Apologies for intruding into a Light Blue internal discussion. However, some things in the article linked by the OP really struck me.
TRAINING AND ESTATE
“This needs an absolute revolution,” states Air Mshl Turner. With over 5,500 people in some form of school, college or academy, we need to move away from rote learning towards more learning at the front line and more skills taught on-the-job. “We need to move from our current 17.4 percent of our people in some type of training institution to around seven percent.”
I don't like this in my gut but hope they get it right. Am I wrong that there has already been a continuing tendancy to compress classroom training time over the last 40+ years?
I assume he isn't referring to aircrew? For the technicaI trades/professions I trust this wouldn't lead to aircraft and weapons systems being worked on by the unqualified without intensive supervision.
I grant its a long time since I had direct experience but I have always been struck by the different approach of Annapolis, Colorado Springs and West Point compared to their UK equivalents which seem to be in a rush to produce new officers by comparison.
He notes that the flexibility and remuneration offered by industry needs to be matched if people are to be attracted to the service and retained over the long term. He adds that there also needs to be “a more flexible relationship with industry to allow personnel to move in and out of the organisation, as they will be civil qualified which will make transitions easier. We have called this developing the ‘zig-zag’ career.”
This doesn't actually seem a bad idea to me but I really can't see the money to match remuneration being forthcoming. Presumably there would be a reserve type commitment?
I am very interested in allowing people to be more flexibly employed and move towards a more Full Time Equivalent approach
Could this be managed with pilots? Would it be possible to keep current on both military and civil types? I can see a possible mutual benefit with certain airlines.