RAF Meltdown - Has it begun?

[Chox Away]

Over several months now, I have heard many rumours that a large amount of RAF personnel are/were sitting on their PVRs just waiting (perhaps for the recent redundancy announcement). I’ve also heard (albeit over a beer, about a friend of a friend who knows someone else), who is having trouble confirming his out date after submitting such a request. He actually wants to go that little bit earlier than his 12 month waiting time, but the excuse being given is that since the redundancy announcement date, some 700+ SNCOs have PVR’d and the authorities are snowed under! If that is true, I wonder what the official PVR figure is for the whole Air Force since the announcement, not just the SNCOs. Are we in danger of meltdown, and as a consequence, could others be offered extention of service in order to cover the mass exodus?

Anyone else heard such stories?

[Earsling]

Still the Airforce could fill all the gaps with C grade candidates off the PSL.

Surely things couldn’t get that bad. !!!!!!!!!!! :oh:

[Melchett01]

If that were the case, would any one in their right mind want to extend? If you think it's bad now with overstretch, think what it would be like for those left behind trying to cover several hundred extra gapped posts - you don't for one minute think they would bring more people in to cover the gaps do you?

[nigegilb]

The last AFPRB was very concerned about recruitment and retention specifically in the RAF. The light blues turned in the worst figures, even though they were masked by drawdown. If this rumour is true, it would appear that the writing was already on the wall.

[Without Care]

Chox,

I'm sure a direct question to PMA under the FoI Act will provide you with a specific answer for the PVR question.

WC

[bitsleftover]

'Still the Airforce could fill all the gaps with C grade candidates off the PSL.

Surely things couldn’t get that bad. !!!!!!!!!!! '

Well actually.. Not a c grade but I know a chap who has been given the nod on getting his third despite in his last 5 appraisals having had two likely to become fits- I know because I wrote them! (I didnt write the rest). Not so long ago you wouldnt get looked at until you had a full portfolio of positive, usually high recommendations. I have seen many getting picked up already who are dubious to say the least. He is also nearly 3 stone overweight but that is another thread

[toddbabe]

Begun? you are having a laugh aren't you? meltdown well in progress! I think we will grind to a halt within five years.

[movadinkampa747]

The AFPRB said that there are 40 specific manning ares that are in a shortfall. They include areas such as Operations, Aircrew, Engineering Admin and other trade groups so I guess that about covers the whole of the RAF.

[shawtarce]

How many more of us are just putting up with it all, because we've only got a few years before our pension?
Do you think they have factored that number into their big sums?
I wonder what the FRI will look like when they do realise?
Will it be enough to encourage us to sign on......?
It would have to be a :mad: big number.......

[Biggus]

I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier......


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=247209

Anecdotal evidence of PVR rates is way above the 4-5% quoted by PMA, and that is only one side of the story, how many are leaving at option points. In one unit I know of 60% of the Sgts are leaving in the next year!

[GlosMikeP]

Chox,

I'm sure a direct question to PMA under the FoI Act will provide you with a specific answer for the PVR question.

WC
There are ways around answering under FoI. If you really are interested to know the answer, ask your MP to find out.

[nigegilb]

last figure I heard for Sqn Ldr pilot was 87% leaving at 38/16. RAF is taking delivery of hundreds of single seat ac but does not appear to have a through put of career pilots.

[Chilli Monster]

Still the Airforce could fill all the gaps with C grade candidates off the PSL.
Surely things couldn’t get that bad. !!!!!!!!!!! :oh:

Like they had to do in 1996 after the "Options for Change" redundancies?

[Ken Scott]

last figure I heard for Sqn Ldr pilot was 87% leaving at 38/16.


For the secret Wiltshire airbase, that's nearer 100%!

Many of the JOs that took PAS when it came in are only waiting for their 5 years amortisation of their FRI to be complete before also leaving. Perhaps the rumoured new FRI for Sqn Ldrs needs to be spread further still?

[Yozzer]

How many more of us are just putting up with it all, because we've only got a few years before our pension?


Thats me:) My time has been done, and whilst I can cope with crap detachments and unaccompanied service, as soon as it even vaquely fails to suit ME, I am off. Post 30 years service and 6 months is all it takes. Loyalty is either 2 way or not at all, and I have been around long enough to know that UK Military plc do not give a toss about any one person.

I am refreshed though at some of the people presently in my chain of command. The Army mate who gave the bird to Tony on behalf of me and mine gets utmost respect, and at a service dinner recently, I listened to a speech by a senior officer in my particular chain of command that assured me that the people at the top are very aware that elastic can only be stretched so far before it snaps, and that we are pushing our luck.

I am optimistic that the recent US elections will send a shockwave through the British Parliament, and that a reality caption may be in sight. I sincerely hope so for all our sakes.

[glum]

Most of the SNCO's I know are waiting for their pension point. In fact, I know of only one who isn't!

We have guys being picked up for their third after only two years as cpl. And there was me thinking you had to do 5 in rank before being eligable!:rolleyes:

[Yozzer]

You know this may actually be exactly what the RAF want. Join at age 18, leave (through choice) at 40, and have a young (fit) fighting force without any accusations of ageism. With the present (& future?) workloads, everybody will be burned out by 40 anyway, if not before. If you want a job with long term potential, join as a physiotherapist / trick cyclist.

You could then get ex-military (civilians) to do the instructional work and second line duties. Oh.... silly me; we already do.

The weak link would then be recruitment, not retention. I think the days of short term solutions (FRI) may well be over.

[Pontius Navigator]

and that we are pushing our luck..

Who is 'we'? UK plc?

[nigegilb]

Beg to differ there Yoz. Take a look at these figures;

Aussies 2 X J model and @ 120 ground crew
Brits 4 X J model and 16 ground crew!

In theatre a few weeks ago. Barely enough engineers to do the job. Same goes for other aircraft eng dets, the Aussies can't believe it. They get paid tax free and an Iraq bonus. Any clues as to why they are so well staffed?

Overstretch to snapping point or just stretched?

[L J R]

Nige,

Correct about the numbers, however, the 120 ground crew aren't there just to support a det of 2xC-130s.

Tax & det bonus is a laughable issue isn't it.

[nigegilb]

LJR stand corrected, but the plain fact is there are many more engineers supporting fewer aircraft. These engineers will be better rested, better motivated, flight safety issues should be less prevalent and crucially, they are less likely to want to leave. The dearth in RAF engineers is also true of the Nimrod det. There is a feeling that those in higher rank just have to make it work in the short term til they move on to their next job doing something different. Ignoring the fact that an almost untenable situation is being reached.

[LFFC]

You know this may actually be exactly what the RAF want. Join at age 18, leave (through choice) at 40, and have a young (fit) fighting force........

I've actually heard senior people suggesting just that. I understand that the MOD are about to spend billions on a new flying training system that reduces the time it takes to get crews onto the front line - but all that's going to do is bring forward the date at which pilots get their exemptions for a civilian licence, and hence, the date at which they can PVR. Wouldn't it be far better to spend that money on retaining people?

The weak link would then be recruitment, not retention. I think the days of short term solutions (FRI) may well be over.

Recruitment X Retention = The Service Strength

To keep a constant Service Strength, if Retention drops then Recruitment has to rise. The trouble is that it costs millions to train a military pilot. So I agree with you Yozzer, I think we're beyond the point at which an FRI would help; people need to be assured that they will have a competitive wage when they are in their 40s if they are to be persuaded to stay during their 30s. FRI's don't give that assurance. Neither does the PA spine; especially if you're good and have been promoted to sqn ldr.

[glum]

When asked where the groundcrew incentive was at the time of the aircrew deals, I believe an AOC replied:

"If I need more engineers, I'll just go and buy some..."

I'm not sure he grasped the fact that you can't just drive down the jobcentre and load them onto a bus, then send them to Iraq...:ugh:

[nigegilb]

Engineers have never received the priority they deserve. If the FRI is exclusive to Sqn Ldr Pilots, (someone has to run the Air Force), it will be a mistake. Engineering is on its knees in some places, fewer people doing more and more only has one end result. Exit.

As has been said earlier this is merely sticking plaster stuff, but is necessary because dets are already down to skeleton manning.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

A humble observation.

The current system of pilot recruitment, training and retention is about 50 years out of date.

It is geared around finding a 21 yr old Officer pilot with excellent physical aptitude and above average intelligence. As if they are going to spend the next 25 years flying high-G dogfights in Spitfires or Hunters against the Luftwaffe or Russian Air Force.

They're not.

Most of them will never ever fly supersonically. Those that do will achieve little even if they are used in the Air Battle of 2012. What IS required are a cadre of highly specialised blokes or girls that understand all manner of battlefield tactics, crypto, comms, weapons, weapons, weapons, and yet display excellent CRM excellent emotional stability and excellent team skills.

They will require a small division of techies, many will be employed by Boeing/Airbus/Raytheon/BAE etc etc.

None will need 25 airbases covering 149 acres each with support staff and a dog with a man on a leash at the gate waiting for Harry to turn up to collect his final salary pension.

This is the truth of the Modern RAF.

Cheers


WWW

ps I've never been closer to the RAF than being in a UAS so I know nothing.

pps I dearly support the RAF and the entire UK Armed Forces. You are so sinned against while remaining saintly.

[plans123]

In my section, of the 5 SNCO's, 3 are waiting on they're 22 point to leave, 1 has PVR'd with only 1 looking to stay. That is pretty poor by any standard.

[Chugalug2]

A humble observation.
They will require a small division of techies, many will be employed by .
None will need 25 airbases covering 149 acres each with support staff and a dog with a man on a leash at the gate waiting for Harry to turn up to collect his final salary pension.
This is the truth of the Modern RAF.
Cheers
WWW
ps I've never been closer to the RAF than being in a UAS so I know nothing.
pps I dearly support the RAF and the entire UK Armed Forces. You are so sinned against while remaining saintly.

Not so humble as to know the truth, a concept that eludes we lesser mortals! The future size and capability of the RAF (and its sister services) is ultimately the responsibility of its political masters. The future viability of the RAF to function as a military force, ie to go to war, is the responsibility of the Air Staff, and in particular the Chief of the Air Staff. It would seem to this (also) humble observer that this is a responsibility that has already been reneged upon.
The simple but profound mantra drummed into every junior officer in my day was Money, Mail, Meals. The first would appear to be in chaos, the second a bone of contention if one includes all forms of communication from detachment, and one can only hope that they are at least being fed well! Add to these shortcomings those of quarters as well as a lack of military hospitals for the wounded, and a picture emerges of a dysfunctional organisation that is failing in its duty of care. The young and old alike suffer from these shortcomings, and are voting with their feet. I don't think that the employees of Messrs Boeing/Airbus/Raytheon/BAE etc etc will be minded to take their place in AFG etc etc, do you? The main strength of any military force is its morale. It takes years, decades, even centuries to build up an esprit de corps. It can take the mere stroke of a pen to destroy it. What Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin failed to do, the apparatchiks of this contemptible bunch of peaceniks are achieving, that is the internal destruction of our armed forces. To give him credit General Danatt, the CGS, has voiced his fears, albeit to withdraw from Iraq, but from the Air Rank cadre...nothing! The armed forces are not a local council, where everything can be put out to private tender. They go to war, councils do not!

[johnny99]

There are ways around answering under FoI. If you really are interested to know the answer, ask your MP to find out.

Dear oh dear, nothing quite so dramatic needed, just pick up Chief Clerks Bulletin or the monthly report from DASC - figures compiled by DASC are the same your MP would get or any FOI.

"argue for your limitations and they are yours!"

[CommonSenseApproach]

Dear oh dear, nothing quite so dramatic needed, just pick up Chief Clerks Bulletin or the monthly report from DASC - figures compiled by DASC are the same your MP would get or any FOI.

"argue for your limitations and they are yours!"
I'll think you'll find that since JPA, DASA have been unable to publish any proper stats; in fact a Branch Sponsor friend tells me that when trying to reconcile redundancy figures he contacted DASA who are unable to tell him how many people are currently in the branch!:ugh:

[LFFC]

Dear oh dear, nothing quite so dramatic needed, just pick up Chief Clerks Bulletin or the monthly report from DASC - figures compiled by DASC are the same your MP would get or any FOI.


I bet you haven't seen one of those lately! They seemed to dry up months ago.

[Ken Scott]

A humble observation.

It is geared around finding a 21 yr old Officer pilot with excellent physical aptitude and above average intelligence.

What IS required are a cadre of highly specialised blokes or girls that understand all manner of battlefield tactics, crypto, comms, weapons, weapons, weapons, and yet display excellent CRM excellent emotional stability and excellent team skills.



How do you get one without the other? The two requirements would seem to be pretty much the same, especially when you consider that those older than 21 are harder to train to fly.

[MightyHunter AGE]

Hello this is my first post but have watched from afar.
As the name suggests i work on the Mighty Hunter as a GE.

With regards to manpower issues up here at ISK 14 out of 18 fairies on one shift have PVR'd in the last month!!

Out of 83 supposed bodies avaliable to our shift this week 24 were at work as the rest are either in the gulf, coming back from the gulf or getting trained to go to the gulf, and only 4 were on leave.

Shift was:

1 x FS
1 x C/T rects contoller
1 x SAC line controller (no JNCO's to spare for this job)
3 x AGEs (out of 7)
4 x riggers (1 SNCO and 3 SACs) (out of 20)
2 x sootie SACs (out of 10)
3 x leckies (2 Cpls and 1 x-dressed fairy) (out of 10)
4 Plumbers (out of 15)
5 x faries (out of 18)

And this is before all the redundances and PVRs bite!!!!

The meltdown has begun gentlemen make no mistake about that and I despair for the future. Will no-one sit up and take note??!

[The Helpful Stacker]

Hello this is my first post but have watched from afar.
As the name suggests i work on the Mighty Hunter as a GE.
With regards to manpower issues up here at ISK 14 out of 18 fairies on one shift have PVR'd in the last month!!
Out of 83 supposed bodies avaliable to our shift this week 24 were at work as the rest are either in the gulf, coming back from the gulf or getting trained to go to the gulf, and only 4 were on leave.
Shift was:
1 x FS
1 x C/T rects contoller
1 x SAC line controller (no JNCO's to spare for this job)
3 x AGEs (out of 7)
4 x riggers (1 SNCO and 3 SACs) (out of 20)
2 x sootie SACs (out of 10)
3 x leckies (2 Cpls and 1 x-dressed fairy) (out of 10)
4 Plumbers (out of 15)
5 x faries (out of 18)
And this is before all the redundances and PVRs bite!!!!
The meltdown has begun gentlemen make no mistake about that and I despair for the future. Will no-one sit up and take note??!

