Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I’m no expert on this but I suspect the RoS period is probably based on a fairly narrow financial analysis in order to head off any legal challenges. So it probably does reflect the cost. But the reality is that a new front-line pilot is a burden on the system as a whole for at least 2 or 3 years: a net ‘consumer’ of supervision rather than a ‘producer’ of it. If you have a high turnover of junior pilots then the supervisors do lots of supervising (which has some benefit, but only in narrow areas of expertise) instead of developing or maintaining the more advanced skills which a capable force requires. So financial cost of keeping the RAF manned with pilots, probably yes. Capability cost of high turnover, I’m not so sure...
The system can cope with some people leaving after 6 years’ RoS. As I suggested in my first post that sometimes made sense for both the RAF and the individual. But it couldn’t cope at the expected level of capability if everyone left at their RoS. The crossover point between coping and not coping is somewhere in between. The difference now is that a much higher proportion of pilots will find themselves at that RoS point as life choices need to be made. The proportion leaving is creeping up and the stresses are showing; the question is whether it continues to creep up as the holding generation takes stock.
Thanks for that.
I gather, then, that it's reasonable to conclude that the RAF/RN therefore directly benefits from the professional aviator spine, because it retains experienced aircrew to maintain the cadre and keep experienced people on the frontline to supervise the new aircrew, who would otherwise leave or be posted elsewhere for their career development, presumably on staff tours or operational ground roles.
Do you think the retention issue can be partly solved by more PAS slots?