it appears that no senior officer has the minerals to do anything about it.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, yes. There was concern about over-assessing people on their annual reports. The best defence was, "all Harrier pilots are above average." :yuk:

[Training Risky]

Sorry, I couldn't let the following go unchallenged:

What I was trying to provoke was discussion on the merits of rehiring ex service members. There's your larger manpower pool. Why do the Armed Forces want or need to take raw recruits, train them at-as you say- massive cost and then when they are done discard them? How would private business deal with that?

I am leaving next year after 16 years service. I (and many, many others) have NO intention of joining the Reserves...and if I get reactivated when Op Certain Death comes around in the form of another jaunt to the Middle East, the call-up centre and DV people will have great fun trying to detox me from all the spliffs I took, and questioning my BNP membership, Russian girlfriend etc.

Private business you say? I don't know what you've been smoking since you left, but I don't think AirTanker, BAE or G4S are good examples of how to apply market forces to the business of Defending the Realm.

Let's not forget that aircraft engineering/flying etc is done in the civilian world. Commercial ops hire pilots and engineers without the need to have them from year dot. If there are pinch points in the system why not put a short term contract out for personnel to relieve it?

mmmm...ever heard of skill fade, security checks, fitness for ops...? :ugh:

[kintyred]

Training Risky,

You'll get a letter thanking you for your service and encouraging you to consider joining the reserves. After I PVRd the letter I got seemed to be mostly about how I could join the reserves. It made me wonder why I bothered even filling in the little box on JPA asking for my reasons for leaving the Service!!!