Unfortunately it seems not until there are a few more expensive smoking holes in the ground and a few less Daddies buying Christmas presents for their kids.

[HeadSouth]

Guess there is only one thing to do, with days to do to my pension point. Leave this cheapskate outfit and go and join the Aussies!!:ok:

Headsouth

[GlosMikeP]

Hello this is my first post but have watched from afar.
As the name suggests i work on the Mighty Hunter as a GE.

With regards to manpower issues up here at ISK 14 out of 18 fairies on one shift have PVR'd in the last month!!

Out of 83 supposed bodies avaliable to our shift this week 24 were at work as the rest are either in the gulf, coming back from the gulf or getting trained to go to the gulf, and only 4 were on leave.

Shift was:

1 x FS
1 x C/T rects contoller
1 x SAC line controller (no JNCO's to spare for this job)
3 x AGEs (out of 7)
4 x riggers (1 SNCO and 3 SACs) (out of 20)
2 x sootie SACs (out of 10)
3 x leckies (2 Cpls and 1 x-dressed fairy) (out of 10)
4 Plumbers (out of 15)
5 x faries (out of 18)

And this is before all the redundances and PVRs bite!!!!

The meltdown has begun gentlemen make no mistake about that and I despair for the future. Will no-one sit up and take note??!
The stats are as stunning as they are worrying. It was the case not long ago, and probably remains so, that the sole reason UK military aircraft airworthiness is not managed by the CAA is because they are claimed to be maintained to 'at least the same standard as civil aircraft'.

If meltdown continues like this, assuming this is not wholly unexceptional, it won't be long before the CAA takes control. Now that really is a worry!

[light_my_spey]

I agree!!! Sorry aircrew take note, this going to become the `norm`, for **** sake, you need to be supported better than this!:{

[nigegilb]

I am startled by the mighty hunter's post. How can CDS refer to "stretch" but not "over-stretch" when we appear to be staring into the abyss? I find it hard to understand what the RAF is trying to achieve. I am saddened by what is happening, especially the failure to admit to the dire situation. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Safety_Helmut]

Please, someone correct me if I am wrong.
I think we all know that's not going to happen.
It was the case not long ago, and probably remains so, that the sole reason UK military aircraft airworthiness is not managed by the CAA is because they are claimed to be maintained to 'at least the same standard as civil aircraft'.
As stated in the front of JSP553. Words to the effect that the MoD is competent to do so ?

S_H

[1771 DELETE]

Hello this is my first post but have watched from afar.
As the name suggests i work on the Mighty Hunter as a GE.

With regards to manpower issues up here at ISK 14 out of 18 fairies on one shift have PVR'd in the last month!!

Out of 83 supposed bodies avaliable to our shift this week 24 were at work as the rest are either in the gulf, coming back from the gulf or getting trained to go to the gulf, and only 4 were on leave.

Shift was:

1 x FS
1 x C/T rects contoller
1 x SAC line controller (no JNCO's to spare for this job)
3 x AGEs (out of 7)
4 x riggers (1 SNCO and 3 SACs) (out of 20)
2 x sootie SACs (out of 10)
3 x leckies (2 Cpls and 1 x-dressed fairy) (out of 10)
4 Plumbers (out of 15)
5 x faries (out of 18)

And this is before all the redundances and PVRs bite!!!!

The meltdown has begun gentlemen make no mistake about that and I despair for the future. Will no-one sit up and take note??!

The figures mighty hunter quotes are definately worrying and indisputable, unfortunately, even as i left ISK almost 18 months ago you could see how stretched NLS were and that was before redundances started to bite.
The down side that i saw was that inexperienced tradesmen were coming out to aircraft and unfortunately didnt have the ability,experience or knowledge to do the some of the repairs.
From the aircrew perspective, i do remember being shown a presentation which suggested that there might be a shortfall of nav`s in 2008 and again that was before the redundances started.

Somebody somewhere has badly screwd up - yet again !:=

[movadinkampa747]

i do remember being shown a presentation which suggested that there might be a shortfall of nav`s in 2008


There are a load at Lyneham doing naff all....................:uhoh:

[GlosMikeP]

As stated in the front of JSP553. Words to the effect that the MoD is competent to do so ?
Thanks S_H, it's been a while since I did trials work and didn't know if there had been some relaxation. Obviously, and thankfully, not.

It first became an issue of discussion when there was talk (very brief I'm glad to say) of merging the supply and engineer branches; and proposing to allow suppliers to hold down engineer posts. Yup, you read it right!

As an idea it lasted, oh, days or a few weeks in the very early 90s until the recognition the RAF's fleet would drift into CAA control, for which the RAF would have to pay civilian rates for servicing through the CAA.:eek:

As a nav I could hardly believe my ears, so heaven only knows what the eng's thought.

[DummyRun]

Yeah, but its like but y'know but the f@king enginerrs like didnt like tell us like y'now like where it was like kinda parked and its all like kinda rubbish 'cos they don't listen to me like like dya know what i mean like i mean but y'know 'cos its like all rubbish like.
Fg Off V Pollard
D Ops Cntrlr
RAF Little Brittain

[The Helpful Stacker]

.....It first became an issue of discussion when there was talk (very brief I'm glad to say) of merging the supply and engineer branches; and proposing to allow suppliers to hold down engineer posts. Yup, you read it right!.......

The idea didn't come from the Supply Branch you know? It was unpalatable to Stackers as it was to Engineers, after all it could have resulted in folk who had done zero engineering training at Cosford signing off repairs on a/c, not something I'd want on my conscience as those lads from St Athan dug out another smoking hole.

Thank god someone saw sense, although the shift of Supply from Admin to Eng wing still happened and was almost as bad an idea.:ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Chugalug2 and one can only hope that they are at least being fed well only because PAYD seems to have stalled.

GMP If meltdown continues like this, assuming this is not wholly unexceptional, it won't be long before the CAA takes control. Now that really is a worry

Too late. In the fictional drama, Mrs Pritchard (Tuesday nights) a couple of weeks back they said how CAAs powers had been devolved to Europe. On Sunday the Sunday Torygraph carried much the same story and mentioned that morale in the CAA was at rock bottom with many jumping ship. Now that is really really worrying.

and It first became an issue of discussion when there was talk (very brief I'm glad to say) of merging the supply and engineer branches; and proposing to allow suppliers to hold down engineer posts.

Ah, if at first a frontal assault fails lets try the back door. "I know, we will let you take over Supply. You can be called OC Eng and Supply Wg. How's that Sir?"

Later, tears (sic although I initially meant years) later, "We need a bit of reorganisation for this new EAW concept, let's call you OC Forward Sir. You can sort the engineering on any deployed kit. All the other stuff like stores and jets in the shed? Oh we'll call that the Logistics tail, need an OC Logistics Wing though. Yes Sir, I guess he could be a supplier."

Fiction, mmm, well just watch. As for a supplier signing off a 700, no problem, you've got JEngOs and SEngOs for that. Supply could take all the non-signing jobs like OC the Wg.

[Safeware]

Regardless of the current 'state of the nation', I can't see that the CAA / EASA are going to step in and say 'Now hold a minute boys,.....'. Or that ACAS is going to say 'Actually, we need to surrender this'. Bit of a political A-bomb don't you think?


sw

[WhiteOvies]

PN: Oh we'll call that the Logistics tail, need an OC Logistics Wing though. Yes Sir, I guess he could be a supplier."

No need for a supplier, we have OC FWD Support and OC Depth Support (both engineers btw).

Ironically in the RN what used to be the Supply branch (Pusser) has now become the Logistics branch (still Pusser though). Most Logistics still seems to be done by Engineers however at the Ivory Tower in which I now sit!

[Rigga]

Well, maybe it's all coming to a head at last - What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander - and the Groundcrew walking out is just as damning as when all the Aircrew walked out, due to pay and conditions!.

It was said, before I left the RAF, that you can't expect to get engineers in, or to stay in, if you pay them the same as cooks, rocks and coppers. This, and the reduction in manpower and increase in workload is starting to take its Toll.

Hopefully, engineers will get some "retention pay" to try and persuade those remaining to stay in too. Though, from what I see, I think it is too late for that to be effective.

As for two years Cpl-to-Sgt? - that has been in force since Time Promotion went out in the 70's. You may see much more of younger "S" NCO's with the amount of experience you would expect a Cpl to have. No more than that of a young Flt Lt.

To the people that said there is reduced amount of aircraft (so less work?) - and that if need "he" can buy some engineers in - To55ers!

Watch the budget go up and the service come down.

[Safeware]

I remember being in a briefing from a G/C on the implementation of Pay 2000 (when it was still expected to be 2000). He was asked about the issues around FRI for aircrew vs FRI for engineers. His statement was that as long as PMA could post the right number of engineers to the front line, there was no R&R crisis. When it became a problem, they would do something about it. I then pointed out to him that, by that time it would be years to late because recruitment and training lead times would hit.

And still people are being made redundant!

sw

[MightyHunter AGE]

Well, maybe it's all coming to a head at last - What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander - and the Groundcrew walking out is just as damning as when all the Aircrew walked out, due to pay and conditions!.

It was said, before I left the RAF, that you can't expect to get engineers in, or to stay in, if you pay them the same as cooks, rocks and coppers. This, and the reduction in manpower and increase in workload is starting to take its Toll.

This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to asking people why they are leaving. You cannot expect anyone to be on more or less constant stby every single weekend and this is the situation we are at on NLS.
Out of the last 10 wekends 7 have been working even though we are not scaled for the manpower to do this. The main fact is guys are walking into jobs off/on shore with wages that start ,in the main, at £40k for engineers. The RAF will never give its engineers the pay needed to keep the best of these guys but as there will always be somone to fill the gaps we will bimble on as usual.
The pay 2000 issue is a big stumbling block and many people are leaving simply beacuase cops and rocks etc are getting the same pay. A review and pay rise are well overdue to at least try and stem the massive flow of good techies to civvy sreet!

[Mr Blake]

During a recent tour round RAF No-Winsorth, the desk-jockeys confidently told the assembled group that post tranche 3 "a minor spike" was predicted, and therefore no surprise, when quizzed about PVR rates. If the figure of @700 SNCOs is a "spike", then I'm a Dutchman etc.....

Will there come a point when somebody with much braid declares the RAF "not fit for purpose", citing air-worthiness concerns? Brave man if he does.

[Newton Heath]

Having stood in awe and listened intently as the current CAS gave an inspirational speech highlighting the many virtues of Air Power, I wondered where did it all go wrong. He declared that it is the duty of all members of our good and gracious air force to advertise our ability to deliver air power to the battlefield fast and accurately over a wide area. We must when faced with non-believers (Army & Navy chaps) stand our ground and declare our capability with confidence and belief.

It seems that the years of jointery and so called purple forces have served only to destroy our standing with our brothers in arms. We are now expected to stand toe to toe in our respective Messes and argue a case, when perhaps our illustrious leaders have already lost the debate.

This sorry state of affairs has been the last straw for me and after 30 years of loyal service I have decided to vote with my feet. Not withstanding the overstretch and the lack of resources, it is the lack of drive and direction from upper and middle management that has finally made me call it a day. Too many individuals are trying to prove themselves to be great businessmen within industry whilst delegating the less Gucci, command and control areas of their posts to lesser mortals. Well !!! it is a damned sight harder to drive doctrine upwards when those on a higher plane are themselves non-believers.

The question of "is the Air Force in meltdown?" should be replaced with another "how do we stop the meltdown?" If the Air Force is to remain an independant fighting force then it needs to get back to basics and work to deliver its full promised fighting capability and sooner rather than later.

[Biggus]

This is no 'spike'. It is now the case that almost everyone at work is talking about 'when' they are going to leave, not 'if'. Even if not all this talk actually leads to exits it is still a sea change from the attitude of a few years ago.

Are this desk jockneys blind to the clothes that the emperor is (not) wearing, or simply afraid to admit the truth!

[GlosMikeP]

The idea didn't come from the Supply Branch you know? It was unpalatable to Stackers as it was to Engineers, after all it could have resulted in folk who had done zero engineering training at Cosford signing off repairs on a/c, not something I'd want on my conscience as those lads from St Athan dug out another smoking hole.

Thank god someone saw sense, although the shift of Supply from Admin to Eng wing still happened and was almost as bad an idea.:ugh:
It was such an utterly daft idea to come up with, clearly wouldn't have worked for either eng or supply. I suspect it was someone who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[GlosMikeP]

Regardless of the current 'state of the nation', I can't see that the CAA / EASA are going to step in and say 'Now hold a minute boys,.....'. Or that ACAS is going to say 'Actually, we need to surrender this'. Bit of a political A-bomb don't you think?
sw
Yup. The real dilemma wouldn't be CAA dealing with things as airframes, engines or avionics and the like - the real crunch would come with weapons. Who in CAA deals with them????:hmm:

On the other side of this coin, the problem is it wouldn't be a case of ACAS surrendering but of CAA enacting its legal rights under the Air Navigation and other Acts. I think that's what caused everyone to step back from the brink in the early 90s.

And supposing CAA didn't step in when it should have, and a problem occurs - in this litigous age, what then I wonder?:ooh:

I think I'll go back to dreamland now where it's warm and safe and I don't have to worry about such things.

[Safeware]

GMP,

'Who in CAA deals with them????' No-one just now, but if they needed to, I'm sure they could recruit from the masses that are leaving. ;)

sw

[glum]

As for two years Cpl-to-Sgt? - that has been in force since Time Promotion went out in the 70's. You may see much more of younger "S" NCO's with the amount of experience you would expect a Cpl to have. No more than that of a young Flt Lt.

True, but back then we had enough manpower to cover the arse of those time promoted. I was time promoted to Cpl in 91, but we had 120,000 or so at the time.

With only 40,000 now, those rapidly pushed up to fill the garps left by the experienced SNCO do not have the luxury of safety in numbers, and with the extra burdens placed on all with JPA, OOA ops, On the job training of lower ranks and the new AMM's, keeping current with CCS, IRT, IDT, fitness, LITS, squeezing in leave etc, fear they may end up out of their depth and unable to deliver the quality Flight Safety demands.

A young Flt Lt has an old Flt Sgt to stop him screwing up - that's why there are first tourist posts!

By all means promote excellence, but I do fear we have gaps to fill, and will be forced to fill them with less than prepared people...

[Newton Heath]

True, but back then we had enough manpower to cover the arse of those time promoted. I was time promoted to Cpl in 91, but we had 120,000 or so at the time.

With only 40,000 now, those rapidly pushed up to fill the gaps left by the experienced SNCO do not have the luxury of safety in numbers, and with the extra burdens placed on all with JPA, OOA ops, On the job training of lower ranks and the new AMM's, keeping current with CCS, IRT, IDT, fitness, LITS, squeezing in leave etc, fear they may end up out of their depth and unable to deliver the quality Flight Safety demands.

A young Flt Lt has an old Flt Sgt to stop him screwing up - that's why there are first tourist posts!

By all means promote excellence, but I do fear we have gaps to fill, and will be forced to fill them with less than prepared people...

Surely the introduction of Self-Supervision and Multi-Skilling means that 40.000 is more than enough personnel to cope with the present tasking of the modern air force. Lets not forget that JPA has also released our admin staff to focus on more important issues and the contractorisation of ML2 within the Depth environment has been an outstanding success.

These are issues I have pondered over long and hard and finally my conclusions are inconclusive. Oh dear what a conundrum was it just my inability to see the plan? or was the plan flawed? Answer: who cares I'm off "Good Luck"

[Rigga]

Glum – I agree with all your statements and I would add that when a newly promoted SNCO is left in charge of a Line would be the most worrying time. But the only thing that those On–High will see is a smoking hole (I hate that phrase) and someone to blame it on.
If it does happen (heaven forbid) it should start an enquiry similar to that of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook. If it doesn't - start demanding one!
Unfortunately, experience is something you get just after you needed it.
(Not meant to be glib.)

[Mr Blake]

A certain trade dear to my heart is now indeed in meltdown. There are now 4 confirmed PVRs a week, with two of those SNCOS. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that those figures are unsustainable, and will eventually lead to a collapse of the trade. A certain secret airbase away from the Flatlands has already imploded, and is screaming for CMLO assistance as a matter of urgency. I predict we have a year left before the wheels fall off, and the lovely shiny aeroplanes they invested so much capital in are mere static displays.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[GlosMikeP]

.......Fiction, mmm, well just watch. As for a supplier signing off a 700, no problem, you've got JEngOs and SEngOs for that. Supply could take all the non-signing jobs like OC the Wg.
I do hope you're pulling my leg PN! There isn't a continuous line of proper delegation, and therefore route for 'competent' escalation - well, unless there's some other unseen fudge to the system, that is.

Can you just imagine the career limiting discussion between the SEngO and his Supplier Wg Cdr boss, who disagrees or refuses to see the point of some important issue, and the SEngO has to go over his head?:ooh:

So, best guess....that will be 2 careers ended, then!:}

[Pontius Navigator]

Lets not forget that JPA has also released our admin staff to focus on more important issues and the contractorisation of ML2 within the Depth environment has been an outstanding success.


I smell fish.

JPA is so successful that my local handbrake house is now extending its improved service and closing two afternoons per week playing catchup and PMA has put restrictions on its open door policy as JPA has given them much more time to manage things. :}

[nigegilb]

There is no clear picture in the latest MoD Account for 2005/06;

"Retention and Voluntary Outflow 282.

Rates of retention and voluntary outflow (previously known as premature voluntary release) also contribute to the achievement of manning balance. The Armed Forces have set thresholds, based upon historical averages, against which they manage the potential impact of early exits in order to achieve a desirable balance between retaining skills and experience and new recruitment. We therefore track the number of Service men and Service women voluntarily leaving the Forces before the end of their agreed term, against of stable long-term voluntary outflow rates of 2.5% and 4% for RAF officers and Other Ranks. Figures for the last three years are set out below.

There was a significant increase in Voluntary Outflow exits rates for RAF Other Ranks during 2005-06 which put the RAF above its long term target range. This was caused by faster processing of applications for redundancy from staff during the drawdown period; Voluntary Outflow application rates did not change significantly. Whilst some of the Voluntary Outflow figures are above the stable long term goals this is partly a reflection of employment opportunities outside the Services. We have a number of initiatives to improve retention and morale in general, including improving living accommodation (see paragraphs 301-302), better travel allowances to allow people home more readily, better work-life balance and improved working conditions at the front-line.....

.....The Royal Air Force is facing a period of deficit manning as the drawdown programme
proceeds. During this year there were deficits in a number of specialisations including Junior Officer Pilots, Fighter Controllers, Medical Officers, Weapons Systems Operator (Linguist), Weapons Systems Operator (Air Load Master), Provost/Security, Medical Support and Nurses, causing breaches of Individual Harmony Guidelines in some cases."

So, no mention of a lack of engineers, no mention of impending crisis. I was open mouthed about the enthusiasm with which the improvements in working conditions on the front line were going to bring about improved retention and morale. I do not wish to denigrate the efforts of people trying to improve facilities, but surely this misses the main point. That is, in the case of the RAF, which employs older personnel, more likely to have families, any failure to deal with breaches in harmony guidelines will surely result in an increase in numbers running for the door. Furthermore, the abject failure to provide blast proof accommodation in bases subject to nightly mortar attacks is hardly likely to be conducive to good morale.

The small sample of posts on this thread suggest the crisis is just round the corner. Next year's report should be interesting reading.

[insty66]

As for a supplier signing off a 700, no problem, you've got JEngOs and SEngOs for that. Supply could take all the non-signing jobs like OC the Wg.


PN, A quick look in the ever helpful JAP100A shows that there are tasks that a SEngO cannot sign (loose articles spring to mind) and a higher level of authority is required. Who would provide that if OC Eng & Supply was a supplier? :suspect:

Of course we could have OC Fwd & OC Depth and OC Supply creating 2 valuable jobs for Wing Commanders where 1 used to cope!:ugh: :ugh:

[GlosMikeP]

Just as I thought too. Daft with a capital F.

[Safeware]

Insty66,

Not having JAP100A to hand, and trying to remember, isn't it more about who holds QR640 responsibilities? I don't know if it ever happened, but the way that it was put some time ago was that if OC ESW (as was) was ever a supplier, then OC ME(A)S or OC Eng Ops (as were) would hold QR640 responsibilities. Therefore, the career crashing sketch that GMP indicated should never happen as the supplier would be stepping beyond the bounds of his authority if he tried to tell an engineer what to do re airworthiness. Not that it would necessarily be an easy 'marriage'. And I don't know if the theory was ever tested.

I'm sure Safety_Helmut, with his books stashed by his bed, will have an answer :)

sw

[Melchett01]

We have a number of initiatives to improve retention and morale in general, including improving living accommodation (see paragraphs 301-302), better travel allowances to allow people home more readily, better work-life balance and improved working conditions at the front-line.....


I don't think that bit has filtered down through JHC yet. Lots of very very war weary and massively over stretched people with a work-work balance but little else here, and it won't get any better for the forseable future :sad:

[brickhistory]

I'll apologize in advance for the thread creep, but I'm curious how something I've seen on this and other mil aircrew threads works, namely:

How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?

Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.

[GlosMikeP]

I'll apologize in advance for the thread creep, but I'm curious how something I've seen on this and other mil aircrew threads works, namely:

How do you switch from RAF to the RAAF or RNZAF (other Commonwealth AFs)? And why? Are the generalites of each AF the same for career, etc?

Not a wind up, just curious. Since we (USAF) have no equivalent, it puzzles me.
Quite easily is the simple answer, I suppose. It helps that all are Commonwealth nations.

It's quite common to find Aussies and New Zealanders in the RAF (and RN); and I've known several Brit RAF guys transfer to RAAF.

[movadinkampa747]

Their are some that have gone to the RNZAF and it has not been quite what they expected. Lyneham has had some RAAF Aircrew over to stem the shortfall in the Air Eng job.

[brickhistory]

Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?

I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?

[Mactlsm1]

Yup. The real dilemma wouldn't be CAA dealing with things as airframes, engines or avionics and the like - the real crunch would come with weapons. Who in CAA deals with them????:hmm:

On the other side of this coin, the problem is it wouldn't be a case of ACAS surrendering but of CAA enacting its legal rights under the Air Navigation and other Acts. I think that's what caused everyone to step back from the brink in the early 90s.

And supposing CAA didn't step in when it should have, and a problem occurs - in this litigous age, what then I wonder?:ooh:

I think I'll go back to dreamland now where it's warm and safe and I don't have to worry about such things.


It's not just the weapons aspects. What about the tactical flying aspects? Your average airliner takes off, climbs to cruise altitude, descends, and lands....Endex. Who in CAA would (if qualified) be able to deal with the case of Albert flying tactically at MSD/OLF altitudes? Even QQ baulk at some of the things we ask our crews and ac to do.

Mac

[Not Long Here]

Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?

I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?

You leave the RAF, become a civilian and go through the whole migration process to your country of choice. As it happens both the RAAF and the RNZAF are actively recruiting.

Reason for doing so? It has to be the quality of life for you and your family.

Cheers

[Admin_Guru]

Reason for doing so? It has to be the quality of life for you and your family.


...... and if there was a quality of life, (and the financial equallity given by most NATO partners when out of area,) then the whinging here would be noticeable by its absence.

Loyalty goes both ways, and MOD (UK) plc are loyal to nobody. It takes more than medals to stop a divorce. Especially when the UK man on the street does not understand 'why' body bags are arriving by weekly C17.

Aligned to quality of life is Job Security, and there is not much of that around here either nowadays.

[Pontius Navigator]

The RNZAF, when I visited many moons ago had a coordinated recruitment system in place. By that I mean coordinated with the Government that also wanted inward immigration.

The ToS they offered was a 4-year commission in your current rank. In those days the RAF had scraped the first two promotion exams but retained the C for promotion to sqn ldr. I never knew the A in the RAF, it was possibly initial officer training. The B was for promotion to flt lt.

In the RNZAF an ex-flt lt had to pass the B to retain his commission after the 4 years.

Quality of life says it all and it was good to be wanted by both service and country.

In UK we now have a good life balance. An equal number of us are emigrating as we reach retirement age, and a good many before that, to the number of migrants that come here legally and settle.:}

[GlosMikeP]

It's not just the weapons aspects. What about the tactical flying aspects? Your average airliner takes off, climbs to cruise altitude, descends, and lands....Endex. Who in CAA would (if qualified) be able to deal with the case of Albert flying tactically at MSD/OLF altitudes? Even QQ baulk at some of the things we ask our crews and ac to do.

Mac
Good point, well made.

[Newton Heath]

I smell fish.

JPA is so successful that my local handbrake house is now extending its improved service and closing two afternoons per week playing catchup and PMA has put restrictions on its open door policy as JPA has given them much more time to manage things. :}

What you say Pontius old chap is very true,

it seems that Handbrake House and the JPA fraternity have created a very useful diversion. All focus is on them and their apparent ineptitude, allowing personnel to become occupied with sorting out their own pay and individual circumstances. This may be a very good time to bury other bad news, so, stand to!!! or perhaps this is a devide and rule manoeuvre. That however, would take planning, so it probably most unlikely.

On a more positive note, the more people that leave, the more individual assistance and quality time the remainder should receive to alleviate their unfortunate confusion.:confused:

[Mr Blake]

Just to get back on track. The following letter was posted on E-Goat, the unofficial RAF Rumour service, because not surprisingly the RAF wouldn't print it. Hopefully adds to the debate and raises some interesting issues with regards to a "top-heavy" Air Force that needs modernising. Excellent last line.



I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on the contents.

I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.

My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.

Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.

The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.

I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.

In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.

[brickhistory]

Thanks for the replies here and the PMs regarding moving among different Commonwealth Air Forces.

Very interesting looking in from outside, thanks!
Now, we take you back to your regularly scheduled thread.......

[TMJ]

Thanks for the replies, but I guess I didn't phrase my question correctly. I know an RAF type can go to RAAF, for example, and the reverse, but why would one?

I realize it's all under the auspices of the same monarch, but since they are separate Air Forces, does one have the same career path options, etc? Does one 'resign' from the RAF and go to another, never to go back RAF? Since it seems very different from a service transfer, i.e., Air Force to Army or Navy, where one is now 'owned' by the new service, is this a similiar process?


My last boss went RAF->RAAF->RAF... He said it was family reasons that brought him back to Blighty, but he really enjoyed being in Oz.

[snakepit]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting.

Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.[I]

As there are only about 1300 NCA in the RAF we now get 1 wing commander each to supervise us.

We tried the empowered Master(WO) route in the NCA cadre and it has resulted in very little difference in the number of Rearcrew officers still employed.

[Wader2]

Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field?

I know the letter says 'some' and I am sure some are. I know a WO Arm who held down the AEF Flt Cdr's job and acted as OC AES on occasion. However if that became the norm then the number of JO learning posts would diminish.

There must be a fair number of 1st Tour JO posts in Supply and Eng where the decisions (persuasion) is made by the grey head albeit with the oversignature of the JO. The alternative would mean putting in senior JO posts who have never had real junior JO experience :eek:

[nigegilb]

Sir Michael Graydon talking at the end of his tenure in 1997, said the following;

Reduction difficulties

"I find it difficult to see where any further reductions, from 52,200 which is our current target, can be made unless defence as a whole is looked at and they say there are commitments that we can give up," he says, adding: "Every element of our air power is on operations, there is nothing that is not being used."

Graydon explains that the RAF has used defence-planning assumptions as a baseline from which to work out the number of service personnel required in the force. "This has been crucial, and pioneering work. It represents a serious and clear analysis," he says.

Another area which Graydon has had to oversee has been the contracting out to the civil sector of many areas traditionally carried out by uniformed personnel. Some 17,000 jobs previously catered for by the RAF have been pushed into the civil arena. "No military man is ever wildly happy about getting rid of uniformed staff, but most civilians give us absolutely no problem at all. There is no difficulty about contracting out work," says the CAS.

What he does consider needs to be kept under review is where the line is drawn between the uniformed and civil contractors. [B]"What one has to be very careful about is that you don't stretch it too far at the expense of our ability to support operations at the front line."


RAF drawdown numbers around 41,000. Sir Michael Graydon was speaking before Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan MK1, Gulf War MK2, Afghanistan Mk2. And he was already talking about giving up commitments in 1997!

[HOODED]

Mr Blake, Sadly there is too much truth in this letter for it to be allowed in the RAF news. One of the reasons I left was the Officer Corps pressing the engineers as to why aircraft wern't ready, when it was they that had made the decisions to cut the troops to save money. Not enough engineers to do the job means it takes longer, again sadly most don't see this.
I remember one student pilot asking me a few years ago if I could arrange for the hangar to be kept open so he could show his girlfriend and family around a jet, when I asked what time he said 1815! Wonder what he thought when he walked in to find 80+ airmen busily working on the aircraft. He seemed to think that the ac were put to bed at cease flying and those f700 snags could all be fixed in an hour. Nowadays the same hangar probably has around 60 troops doing the same job on older less regularly maintained ac. I voted with my feet as most Senior Officers are told what they want to hear never whats really happening at the workface. 3 Tranches later the numbers of groundcrew are slightly less but the lost experience is massive. It will come home to roost. I just feel sorry for those I left behind, most were blo**dy good blokes/gals.

[GlosMikeP]

He seemed to think that the ac were put to bed at cease flying and those f700 snags could all be fixed in an hour. Nowadays the same hangar probably has around 60 troops doing the same job on older less regularly maintained ac. I voted with my feet as most Senior Officers are told what they want to hear never whats really happening at the workface. 3 Tranches later the numbers of groundcrew are slightly less but the lost experience is massive. It will come home to roost. I just feel sorry for those I left behind, most were blo**dy good blokes/gals.
Well I expect he lived and learnt, or at least I hope he did. All aircrew would do well to venture into the hangar and see first hand their airframes in bits (I found it invaluable, but as an aeronautical engineer I also perhaps had a natural interest). Not only is it impressive to see them stripped to the bones, it's even more so seeing how they get put back together again.

The long term impact of downward trend in numbers of trained techies is perhaps even higher than you intimate here.

In the early 90s when the first redundancy round came about (after I had left - pity, as I'd been hoping for it!) I remember seeing a Gp Capt on TV bemoaning the loss of his well trained, experienced and dedicated airmen and NCOs as privatisation took hold. The point he, correctly, made was 'It's all very well for the time being, but who is training these guys any more? When they've all gone, we won't have any left to do the job if there's a punch-up and no one to train new ones either'.

QED.

[Not Long Here]

Hooded,

I would suggest that the problem now is not in the areas where the "aircraft have been put to bed" for the evening but rather, that side of the RAF which has worked 24/7 such as Transport, Maritime and AEW. That applies if you are aircrew, groundcrew, commisioned or non-commissioned.

[Mr Blake]

All valid points, but the crux of the letter was "why are we so top heavy" post lean, E to E, etc etc.. Is there really a requirement for this level of well paid management with the closure and restructuring of so many MOBs? The fwd and depth policy has further exasperated this by the addition of extra management posts, due the split in half of traditional second line spt. Why do we think to deplete the coalface first, before considering other options? Do we really need 400plus Gp Cptns for what is essentilally 2 Grps? IMHO the whole shebang needs radically pruning.

[griffinblack]

Aussies 2 X J model and @ 120 ground crew
Brits 4 X J model and 16 ground crew!

That may say more about the RAAF than the RAF

[GlosMikeP]

....Do we really need 400plus Gp Cptns for what is essentilally 2 Grps? IMHO the whole shebang needs radically pruning.
In a recent conversation with an old pal who is a Gp Capt, he said exactly this.

[BattlerBritain]

To quote a well-known film "Give 'em a bl**dy shovel"

[insty66]

Insty66,
Not having JAP100A to hand, and trying to remember, isn't it more about who holds QR640 responsibilities?

Yes that's some of it!.

As I posted before the problem has been overcome by having 2 Engineer Wing Commanders now, this has made everything more lean and efficient:hmm:

[nigegilb]

I have been thinking about what Sir Michael Graydon said about the size of the RAF in 1997. Since then it has been announced that RAF strength will reduce by another 11000, or more, that is a cut of over 20%. Back in 1997 it was said that if a strength of 52500 was reduced further, then committments would have to be reduced. Well, we have seen the exact opposite. Committments have gotten very much greater, harmony guidelines being broken repeatedly in the process. By any calculation this must mean that the RAF in parts is badly overstretched. Sir Michael alluded to an inability to support the front line if the RAF was cut again. I believe we are seeing that now. I can't understand why the chiefs of staff have allowed themselves to become emasculated in the way they are by this Government. Sir Jick Stirrup is not helping anyone by repeating MoD press briefings, claiming that the RAF is stretched but not overstretched. General Dannatt has shown the way ahead, can we have some evidence of stiffened resolve amongst the light blues before it is too late? Sir Richard said he wanted an army in 5 years time. Well, we all want an air force in 5 years time, so someone had better pull their finger out, sharpish.

[pvr not dwr]

I hear a northern training Squadron has 3 Jengo's 1 for each shift and a spare;- Senior junior/junior senior despite all ariving within about 6months of each other with similair experiance. Yet at a one of the first lean brief/events the following was stated "leave the officers alone this is about grouncrew reductions/improvements" When somebody mentioned that the Flt SGTS do the most reds/greens and almost all lft26 action.

I don't think the PVR numbers are telling the whole story as a recent straw poll where i work indicated that once 22 is reached only one cpl would sign on if offered his third and hope to go to los30, everybody else would do minimum time required for the pension of new rank. Even the "new guys" wanted out AMM's wanting to get their qualifications then take the M Baker option.

At least the new socks are corporate>>>>>>>>>>>>but they probably only ordered 10,000 so everyone in the 1st battalion "the Royal air force" can have a pair

[RETDPI]

Well, we all want an air force in 5 years time.
I do wonder as to the accuracy of this statement in a wider context; the figure of 40,000 personnel is worrying. Doubtless others have discusssed this issue on this forum, but the 40k figure was quoted to me in the mid-90's (post my own PVR) as being key politically to any argument pursuing the reabsorption of the Service into its origins. Perhaps coincidentally, "Jointery " came in as a staff officer mantra very soon afterwards, sending a shudder down my spine at least.

[Pontius Navigator]

A "why are we so top heavy" post lean, E to E, etc etc.. Is there really a requirement for this level of well paid management with the closure and restructuring of so many MOBs?

One does wonder. For well over a year we ran with no SO2, SO1 or Gp Capt in the chain of command and the Air Cdre was detached for much of this time.

If the operational tree is stripped of leaves then where are all the leaves gathering. (Oak leaves get it?)

Now if we talk Colonels that is an entirely different kettle of fish, or whatever a collective is for Colonels. Junta?

Previously I would have had difficulty naming one wg cdr and a gp capt now I can name at least 5 Lt Col and a Col. Now that is really the opposite of lean.

[Mr Blake]

Does this not smack of "jobs for the boys", or am I being too simplistic? Wasn't there a scheme (yes I know another one!), to introduce "The Trenchard Plan", which would empower Sqn Ldrs to run Sqns, Wg Cmdrs to run Wings etc etc..? That sounded like the first reasonable piece of fwd thinking I'd heard in a long while, but it seems to have died a death. Can any of our Staff comrades enlighten us?

[Aeronut]

Dear Sgt Blake

We regret to inform you that your application for a commision has not been successful.

[Pontius Navigator]

Wasn't there a scheme (yes I know another one!), to introduce "The Trenchard Plan", which would empower Sqn Ldrs to run Sqns, Wg Cmdrs to run Wings etc etc..?

Mr Blake, which Trenchard Plan? If it is new, we have had so many 'codewords' that they blur into oblivion - Alexander, Vanguard, Aquitrain, each adding to the confusion and instantly forgetable if there is no obvious need to know.

The rot, if rot it was, set in in the 50s when the value of the hardware accelerated rapidly through several million pounds; that does not take in to the account the value of the software and the justification for the VC10 Sqn Ldr.

The only way to pay someone the proper rate for the job was promotion rather than pay. This led to Sqn wg cdrs and 23 yr old Capt flt lts, not to mention 2* group commanders.

This was compounded by the Hodgkinson Report around 1969 with the introduction of spec aircrew and overborne sqn ldrs. Overborne to the extent of 300 per year. To absorb this increase flt lts were no longer posted on promotion to sqn ldrs. V-bomber sqns went from one sqn ldr to 5. The extent of the job had not changed.

In the early 70s there were still some sqns commanded by sqn ldrs, notably the Canberra sqns in Singapore.

Initially pay for the responsibility was the driver. Later, under Hodgkinson, it was the drive to increase the sqn ldr gene pool from the small number of Crandwell cadets to the wider air force. Maybe Archimedes can add an historical analysis; did it work?

[Chugalug2]

The rot, if rot it was, set in in the 50s when the value of the hardware accelerated rapidly through several million pounds; that does not take in to the account the value of the software and the justification for the VC10 Sqn Ldr.

Ah yes, the VC10 Sqn Ldrs! I remember the outrage that caused at Wooton Lynestoke, for it wasn't simply Transport Captains that attracted this recognition from a grateful nation, but only those who drove VC10s for a living. Why? Because Freddie Laker was actively seeking them, in their own crew room initially, but when evicted from there in the local pub, for his own fleet in BUA. How to stem the flow? Pay them more. How do we do that? Promote them! It wasn't only we MRT guys who thought this wrong, for we had allies amongst the most powerful men in the RAF, yes the Route Hotel Corporals! Typically they would query a scraper by asking, "Are you a real Sqn Ldr, sir, or just a VC10 captain?". The person in question would draw himself up to his full height and proclaim, "Well, yes, I do command a VC10". "Then you'll be down the end with the rest of the crew, Sir", he was told and handed a key :ok:

[Rigga]

to probably misquote someone... "There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics."

The RAF's Stats for PVR's is probably correct down to the last Decimal airman.
MOD's Statistics have been notoriously adequate at demonstrating how things happened, but consistantly wrong at forecasting the future.

However, it does not show the underlying trends of intent.
It may take another few years to show where the "underswing" went, and how the Stats missed it by asking the wrong questions or 'mis-reporting' the evidence collated.

In the meantime you will be understrength and probably below safety levels for the physical act of flying. No - not the "sat-in-the-front" aspect - the Physical act of Flying - The Mechanical safety of the bit you sit in.

Oh, and please keep up to date. 'The CAA' won't be doing anything for the RAF. The mechanical acts of flying and all mechanical safety aspects of flying within the Eurozone are EASA's present remit. The Application Form will have an EASA logo, not a CAA one!

[dallas]

A bloke I was chatting with the other day stumbled upon something: what if pushing all us old sweats out ties-in with someone's 'vision' of the future RAF - a younger, fitter and faster moving organisation? Experience is great, but our Cold War experiences aren't necessarily relevant to the various sh1tholes we're finding ourselves in nowadays. We're also bloody expensive when we leave at 55.

How about we do what the Army do - promote rapidly up to age 40 then generally get rid - we seem to be following the Army way in many other ways.

Naturally we're sat here commenting on how cr&p things have got, but has anyone considered that the company isn't actually too bothered about retention? And why should they be? There will always be someone with nothing better to do than join the forces.

I think this bloke has struck on something and I'll be happy to play along with the vision just as soon as I can. Perhaps the plotters might want to think about dropping the pension ages? That would certainly help...

[Mr Blake]

Dear Sgt Blake

We regret to inform you that your application for a commision has not been successful.

Damn!

FJ, or in fact any expensively trained drivers are not the issue here. Take those away and where's your Air Force? The issue is the large number of senior airships, Groupies etc.. that occupy well paid and lucrative positions, and perhaps the need to downsize or modernise, to save some much needed cash. Why are we culling the shopfloor and not the rest?

[Chugalug2]

Damn!
The issue is the large number of senior airships, Groupies etc.. that occupy well paid and lucrative positions, and perhaps the need to downsize or modernise, to save some much needed cash. Why are we culling the shopfloor and not the rest?

Dear Cpl Blake,

We regret to inform you that your application for reinstatement to your previous rank has not been successful.

[Mr Blake]

Double damn!

[RETDPI]

Double damn!
SAC Blake,
You should be fully cognisant of the fact that continuing to manifest this kind of attitude is a singularly pointless exercise that will get you absolutely nowhere.....

[Maple 01]

I have to agree with young Dallas, as a dyed in the wool "sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War" I too was slow to appreciate the game had changed, the powers-that-be want soldiers that can sort-of do the difficult stuff as well rather than professional airmen/women that don't want to play squaddie in the first place, hence letting us old bu@@ers drip on whilst indoctrinating the youngsters with the spirit of the Hitler Youth and leveraging us out with BFT/CFT/CCS/FT secondments to the army, 16 AA and the rest. Try telling them "I didn't join-up for this" and be described as 'gasp' “resistant to change!”

The future's dull, the future's purple*

For purple read ARMY -the fun's over chaps

[ORAC]

Hmmm, times come around.

Just reading Brigadier Allan Mallinson´s latest book (Matthew Hervey series, up to 4 of them now, well worth reading). He has the following in his foreward. There is more, but I precis it for brevity...

"...After 1819 [Waterloo] the threat of major disorder - of revolution even - receded too, and by 1825 the number of troops in Britain had fallen to 44,000. Financial retrenchment generally was the order of the day. The army estimates in 1815 had been 43 million, in 1829 they were less than a quarter of that, and by the end of the decade they had fallen even further, for by then the army was less than half the size of its high point at the time of Waterloo. And yet, as today, the army found itself called on to do more, not less, as imperial commitments began to mount....... In the 1820s and 30s up to seventy-five per cent of the the Brtish Infantry were stationed abroad or were in transit...

I have been surprised by remarks by otherwise kind reviewers on the question of what captain Matthew Hervey and the 6th Light Dragoons would find to do after Waterloo, the inference being that the world was at peace. The answer, then as today, is that the British army is never at peace. Not one year has gone by since that great battle without a British soldier dying by hostile hand. No other army in the world, save perhaps that of India, can claim such a testimony.......

[philrigger]

;)
Not one year has gone by since that great battle without a British soldier dying by hostile hand.

What about 1969 ?

'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

[Maple 01]

I thought it was '66 but the thought's the same

[davechard]

The bottom line, we, as a nation, cannot afford to run an armed force as large as we currently have. The problem comes when we have a prime minister who's foreign policy involves committing british troops to every trouble spot in the world, whilst having a chancellor who is unwilling to increase expenditure on defence (you don't win votes by spending on defence unless the public can see, or imagine the enemy marching up their street). Whilst these two pull in opposite directions it will always be the folk in uniform who get stretched. What's needed is to lose one of these characters, which would appear to be exactly what's happening in the near future. So Mr Brown, what are you going to do when you sit down in the big chair? no more excuses then, if you argue with yourself, they'll cart you off to the funny farm and rightly so.:ugh:

[Skeleton]

Rant on

I have always maintained that since options for change we were/are in danger of becoming a third world air force.

We have the people across all ranks and trades to get us out of the mire most of the time, but there being asked to do it with equipment that is increasingly outdated and with every corner cut in the drive to save money, hence brain dead schemes such as front line farce.

Were getting a new fighter (At last) but we seem to be lacking in every other department. Not enough tankers, transport aircraft etc. The list is endless. Couple this with the British fascination of upgrade after upgrade of 30 year old designs and a budget that only allows the charter of "wogahumphdemumph" Airlines and its little wonder questions are now being asked about safety for those at the coal face. Yes being a serviceman carries a degree of danger, that degree should not,however, include the age and state of the equipment they are required to operate.

Look at the recent farce in Lebanon, get the civvies out quick was the cry from around the globe - what do we do? Send the Navy because we simply did not have the capability to carry out an airlift. That to me is shameful.

Meltdown? Not quite, but it's close.

rant off

as ever not spil chkd

[nice castle]

We sent some Chinny's. At the drop of a hat. That got on with the job and were airlifting 36 hrs after getting a "How about it fellas?" telephone call from above.

Needless to say, the might of the Navy publicity machine was no match for the chaps who were too busy operating to self-publicise.

:D Well done to those involved. And actually, if the Navy can show their relevance in today's world then fair play to 'em; it's more than Typhoon can muster.

[Widger]

Nice Castle,

just for the record approx 50% of UK forces within Afghanistan are RN at the moment (Royal Marines and 800Sqn).

[Sospan]

Not bad for a landlocked country !

[Widger]

WPH,

I sense a semblance of irritation in your post! Don't forget that there were RN aircrew on 1 and 3(F) squadrons as well.

I do think that it is extremely obtuse of you (if you are serving RAF) to lay blame at the foot of the RN for some of the publicity it has generated. I suppose it is payback for all those grey Seakings being called RAF and all those Mark 4s being called RAF or Army. If the RN does not publicise it's activities, then the tax paying public will not be aware of it's highly important role. Out of sight, out of mind and the subsequent cuts. You don't see many warships sailing down Lincoln or Aldershot town centre, or flying over your house.

I fully support anyone who emphasises that the RN has been in the Gulf continously, since the Iran Iraq war, supported the assault on Al Fawr, supported air ops over Bosnia, supported ops in Sierra Leone, assisted evacuation in Beirut, gave support post Boxing DayTsunami, gave support in Kurdistan post GW1, gave support in Pakistan after the earthquake and much more.

My final note is that yes, these tasks were not done alone, they were conducted with the full support (most of the time) of the other two services. This final point, is a key lesson that some on Pprune could learn. Don't forget to give credit to others where it is due.

:ok: My best regards to all of you, especially those too busy operating to sit posting on here!

[charliesbar]

Rant on
I have always maintained that since options for change we were/are in danger of becoming a third world air force.

A400M, FSTA, JSF, Pred B, C-17, J Herc, MRA4, Typhoon, Stormshadow, Brimstone, ePaveway, Apache (AAC), AMRAAM - Third Rate?

My point is that, in equipment terms, following otions for change there is clearly no intent to become a third rate Air Force. In fact, I would argue that the equipment programme is the envy of most air forces (USAF excepted). I would further argue that, in the very near future, our trooping, freighting, tanking, MPA, ISTAR, and multiple target attack capibilities (i.e. the actual number of kills we are able to achieve) will be greater than in any part of the RAF's History and probably is right now.

[ZH875]

A400M, FSTA, JSF, Pred B, C-17, J Herc, Typhoon, Stormshadow, ePaveway, AMRAAM - Third Rate?

Not in Service:
JSF

Not in Proper Service:
Typhoon

Not in Existence:
A400M
FSTA

Yep, were first rate blokes with third rate kit.

[glum]

in the very near future, our trooping, freighting, tanking, MPA, ISTAR, and multiple target attack capibilities will be greater than in any part of the RAF's History and probably is right now.

Are you serious? 'In the very near future'?

Can I join your Air Force?

[Shaft109]

Charliesbar,

1. Despite all of the new aircraft and missiles, they are no good if there are no lads and lasses to maintain and deploy them.

2. Yes I agree the is no Intent to become a 3rd world air force, but if there is no support infrastructure (read -lads and lasses to maintain and deploy them) then you can't fly on hope and dreams.

3. BLACK BUCK springs to mind, as we couldn't do that tommorow even if we wanted to, so therefore we are weaker than 25 years ago on the tanking front.

4. I really, really don't want to be proved right, but I think it's only when the accident rate goes through the roof - and we loose people - that we realise we can't have defence on the cheap.

"For gods sakes be careful out there!"

[TheInquisitor]

I sent off a version of the following as a letter to the RAF News a while back, and have yet to receive a reply for some reason. It will be interesting to hear other peoples opinions on the contents.

I was pleased to see the letter from Sgt Mark Clay in issue 1136 of the RAF News, I'm sure his comments are welcomed by many, his point about the low morale of many personnel within the ground trades should cause concern. In recent months many have been affected by E2E Studies, Leaning and amalgamation, no doubt more will be, either by loss of individual posts, whole sections, or by leaving the service due to redundancy or natural wastage. The changes occurring within most ground trades vary from mild to traumatic, the rapidity of some of these changes in the interest of saving money does smack of knee jerk reactions to political or monetary pressure, it's only a matter of time before a few baby's get thrown out with the bathwater.

My reason for putting pen to paper is to ask if/when the people who have made all the changes to date are to be 'leaned', namely the management structure and the officer corps. The collocation of the two Command Headquarters may see a reduction of manpower by 1000, but most of this manpower will be civilians who are no longer needed when one Headquarters closes. Interesting debates will no doubt follow if this letter is published; here are a few points to ponder.

Why are there 11,115 officers between the rank of Group Captain and Pilot Officer? This figure includes aircrew, who are obviously needed, yet 1166 of the 3762 Flying branch posts are non-flying duties. In the other branch posts there are 414 Group Captains, 1341 Wing Commanders, 2337 Squadron Leaders and 3263 Flight Lieutenants and below. The figures quoted above are from the RAF Appointments Register, and can be found easily enough, not included in this list is the number of officers in training or holding awaiting a posting. How many of these posts can be justifiably classed as essential cogs in the machine required to produce a cost effective operational force? The ratio of executive officers per operational airframe must cause some raised eyebrows in Whitehall; add all the pay, gratuities and pensions together over 10 years and you can easily afford a few more Typhoons or JCA's. Why can't some of the posts occupied by junior officers be filled by Warrant Officers or Flt Sgts who have years of experience in their field? I have found no information on the number of serving Air Officers, but judging by the amount of Group Captains on the books this number must be high.

The career structure of the officer corps can also be improved upon, why is it that officers only do 2-year tours; can this be classed as good value for money? The methods used in End to End studies is to compare the work done to a large factory, using phrases such as 'customer', 'product' and 'materials'; continuing the theme, any civilian company worth it's salt would bend over backwards to keep a good manager in place, and would act quickly to move on or dismiss the worst. A two year tour gives little time for development, the first six months learning the job and getting to know people leaves just 18 months of actual productivity. Officers who excel within a certain post move on all too soon, often to an area that bears little or no relationship to the post they leave behind. With competent NCOs shouldering the burden a less adept manager can keep a low profile for 2 years relatively easily. A four year tour will allow the better officer to shine through career-wise, and allow the less competent to be seen for what they are and, hopefully, correct their failings. Other benefits would be increased stability for the individual, not to mention a reduction in training and movement costs.

I read with interest the article by ACM Sir Brian Burridge in issue 1,135 of the RAF News entitled 'RAF is adapting to new challenges', where he made some interesting comments on the changes to the structure of the RAF currently being undertaken. He concluded by saying 'we need a relevant Air Force; that's relevant operationally, and relevant in an economic or a value for money sense.' Adding 'We need fewer, but more adaptable people.' I have served over 26 years and like Sgt Clay have seen many changes, from the end of the Cold War to today's E2E; adaptability and the good old 'can do' attitude have been bywords that have been applied to airmen throughout. Speaking as an engineer we have seen the demise of the Flight Line Mechanic, Direct Entrant technician and the Apprentice, the Mech(Mech) and Mech(Tech) system quickly replaced with the SAC Tech causing the loss of the J/T rank, amalgamation of TG1 trades and the re-introduction of the Flight Line Mechanic in the form of the AMM. One area that has never changed in this time is the way the officer corps functions, and to my knowledge no one has looked into it's efficiency and effectiveness; with the future manning of the RAF giving a ratio of almost 1 officer for 2 airmen perhaps it's time to do so now.

In the late 80's it was said that you could get the whole of the RAF into Wembley, nowadays everyone would fit into the average Division 1 ground; but if seats were allocated by status the terraces would look empty, whilst the VIP boxes would be packed solid.

Ah, yes - the old standard E-Goat rant of "Officers Useless, SNCOs Great".

I have to say that on EVERY occasion I have had cause to visit a line or hangar, on every stn I have been posted to (there have been MANY occasions on many stns), I haven't actually SEEN a great deal of 'work' going on. I have always, however, seen alot of lineys, sneks and jnrs, standing around in Control doing sweet FA - or in the tea bar. Why this seems to be so at a MOB is odd, because on a det the exact opposite is true - you won't find any techie / liney of ANY description doing anything other than working their arses off. A point in case - why does the line at LYE insist on having 4hrs for a role change, when the same can be done by the crew in 30 mins? Or even quicker than that by guys on an eng det with less manpower working in worse conditions?

If you're gonna throw stones, fellas, at least aim them in the right direction. Whilst it is blatantly obvious that the Officer Corp of the RAF is severely bloated, bear in mind that these figures are grossly distorted by the fact that all front-end aircrew are comissioned. Flt Lts / Fg Offs are the workers on Sqns, not the management - and some kind of attainable career path needs to be open to guys in order to retain them. Though quite why the blunter arms of the RAF need to structure themselves in a similar way, leaving way too much fat at the top, is beyond me.

For those who think replacing JO posts with SNCOs is the answer, remember that the average FS / WO costs the RAF, financially, just as much, if not more than, the average JO, in terms of both salary and pension - non-aircrew JOs are NOT very well paid! And there are just as many fat, useless, lazy, obstructive, unioinized SNCOs as there are stupid, aloof, incompetent, self-interested JOs - across ALL trades and branches.

[Newton Heath]

Inquisitor,

How dare you call SNCOs fat, I'll have you know that I have done my annual 8 pressups 15 sit ups and 3.1 bleep test without complaint for many years. Granted my Ron Hills are a bit thong like , but I can still cut a rug in my crimpelines at a Mess dance.

[Kitbag]

From the Inquisitor:
"Ah, yes - the old standard E-Goat rant of "Officers Useless, SNCOs Great".- No, that is not what he is saying, the gist of the post is that 2 year tours for JOs although cheap are not effective and do little to allow the JO to develop mastery of his area of responsibility- ie not VFM
"If you're gonna throw stones, fellas, at least aim them in the right direction. Whilst it is blatantly obvious that the Officer Corp of the RAF is severely bloated, bear in mind that these figures are grossly distorted by the fact that all front-end aircrew are comissioned." I think Mr Blake clearly acknowledges the aircrew element, he questions the need for so many in the higher echelons, as it seems TheInquisitor does. Can anyone justify the need for so many Group Captains, Wing Commanders etc? not to mention the ongoing debate about front end aircrew needing to be commissioned.

A grown up debate rather than stone throwing may be quite interesting

[Mr Blake]

All valid points, but the crux of the letter was "why are we so top heavy" post lean, E to E, etc etc.. Is there really a requirement for this level of well paid management with the closure and restructuring of so many MOBs? The fwd and depth policy has further exasperated this by the addition of extra management posts, due the split in half of traditional second line spt. Why do we think to deplete the coalface first, before considering other options? Do we really need 400plus Gp Cptns for what is essentilally 2 Grps? IMHO the whole shebang needs radically pruning.

In my defence the letter sent to the RAF News was not drafted by me, and I don't necessarily agree with all the points raised. There is of course a place for JOs in management posts, rather than our more senior seniors, however I refer to my previous post in saying that we are on the face of it a smidgeon top heavy, especially with the collapse of so many MOBs/Commands etc.... There was no intention as KB rightly says to "throw stones", but rather to generate a healthy debate.

[HansBwix]

Two points .....

Firstly, having attended a course at the Linconshire Crab training base, by it's own definitions we are a third world air force (when hand was raised and comment was made there was much spluttering and mentioning of buffoon, brimstone, stormshadow etc.....).

While we may have some shiny kit - and some of it is very shiny and does indeed do what it says on the tin - the money wasted on poorly written procurement contracts or the proportion of the defence vote that has been poured into our 'defence industry' in order to keep our BAe and RR friends in business has detracted from our ability to take on the world, or pay ourselves a decent salary.

While the powers that be harp on about effects based operations, they seem to have great difficulty understanding that it is difficult to have any kind of effect when the troops (RN, Army or RAF) are utterly exhausted, angry, underpaid relative to the outside world and are carrying such a complete sense of betrayal by those who can say 'Duty of care' but have forgotten what it actually means.

Which takes me to my second point about the level of Officers vs ORs. Believe it or not, there are many in the JO Cadre who look up and see how many chiefs there are and wonder where all the Indians went. A simple stroll through Wyton at 8 in the morning is a perfect example of the critical mass of senior officers in our Service - and Strike even more so. I have seen a letter along similar lines to that in this thread from WO asking why officer postings were so short - and this was published in the RAF News - to which the reply was that in order to 'round the careers' of officers it was neccessary to keep them moving on a regular basis to cover all aspects of their profession, management skills and wider experience of the RAF.

Not wishing to play Devil's Advocate, but there are some elements of truth here - that because of the myriad posts that a JO of any particular branch, perhaps with the exception of aircrew, has to master in order to be promoted the requirement to move around more often is reinforced. In order to increase the length of postings would require a change in the promotion system to take into account 4 year postings as suggested.

IMHO the greatest problem is not at the JO level but at the very top of the heirarchy, where those that make the ultimate decisions about the direction of the Service are in post for perhaps 18 months if they are lucky. Three years ago the current CAS was a 2* for heavens's sake! That is where the problems are seen to lie - and there are many posts to that effect on this and other forums - that those who make the earth shattering decisions are never around to realise the consequences and those who come after them either fight the fires or absolve themselves of the blame by pointing at their predeccessor.

Until there is accountability for the damage done in the past, there will be no sanity applied to the future. Our political masters will not look to the health or defence of the nation - they will look to win the next election. Until we are invaded, bombed, tortured or killed there will be no urgency to provide the resources to maintain our defence capability.

One can only hope that, given our military is beginning to resemble the shadow of its former self reminscent of the Inter War years, if our own shores were once again threatened we would have the capability of tunring around and fighting as we did 70 years ago.

Meltdown? Yes. Does anyone but us care? Answers on a postcard......

[Chugalug2]

Dear AC2 Blake, thank you so much for writing your very interesting letter to RAF News. We are so sorry for the delay in replying to you, as the person who is typing this, being the only one able to do so, was on leave and had to catch up with typing other replies from our 2 Gp Capts, 6 Wng Cdrs and 18 Sqn Ldrs before typing this one.
Looking back through early issues of RAF News, and its predecessor Rollicking Flying Capers, one can see a general trend towards the situation today as so cleverly identified by you. At the start of Military Aviation tethered gas balloons were operated by one officer, two NCOs and some two dozen ORs. Later, aeroplanes appeared and were initially used for spotting duties, with a crew of one officer observer and his driver (or 'pilot' as they liked to be called). Technology moved on and higher performance machines vied for command of the air. Having only one seat these 'fighters' obviously had to be flown by an officer. With so many more junior officers a career path for those gaining promotion was obviously needed. In a masterstroke of lateral thinking the new ranks devised for the Air Service were cascaded downwards, so 'Flights' were no longer commanded by Flt Lts, but by Sqn Ldrs. Their Squadrons were now lead by Wg Cdrs, whose Wings were commanded by Grp Capts etc etc. Thus a pyramid was formed which promised to function as well as other schemes based on that particular geometry. Unfortunately, there was a temporary change to this situation in the 40s when, due to a certain amount of unpleasantness, there was a massive expansion to the RAF which could only be met by training NCO pilots. This obviously unsatisfactory effect was corrected shortly after that unpleasantness and the previous policy pursued with ever more vigour. The problem emerged that the base of the pyramid was now insufficient to sustain the increased number of posts above it, so that not only pilots and navigators were now commissioned, but new categories as well, such as AEO. This worked for a time but a more self sustaining long term solution was needed. With the so called 'Peace Dividend' the opportunity was there. Cuts were the order of the day. But these cuts were always announced and reported as reductions in numbers, not salaries. So by reducing the numbers of non commissioned personnel, the pyramid assumed an ever larger proportion of the RAF. The RAF News can now exclusively reveal that the logical culmination of this trend, stretching back as we have seen to the very beginnings of Air Power, will be a commissioned only RAF. As in the founding of an Independent Air Force, this country will lead the world again, in an officer only Air Force. As you will already have realised AC2 Blake, with your quick and intuitive grasp of the situation, there will therefore unfortunately not be a place for you in that new arrangement. So tomorrow, when I do the typing for JPA, I will be sending you your P45. Good luck to you in the future, one that I will be sharing, as I've just been told that I am redundant as well!

[ORAC]

The RAF News can now exclusively reveal that the logical culmination of this trend, stretching back as we have seen to the very beginnings of Air Power, will be a commissioned only RAF. Just catching up with the Scandihooligans... := :=

RNoAF (http://www.mil.no/luft/start/RNoAF/): Approximately 2100 employees, of which 1400 are officers, 60 are enlisted staff, 150 are civilians and 500 are serving their initial service.

[Kitbag]

Not bad numbers considering they support 108 aircraft

[Rigga]

I seem to remember this argument in the early 80's (before Pprune even) when we were compared to the efficiencies of the Israeli Air Force - I think they operated, at that time, with just five "Air Ranks".
Don't know how many they have now, but the sizes of our air forces are much closer!

Loved the bit about GC's not doing anything but drinking tea all day - It's a bit like pilots only popping out for a pointless hole-punch in the sky, just to keep the Fuel from going off! Never working early or late...and always home for Tea, medals and Blue Peter.

[Sospan]

Outside of Aircrew does anybody know the Officer/Other Rank ratio ?

[QFIhawkman]

Just catching up with the Scandihooligans... := :=

RNoAF (http://www.mil.no/luft/start/RNoAF/): Approximately 2100 employees, of which 1400 are officers, 60 are enlisted staff, 150 are civilians and 500 are serving their initial service.

That's just the peace force though. I worked with the RNoAF last year and it's actually quite frustrating. Every serviceman (or woman) that you meet is a Captain. The way it works is that if you join up as a full time career then you will automatically be an Officer. All "Other Ranks" are on a 2 year National service.
In addition, the Norwegians operate a mobilisation force of about 5000 troops. These are similar to our TA in that they train a couple of times a year but have normal jobs in peacetime. They too are all "other ranks". Seems a very odd system to me.

[QFIhawkman]

Outside of Aircrew does anybody know the Officer/Other Rank ratio ?

Current RAF Strength:

Officers (Aircrew) : 4,308
Officers (Other branches) : 6,558
Ground trades (Other ranks) : 40,623

So that makes the ratio roughly 4 OR's per officer if you count all officers, or 6 OR's to 1 officer if you leave aircrew aside.

[Mr Blake]

Dear Hansbwix,

Completely agree with all you say. We have never since the spat down south, faced a credible Air Force that could give us a bloody nose. Instead we have played support role to the USAF, under their considerable umbrella. If we had sufferred more than the expected attrition losses in both Gulf Wars, then maybe we would have maintained more assets. It is a sad fact of life that our perceived success has been our downfall, and we are at the level we are now.

Could we stand up and fight on our own now? Certainly not. IMHO we are weaker in comparitive terms to the period between the wars.

[Sospan]

Current RAF Strength:


So that makes the ratio roughly 4 OR's per officer if you count all officers, or 6 OR's to 1 officer if you leave aircrew aside.

Thats seems a far better ratio, considering all the officers at our newly names RAF HQ.

Here is another interesting stat for all you statos out there....for every 94 other ranks there is a Group Captain or above. I have seen flights that size.

[Chugalug2]

Until there is accountability for the damage done in the past, there will be no sanity applied to the future. Our political masters will not look to the health or defence of the nation - they will look to win the next election. Until we are invaded, bombed, tortured or killed there will be no urgency to provide the resources to maintain our defence capability.
Meltdown? Yes. Does anyone but us care? Answers on a postcard......
Great post HB, and much food for thought! Well, those who have posted to this thread presumably care, plus I suspect many others at all levels in the Chain of Command. Hopefully that would include many who were instrumental in the myriad improvements and rationalisations and now realise the damage that has been done, as a result, to discipline and morale. Never mind shiny kit, real or imagined. If experienced people of all skills and trades can't get to the door fast enough, we have trouble. The greatest asset in any military force is the morale of its personnel. Destroy that and you've lost everything.
What to do? Well, as that most despicable of relics from the past, an ex Cold War warrior, and peeping through the PPrune keyhole, my two penn'eth would be start by restoring the full powers of a subordinate commander, and reinstate a fully integrated Chain of Command. Every basic function of Morale, eg money, mail, meals, seems to be the responsibility of some set of cryptically initialled Quango. Give it all back to the only real commanders the RAF ever had, ie at Station, Wing and Squadron level, so that it can be made to work again. That way you get fully functioning bosses in charge of efficient and happy(!) units. What kit those units have, and what capability they therefore have, is indeed for our Lords and Masters to decide. Repelling invasions and liberating occupied territories may indeed remain beyond us, but what we can do we should continue doing well. That alone means massive reform, which will be costly. Perhaps some of the top heavy Staff should be culled both as reform and as a cost saving.

[Wyler]

Some real (depressing) food for thought on this thread.

I think a fitting example of the p!ss poor management of the RAF can be found at High Wycombe. One of the most expensive pieces of Real Estate in the country and the airships are busy shoe horning more and more people into it. The excess rent allowance alone must be close to 1 Million pounds a month. The airships reside in their huge residences, decorated at Public Expense by Mrs Airship, and play Lord and Master over their bloated staffs. Just a stones throw from the Ministry as well so they can nip 'into town' for lunch and drinks. This is the modern air force for you. Huge amounts of waste to keep 'The Few' in comfort and feed their self importance.

Their excuse? The bunker is a National Asset and cannot be closed. Bollox.

If the Prime Minister and the President of the USA can video conference reference the future of Iraq then the airships can move to a more affordable location, 'downsize' like the rest of us, and do the same regarding the latest movement of the one remaining serviceable combat aircraft.

Or maybe they do not want to be too far away from the Notting Hill Carnival and the Gay Pride March....all jolly good PR and spiffing on the old CV don't ya know.

It is a disgrace.

7 days to do and counting.

[Widger]

Wyler,

Crikey, I nearly spat my tea everywhere...well done, :D :D :D

[HeliAviator]

Dear RAF comrades, I joined the RAF back in April 1970, yes you read it right 1 9 7 0 ! More time in than most if not all of our leaders. I have left, joined the AAC, left rejoined the RAF and worked with the Navy and I now have 2 years to go. In this time I have slowly seen all three services, ethos, resources, funding, manpower and identity erroded. It is not just the RAF that is losing manpower faster than a femeral artery breech. Current recruiting is poor, and lets face it what young man/woman wishes to be sharing an un-airconditioned tent in Bas or Stan with incomming 18 months after signing on the line, and a new bod on the seat does not bring with him/her the experience and training that has just left dissatisfied with his/her lot. To play devils advocate, our Airships and other service heads of sheds are only doing what is required of them by our international statesman and professional politian Mr Bair. Lets face it rock the boat and forget the Knighthood, other awards and perks that come with the title. This Great but, very small country has to stop being the No1 Worlds policeman. Our Great and extremely professional armed forces need respite and space to catch their breath, get some leave and familly time in, and some well overdue respect for a job well done with ever diminishing resources. Let the other nations of NATO and the World take the strain for once and then let this country re-build what is today an overstretched, under paid, under valued and yet still the best, professional armed forces in the World. I am still proud of my service and the other two services, it pains me however, to see how the forces have changed for the worst over the 35 years in, however I will still be sad to hang up my flying helmet in two years time. Come on PM and Armed Forces Minister, it not to late, take your heads out of the sand, realise what is truley happening, and take action now please!

[glum]

Why would the PM care? He's already pulled the yellow and black, and is just waiting for the seat to go off.

As for time off and respite, it'll still be bloody rubbish when we get back. I don't think we need a break, we need more money spent on fixing what we do have to get it working as it sould.

Anyone flown Tristar recently? Seen the state of the carpets? And the fact there are ADF's for cabin light bulbs? (inability I'm told) How mad is that?

Carpets may not be an operational requirement, but they are the visible signs of the state of what lies beneath the skin...

[DuaneDibley]

Couldn’t agree more with the views expressed by Helivator and Glum which, by turn, give both comprehensive and crosshair views on the essence of the problem. The root of our woes lies with Helivator’s “Devil’s Advocate” position, regarding the top-level management’s spinal jaundice when it comes to rocking the boat (and risking the Knighthood/perks). “Careerists” know that progression beyond SO1 level does not happen to those who advise the emperor that his ar*e is hanging out. It’s much easier for such careerists to instead (in sage, sober and measured tones of course) dismiss the concerns from the workface as narrow-minded and “lacking the strategic and political overview”. Meanwhile, the relentless grind towards implosion and meltdown continues. How much of a disaster is required before the penny drops?

[Beeayeate]

It occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, the CAS and associated airships are keeping quiet on this whole issue because they were 'bought off' by the threat of losing the next tranche of the Typhoon.

:hmm: :E

[Chugalug2]

Bee, everything in your post including, and after, the word 'by' is surplus to requirements! The words bread, side and butter come to mind!

[bwfg3]

Did my resettlement brief today. I was shocked to hear that the 530 odd quid for courses has not changed since 1994. The AFPRB tried to raise it, but were told by the seatpolishers at the treasury that if it was put up... " we'll tax it mate" :\

[Rigga]

I left, having seen the Light, in 1999. I Joined as an Aiframe Mech in 1975. I consider that I have done reasonably well since leaving, though not as well as some, no doubt.
Not so long ago, at a large international airport just outside Amsterdam, I was completing a C of A survey by doing a physical inspection of a Fokker 100 belonging to a now sadly missed and defunct airline. As I walked to the aircraft the crew were relaxing, sitting outside the Fwd Door, in the airbridge. I announced who I was and what I was to do in the time between flights.
I was immediately ‘pounced’ upon by the Captain who ripped into me about the state of that aircraft’s interior and trim. After listening to him venting his spleen at me, the only engineering ‘authority’ he had seem for quite some time, and letting him get it all off his chest, I confirmed that the aircraft engines and systems were in a safe condition, and then quietly reminded him that the maintenance (that he required) used to be correctly done by swapping ship-sets at every heavy maintenance visit. It was his bosses (Operations) who ‘let the side down’ when instigating a cut to maintenance costs. (In hindsight we could call that a “Leaning” system.) Since then, only defective items were removed and repaired at the maintenance base, everything else being considered as "pointless".
This change in Philosophy not only meant that some jobs went out the company, but also meant that aircraft now left the hangars with “Green Lines” for cabin defects that couldn’t be fixed due to Turn-round times. Trim now came in “McGintys” colour variations instead of a single Batch of sprayed items, and not one Ship (in a fleet of 50+) had a working set of Seats, Tables, Galleys, Toilets or Windows.
I remember saying something very like this (as it was quite astute for me!):
“I agree that Paint, Trim, Carpets and Furnishings are the front face of our industry and airline, but, your bosses won’t pay for the maintenance consequences of the type of flying you do, and with all the good will in the world between operator and maintenance, if we won’t be paid for it - we can’t do it!”
First (fashionable) mistake - the Airline disassociated itself from the maintenance arm of its Company.
Then it tried to reduce the maintenance to little or nothing.
Then it tried to reduce operating costs again. with little support from maintenance or pilots, the end was nigh.
That airline ceased to be within two years of that instance.
After losing the contract to maintain sucessor operators, the Engineering Company turned to other customers and remains quite well to this day. But then, I am informed that in the main it was that MRO that regularly made operating profits, not the airline?
Just an 'interesting' story of an airline, more interested in cutting costs than paying for what it wanted to do.
Might seem familiar to you.

[MooseJaw]

Agree with all the sentiments - RAF has big rep for doing more with less - although admiration of other Forces sometimes turns more into bemusement and doubts over our sanity/wisdom!
But there's more than one way to flog a willing horse - we do the same to the aircraft. Helo's and - love it or hate it - C-17 deliver the goods but are piling on the hours fast. Seems in today's RAF reliable high performance is increasingly a cause for self-inflicted injury! :uhoh:

[HansBwix]

Some real (depressing) food for thought on this thread.

I think a fitting example of the p!ss poor management of the RAF can be found at High Wycombe. One of the most expensive pieces of Real Estate in the country and the airships are busy shoe horning more and more people into it. The excess rent allowance alone must be close to 1 Million pounds a month. The airships reside in their huge residences, decorated at Public Expense by Mrs Airship, and play Lord and Master over their bloated staffs. Just a stones throw from the Ministry as well so they can nip 'into town' for lunch and drinks. This is the modern air force for you. Huge amounts of waste to keep 'The Few' in comfort and feed their self importance.

Their excuse? The bunker is a National Asset and cannot be closed. Bollox.

If the Prime Minister and the President of the USA can video conference reference the future of Iraq then the airships can move to a more affordable location, 'downsize' like the rest of us, and do the same regarding the latest movement of the one remaining serviceable combat aircraft.

.


Wyler - there's a nice empty bunker going near Norwich that nobody wants anymore.........

Which reminsds me of a certain sketch from Yes Minister discussing the movement of the Armed Forces to the North to encourage employmet with the tagline along the lines of 'We couldn't possibly move up there - the Wives wouldn't stand for it for one thing.....' funny how something from the mid Eighties rings so true in the mid Noughties.

Took me a while to get back on the PP after my last post - for some reason it kept kicking me out. Coincidence or something sinister?

Now I'm off to tap in some PIs about Morale.........does anyone think I can get way with just putting a hyperlink into this thread on there instead?!

:ok:

[Wyler]

Wyler - there's a nice empty bunker going near Norwich that nobody wants anymore.........


Nope, they would all want 6 bedroom houses on the river, complete with cruiser. Plus the fact that Polish seems to be the language of choice around Wroxham way these days!!

How about Dartmoor?

[HansBwix]

Well, Dartmoor does have a very convenient prison for those charged with gross incompetence - and you can throw the BAe guys under investigation from the SFO in there with them.

Unfortunately being that close to a live firing range it would be a bit too tempting to let a few rounds go astray............

Perhaps we should take some lessons from our old adersary in Argentina and literally decimate the starred officer corps - their president decided there were too many generals and not enough troops so got rid of most of the generals! Oh well, when I'm ArchGeneralissima all this will change.:E

[L1A2 discharged]

Ah well, the straw that broke the camels back arrived.

NGR submitted, into resettlement mode.

Just one fewer number to count ..

[flipster]

Going back a page, I could not help but be impressed with the term "spinal jaundice". A more apt description of our Airships' leadership-style I have yet to hear!

Bravo DuaneDibley!:D :D

[HeliAviator]

Today was one of those days when I almost threw in the towel. I have been in the mob for many, many years, I have 18 months to go before the big pension pay out and I v. nearly reached for the PVR paperwork.

1. Went to flying clothing for simple things like aircrew socks...due out, nil stock til' at least the end of Feb, along with roll necks.
2. On the way back a junior scrote decided to look the other way just to save the wave. Managed to vent my considerable spleen on his quivering frame to produce a "sorry Sir". Honestly its not difficault is it.
3. Had to deal with the "chimps" at CHBS for a group booking, steady blood pressure, after all they are here to help - NOT.
4. Tried to book a room in the mess at Wittering. Some dim witted bint tells me that they only book three weeks ahead and as I want accommodation in January it can't be done yet.
5. Entered my expenses into JPA fot a recent works trip abroad, obviously I can't be trusted as they wish to audit my receipts.
6. Tried to plan the flying program for Monday, great difficulty as a not many staff available, amazingly we have more aircraft than available crew to fly them for once.
7. Attempted to send a fax to a nameless RAF Sgt's mess, phoned to say I was about to send it, please ensure the machine was set to receive. Eight attempts later after the phone was picked up three time and allowed to ring for a further five I gave up. and went for my first cuppa of the day at 1410. Yes, didn't have time for lunch either.
8. Knocked off at 5pm today, any early finish for once. Noticed that the boss and all the adults had left and locked up some hours before. Enjoy the long weekend chaps.
9. Drove off the camp to see some muppet of a mod plod with a bunting (misspelt on purpose) speed camera, luckily I was under the limit, although I was probably the last one to leave the place.
10. Thank **** its Friday, a large slice of pizza and a couple of Corona's later all is slightly better in the world. But, what the be jazus is happening to the mob? Its almost impossible today to achive the square root of naff all, due to inability, inaction, damn right thick juniors and a total I don't give a fat dogs fart by all in sundry.

Rant over, spleen cleaned, roll on pension day, it can't arrive quick enough. :}

[ZOFO]

HeliAviator,

Saw your last post and have to agree with you, Point 7, Your really should have brought the fax to your local "Tape Apes" at the Commcen, If of course you have one where you are!! We would be more than happy to help. Well for the time being anyway!! (DII=TCW for us all) Go on take away that last bit of Local Knowledge and put it all in a call centre in Jockland. Also Point 2, I agree with you I have dished out and received many a good Roll:mad: ing with regards to what you say, it would seem that the service is losing alot of the basic standards that you would expect with what is supposed to be a disciplined service, It is lucky that I did not catch this young man or he would be peeling spuds in the cookhouse!!, but I suppose now I would be done under the human rights act as he may have a spud allergy..... I could go on but why bother it would seem there is no room for old value farts like me nowadays so guess what I am leaving and letting the ones that stay deal with the chav's of today

ciao !!:)

[enginesuck]

Heli aviator and for that matter ZOFO, wind your funkin necks in, I cant imagine the stress of finishing work at 5pm aaww bless, but seriously labelling juniors as thick is why you funking grow bag master race have a bad name remember in fifteen years you are defunct, goodnight bawbags:ugh:

[ZOFO]

enginesuck

Nice post thanks, As for "growbag" Me certainly not, nice to see you read the posts before going off on one Mine may have given you a clue of what trade I am :) , I am pretty sure there is a drill for the 9mm about clearing when you think it may be made ready (Don't quote me but wasn't it Half Cocked/Half Baked or Check before you fire" Can't remember now!!

[jayteeto]

Interesting to read this, and other, threads. In the past, people have always moaned and 'threatened' to PVR. It seems that they now are actually doing it. I wonder what the real figures are??

[Bluntend]

Having left the RAF it is a shame to see how bad things have got back home. The one thing that really seems to have died is respect - respect for your superiors, subordinates and even self respect. There was once a time when (most) officers at all levels repected the skills and abilities of those junior to them - not now it seems. We refer to scrotes, muppets and bints and wonder why we get no respect in return. Likewise, there appear to be too many in support roles who simply cannot be arrsed to do their job to the standard required which unfortunately has lead to those who do still take a pride in their work being tarred with the same brush.

Nobody really cares about anybody else's problems except their own - that feeling that we're all part of one big RAF family is long gone. I never thought I'd be glad to have left.

:(

[Bluntend]

You leave the RAF, become a civilian and go through the whole migration process to your country of choice. As it happens both the RAAF and the RNZAF are actively recruiting.

Reason for doing so? It has to be the quality of life for you and your family.

Cheers

Just to add a little to NLH's post, the RNZAF have made some real headway in their overseas recruiting process which is centred firmly around quality of life for the servicemen and all their dependents. In the past the RNZAF have failed to adequately prepare and support overseas recruits and their families which has resulted in some returning to the UK. The Airforce, however, has learnt from these earlier failures and the welfare package they now offer is superb. Families are given every bit of support they might need, be it with regards to schooling, welfare, finance, careers, culture, accommodation even info on pet care and local vetinary services.

Because of the cost to the RNZAF of bringing people in from overseas, failure is a major setback. Therefore everybody from the CAF down goes out of their way to ensure new recruits (and their families) feel as welcome and as valued as possible.

I can't help but wonder how the RAF would have tackled a similar project and how new recruits from NZ or Aus would be treated or for that matter, how long they would stay.

[Chugalug2]

"Nobody really cares about anybody else's problems except their own - that feeling that we're all part of one big RAF family is long gone. I never thought I'd be glad to have left."
My thoughts entirely Bluntend! Reading the various posts on this thread leaves me feeling that many reveal more about the authors than the subject of their post. Whether those serving who post to Pprune are representative of those serving in general I rather doubt, but to those who are forever counting years/months/days in public, please stop to reflect that you may have an attitude problem. Until you do leave you are part of the same RAF that others share with you. If its all crap then try to make your bit of it a little less so, if you are an officer or NCO you have a duty to lead, not going around chewing out subordinates simply because you can. Pick on someone your own size, ie their officer or even your superiors. This whole scenario is unbecoming of a Service that has a proud past, and is an indictment of its Commanders. I have been critical elsewhere of the CAS and other senior members of the Air Staff. That is where responsibility lies for the military effectiveness of the RAF. But that does not mean, Ladies and Gentlemen, that you have Carte Blanche to turn on one another like rats in a trap. As Bluntend says, have some respect, both for yourselves and for each other! Who the hell am I, a bloody Tax Payer, that's who! Oh, and long long ago I also PVR'd and worked the same until my release date, I suggest some of you just try to do that.

[Pontius Navigator]

chewing out subordinates simply because you can. Pick on someone your own size, ie their officer or even your superiors.


Whilst true the facts in the real world (brave new world0 are a little different.

One station commander insisted that all visiting aircraft be met by an officer of equal rank and the CO himself for gp capt and above.

This meant that the orderly officer might meet a fair number of aircraft in a day so his job that day was OO and it was not an after hours role. This meant that any visiting aircrew were met abd cared for by someone who could deal with their problems according to their rank and status.

It used to be normal for cross communication to deal at the same rank - sqn ldr - sqn ldr etc where anything was not routine.

At another station, if you were the 'receptionist', and you might be a flt lt, the answer was never 'no' but 'yes' how can we help.

Leaning might seem to work at the core task but it is peripherals and quality of life issues that get pushed to one side. I just received a report, 2 years old, that the appropriate SOs had not even looked at; had we got it we might (but probably not) have avoided an aircraft crash.

Chewing out, just because you can, is a symptom that needs to be addressed.

[RETDPI]

In the mid '70's as a Junior Officer Flight Commander posted to a Station in RAFG I dropped in to see the SWO and introduce myself.
Surprisingly, he admitted to being a bit gobsmacked and then went on to tell me that was the first time on his current tour that any officer had thought to paid him this courtesy.
However what was not surprising to me was how many times over the following months, usually on a Monday morning, I would get a quiet phone call from the SWO recalling the latest misadventures of members of my "tribe". The usual suggested arrangement then of course being for the matter to be handled internally. Thus the near exemplary conduct record of my section was maintained and the "heavies" kept off of my back.
My point is that the family atmosphere of the Service was obviously starting to rot even then. One must I think though always remember that the Armed Forces generally reflect the societies they serve and thus will take on many of the problems.
Therefore in my case PVR was also partly driven by a rejection of the way the U.K. was going. I therefore joined the rising numbers of those also getting out of a country whose traditional cultural values are being remorselessly undermined and abandoned by those in support of other agendas.

[allan907]

This all sounds quite depressing and is not the RAF that I PVRd from in May 93to come out to Oz.

I vacated a gapped OC Admin post and on the last minute of the last hour of my very last day, lugging my bag of bits and bobs from my office drawer, I stopped in the foyer of SHQ and was sorting out a mates allowances problem before Harry Staish walked past and told me to **** off as there was a limit to "duty" and I had done enough!

Still don't miss it though.

[Chugalug2]

Chewing out, just because you can, is a symptom that needs to be addressed.

Absolutely right, PN. Beneath this thread, and others, seems to run a thread of its own, ie that of endemic bullying at all levels. Nothing is more certain to destroy morale and discipline. To my mind it is fundamentally the issue behind the "Chinook" affair above, on which I still appear to be "tail-end Charlie". That some of those who join the Services from our benighted educational system are imbued with all its nuances I have no doubt. That they are not summarily disabused of them in training, but allowed to go on practising the art form to the highest levels of command is not only unacceptable, but truly shocking. If it is true, then my condemnation on the Chinook thread extends to this one, shame on you RAF!

[Bluntend]

...I therefore joined the rising numbers of those also getting out of a country whose traditional cultural values are being remorselessly undermined and abandoned by those in support of other agendas.

Ditto here, hence the move down under. It seems there has been quite an exodus, not just from the Service but from the country as a whole. Sad really when you consider that most of us joined up not just for the pay but to actually serve a country we are now more than happy to abandon to its fate.

One thing I find indicative of the rapid demise in the RAF is not just the number of people submitting their PVR paperwork but those who are so keen to get out they are leaving a couple of years ahead of an option point. For all intents and purposes, these people are paying to get out of the mob.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Chewing out, just because you can, is a symptom that needs to be addressed.

Fully agree with you. There seems to be far to much passing the buck when when things go wrong when lack of leadership/information is one of the main reasons mistakes happen.

A very young SAC MT driver at a certain North Hampshire helicopter unit was recently charged for turning up at a uniform check parade late, even though the lad in question turned up at the time proclaimed by the many posters around the section, of which he managed to get a copy. A word-of-mouth change to times had been made but unfortunately the chap was away at the time.

The hearing officer advised him before the charge was read not to bother fighting it as it would just make things worse, surly not the correct procedure for such things?

Ahhh, Odious, the unit that just loves to charge. (But then again you don't even have to be charged at Odious to find one of your personnel sweeping-up on SWO's gang, great use of highly qualified personnel if ever there was one. Wonder how come LEAN has never picked it up?)

[The Helpful Stacker]

Touched a raw nerve there? Good to see that your command of the English lanuage is poor to gusting little command. I presume that you are either a junior of senior rank, though to be honest if you are a senior, how on earht did you make it this far? It's the lack of disipline that you obviously embrace that only drives home the death nail of rot, errosion of standards and ethos of the RAF, at all levels. OK, I take your not particulary eliquent point of call, for implying that juniors are "thick" and I retract this as it was printed whilst feeling particularly frustrated with those juniors I unfortunately had to deal with during the day. However, it is particularly disappointing to deal with the more junior memers of our force who constantly day in and day out, display a complete lack of care, awareness, logical thought and respect for service and the Queen. The act of saluting (for instance) is not as a mark of respect to me but to acknowledge the Queens Commsion. I have worked through the ranks to attain my commision, and at no point did I feel that I was belittling myself to pay the required respect. In fact as a junior and senior rank I used to go out of my way ensure that any officer I came into contact with, had to return my excemplary salute. Yes, I am old school but, I embrace modern practice and I am proud the RAF, and of the other services too, though daily I find that the services and those serving in it, particularly the RAF are loosing the plot. :ugh:

I fully accept that the commission you hold and the Queen which it represents should be acknowledged by personnel and am actually shocked to find an officer who is complaining about 'them' not being saluted!!

As for 'junior personnel' having a lack of interest/awareness in their work, if you (as in the RAF as a whole) treat your workers like idiots then don't be surprised when they act like it or have no real passion for what they are doing.

The continual eroding of the 'perks' of RAF service has I believe meant that many see their service as 'just a job'.

The days of being 'knocked off early for sports' by line managers on quiet days (not that we have many quiet days anymore) have gone because line managers are terrified of making decisions concerning their personnel in case they have to justify it to someone, so the troops are invariably just left staring at the wall until the shift ends. A very minor matter but one of the many straws on the camel's back.

Then of course there is pay.

In the civil sector 'Logistics' is a huge growth industry, with even the experience of a humble stacker in SCAF commanding quite reasonable wages as a Logistics Controller or Warehouse Supervisor. Backed up by a few resettlement courses such as NEBOSH and basic starting wages are starting to hit the 42k mark, small change for an airline pilot but a lot more than the 18k an average SAC supplier is making. But of course part of the system for deciding pay in the RAF if that you are paid an equivalent wage to an equivalent civvy street profession. Which is why Cpl/Sgt stackers who maintain and administer unit supply IT systems as an additional duty to their main duties are still on the lower pay band. Is it any wonder 16 Sgt suppliers have recently turned down their promotion to FSgt as they're heading for the door?

Of course techies are right to say "but if stackers were on the higher pay band it makes a joke of the training we've done", but as long as service pay fails to reflect civilian pay by a long shot the slide towards the door by the experienced personnel will continue and you'll be left with the inexperienced and uninterested ones

Anyway, just a penny worth from me.

[Chugalug2]

A very young SAC MT driver at a certain North Hampshire helicopter unit was recently charged for turning up at a uniform check parade late, even though the lad in question turned up at the time proclaimed by the many posters around the section, of which he managed to get a copy. A word-of-mouth change to times had been made but unfortunately the chap was away at the time.

The hearing officer advised him before the charge was read not to bother fighting it as it would just make things worse, surly not the correct procedure for such things?


Well of course you are right HS, and every NCO and Officer in the Chain of Command above this young man's very lowly level has a duty, I repeat, has a duty to ensure that such summary proceedings are conducted correctly. If he develops a sense of gross injustice at the very start of his service he will carry a chip on his shoulder throughout his career. I rather suspect that this story is only too typical and accounts for much of the attitude abounding on Goat etc. So those concerned and aware of this incident should start the ball rolling. Summary justice, no matter how trivial, is subject to review by a superior officer. Go to that superior officer and express your concerns. Suggest that the evidence that would have "made things worse", should now be taken into account. It might then be possible to quash the Charge and have it removed from his record. If not it is always open to the airman himself to put in for a redress of grievance, that would be his decision. All too much bother, making mountains out of molehills? The trouble is that all the molehills are now heaped on each other into a gigantic mountain threatening to become the biggest landslide ever. My advice is for anyone concerned to get a shovel and start digging now!

[allan907]

Touched a raw nerve there? Good to see that your command of the English lanuage language is poor to gusting ?? little command. I presume that you are either a junior of senior rank, though to be honest if you are a senior, how on earht earthdid you make it this far? It's the lack of disipline discipline that you obviously embrace that only drives home the death nail of rot, errosion erosion of standards and ethos of the RAF, at all levels. OK, I take your not particulary particularly eliquent eloquent point of call, for implying that juniors are "thick" and I retract this as it was printed whilst feeling particularly frustrated with those juniors I unfortunately had to deal with during the day. However, it is particularly disappointing to deal with the more junior memers members of our force who constantly day in and day out, display a complete lack of care, awareness, logical thought and respect for service and the Queen. The act of saluting (for instance) is not as a mark of respect to me but to acknowledge the Queens Commsion Commission I have worked through the ranks to attain my commision commission, and at no point did I feel that I was belittling myself to pay the required respect. In fact as a junior and senior rank I used to go out of my way ensure that any officer I came into contact with, had to return my excemplary exemplary salute. Yes, I am old school but, I embrace modern practice and I am proud the RAF, and of the other services too, though daily I find that the services and those serving in it, particularly the RAF are loosing losing the plot.

Anybody who berates someone else on their incorrect use of the English language and turns in a piece of work like this deserves to be publicly flogged! := And I haven't even bothered with punctuation and composition!

[glum]

In the last week, I've chatted to a dozen SAC techs, and at least 50% are waiting for replies from civilian companies having submitted their CV.

They see no future in the service, no let up to the time going East, and no improvement to their working conditions. The pension holding so many SNCO's in is too far off to be any pull at all, and when there are no perks that interest them, the pro's list is completely obliterated by the cons.

Time off for sport, global travel, expeditions, further training, respect, loyalty and all those other extra's we used to benefit from all seem to have melted away over the years and it is a sad fact that more than ever the RAF is viewed by the junior ranks as a job like any other, with less and less reason to put up with the bad postings cuz a good one was just round the corner.

Trouble is, what is the answer?

Cut more manpower as has just happened at several bases over the last few months?

Fight more wars with less people and older equiment?

Change the pension scheme so it only benefits those that die early or serve until 55?

Close 90% of the foreign bases and all but scrap accompanied tours?

Change the terminology and administration systems every couple of years so no-one really has a clue what's going on?

Introduce under-developed IT systems which are awkward and confusing to use so you can scrap the Admin staff, leaving expensively trained personal to waste hours trying to carry out tasks which had always been efficiently dealt with by proffessionals?

I won't go on...:suspect:

[Pontius Navigator]

In the civil sector 'Logistics' is a huge growth industry, with even the experience of a humble stacker in SCAF commanding quite reasonable wages as a Logistics Controller or Warehouse Supervisor. Backed up by a few resettlement courses such as NEBOSH and basic starting wages are starting to hit the 42k mark, small change for an airline pilot but a lot more than the 18k an average SAC supplier is making.

Indeed. An SAC supplier left the secret airbase where I worked and got a job with a national company based in our nearby county town. My daughter worked there too and put 2 and 2 together.

I knew the supplier by sight but not by name as he was only a casual worker in the WOC; the Logs desk was normally manned by Cpls.

I'm pleased to say that he did not b*tch about me. I try and treat people as capable and competent bearing in mind that every man jack and jill of them was a volunteer.

[paddyfactor]

Fast approaching my 12 yr exit date and easy jet street is looking like a good option RAF pension or nay. Find myself continually frustarted by poor operational set up ( has anyone been to Ops at the 'DeeD'), engineering overstretch 4 x Js and engineering staff closer to 12 than the previously suggested 16. Walk rounds have never been so important hatches open all over the place. Even on important casevacs patients are left ebbing away in the back of aircraft while vital documents are lost or even more frustrating no one pitches up to rush them to medi care. All this in our more evolved arena never mind the NW frontier soldiers grave yard. The apathy of every one around you frustrates even the most mundane of tasks.

Still according to the grand fromage McNicoll?? on a recent BBC cover he is "quite content" with the RAF transport fleet and its poor engineering and general support, VC 10s with daylight showing through the cracks and pilots jumping ship at the first opportunity. How nice Im pleased for him, no doubt he'll be knighted soon or off on a pointless senior officers exchange to Washington. Meanwhile even our Copilots are doing their liciences or trying to get instructional tours away from the sandy areas.

Still musnt grumble. How about a nice weekend at the RAF club? Apparently not, still full as it has been every time Ive asked the entirely unhelpfull staff for the past 5 years. Just as well as apparently i cant take my children there anyway! ( no under 5s allowed). I shall be cancelling my membership forthwith. As an aside our RAAF exchange pilot did manage to get in recently with his wife only for her to be refused entry at breakfast for wearing jeans! Thats how we host our allies is it?

Now where is that easy jet recruitment site.

[Pontius Navigator]

How about a nice weekend at the RAF club? Apparently not, still full as it has been every time Ive asked the entirely unhelpfull staff for the past 5 years. Just as well as apparently i cant take my children there anyway! ( no under 5s allowed). I shall be cancelling my membership forthwith. As an aside our RAAF exchange pilot did manage to get in recently with his wife only for her to be refused entry at breakfast for wearing jeans! Thats how we host our allies is it?

Agree that is frustrating but there is a way to play the game.

You can book up to 3 months in advance and cancel at 24 hrs notice.

Jeans is unfortunate.

I must admit to be cheesed off by the number of visitors who use the RAF Club as exchange members. Compared with the price of accommodation, if any, at the overseas clubs the RAF Club is a bargain.

We had an incident in August. Booked tea for 8 at 5pm. At 4.45 I confirmed the order to be told tea was off. NO IT ISN'T I said, we booked weeks ago and Mrs PN spoke with the manager.

Tea duly arrived, piles of sarnis, cakes, fresh baked scones and all for about £5.50 a head. At least the message had been received.

[Raymond Ginardon]

Quote: "Just as well as apparently i cant take my children there anyway! ( no under 5s allowed)."

Each to their own - for me that's a reason to keep my membership.

Ray

[Melchett01]

Still musnt grumble. How about a nice weekend at the RAF club? Apparently not, still full as it has been every time Ive asked the entirely unhelpfull staff for the past 5 years.

Not been able to get in for years - I think the last time was at some point before TELIC. Keep getting told to book nice and early to avoid being disappointed - keep telling them I don't know if I will be in the UK next week let alone be in town one weekend in 3 months time. Doesn't seem to bother them though as all the retired members and senior officers are happy. In fact, they're already taking bookings for the Olympics, so everything is just right with their booking system.

Yet another chip off the quality of life block for those at the coal face. Maybe I will cancel my membership now and re-open it when I retire.

[flipster]

paddy,

Try this

http://www.easyjet.com/EN/Jobs/Pilot/index.html

Good decision!

Flip

[BEagle]

"One station commander insisted that all visiting aircraft be met by an officer of equal rank and the CO himself for gp capt and above."

That had to have been the PCL himself at RAF Leeming in around 1974?
(PCL - Power Crazed Loonie. Always wore an orange flying suit. JMAP - later met his maker in a LearJet crash somewhere off the west coast of Scotland, I believe?)

For years Leeming had that stupid "Visiting aircraft are to advise if officers of the rank of Gp Capt or above are onboard" nonsense in the RMKS section of the BINA. We always advised (since it didn't specify LANDING visiting aircraft) that we had 'n' POB - and no Group Captains - when asked for POB by ATC on a PD.....

As for the RAF Club, it was very helpful indeed when I stayed for a couple of nights earlier this year. I was allowed to check in early and had a nice, cool room when it was blazing hot outside. Only complaint I would have is that the food service finishes stupidly early in the Running Horse.

And it's blissful without rug rats. Long may it continue to ban the little beggars!!

[vecvechookattack]

As an aside our RAAF exchange pilot did manage to get in recently with his wife only for her to be refused entry at breakfast for wearing jeans! Thats how we host our allies is it?Someone should have warned her prior to her getting there. However, surely she must have realised that if you are not allowed to wear Jeans in the mess then jeans in the Club would also0 be a No/No

[insty66]

There can't be much wrong with the RAF if the dress standards in the RAF Club are the most you have to moan about!:\

http://www.rafclub.org.uk/members.raf

[Pontius Navigator]

BEags, no, not Leeming. I seem to recall it was fairly common. It could have been ISK or Boots at Waddo.

[paddyfactor]

There can't be much wrong with the RAF if the dress standards in the RAF Club are the most you have to moan about!:\

http://www.rafclub.org.uk/members.raf

Have to say that I find it slightly bizarre, but perhaps indicative of the type of people posting here, that this trivial aside is what people have decided to comment on. The poor lad who nearly died down the back of my aircraft was dressed in a trauma suit have any of you old club cronies seen one of those recently? You probably wouldnt approve it doesnt HAVE COLLARS! And as for Mr " there cant be much wrong with the RAF ", dress standards have never been something ive moaned about. Lack of ESF yes, poor ops support ( your own branch me thinks ) yes, streched engineering support yes, glib politico senior officers maybe, your fatuous ill thought out little posting quite probably. Are you the type of blunty who complains about flying suits in your bar? mmmmm I wonder.

[Flying_Scotsman]

I was refused breakfast one Sunday for wearing a cravat which, apparently, didn't constitute a tie as required by the rules! That was in the days when officers wore cravats, of course.

[enginesuck]

Paddyfactor, I have to agree with yourr last post - how can a thread discussing serious issues affecting us all be hijacked by some tossers, discussing the dress code at the RAF club ?? I think it is actually indicitve of the problem of todays RAF :ugh:

[insty66]

Have to say that I find it slightly bizarre, but perhaps indicative of the type of people posting here, that this trivial aside is what people have decided to comment on. The poor lad who nearly died down the back of my aircraft was dressed in a trauma suit have any of you old club cronies seen one of those recently? You probably wouldnt approve it doesnt HAVE COLLARS! And as for Mr " there cant be much wrong with the RAF ", dress standards have never been something ive moaned about. Lack of ESF yes, poor ops support ( your own branch me thinks ) yes, streched engineering support yes, glib politico senior officers maybe, your fatuous ill thought out little posting quite probably. Are you the type of blunty who complains about flying suits in your bar? mmmmm I wonder.
I think you misundertood my post!
I agree with all you say about lack of support for [I]all[I].
Or were you agreeing with me, that the last of our concerns should be dress standards at the RAF Club?
In that case I misunderstood your post:}

[TMJ]

The days of being 'knocked off early for sports' by line managers on quiet days (not that we have many quiet days anymore) have gone because line managers are terrified of making decisions concerning their personnel in case they have to justify it to someone, so the troops are invariably just left staring at the wall until the shift ends. A very minor matter but one of the many straws on the camel's back.

Not entirely gone. As much as everyone complains about Lean, having made some of my flt's bays more efficient we can do more work with fewer people and still get people down to the gym... Of course it helps that our Staish has consistantly rammed home to everyone that "fun" is high on his list of prorities.

[fireinthehole]

Fully agree with you. There seems to be far to much passing the buck when when things go wrong when lack of leadership/information is one of the main reasons mistakes happen.

A very young SAC MT driver at a certain North Hampshire helicopter unit was recently charged for turning up at a uniform check parade late, even though the lad in question turned up at the time proclaimed by the many posters around the section, of which he managed to get a copy. A word-of-mouth change to times had been made but unfortunately the chap was away at the time.

The hearing officer advised him before the charge was read not to bother fighting it as it would just make things worse, surly not the correct procedure for such things?

Ahhh, Odious, the unit that just loves to charge. (But then again you don't even have to be charged at Odious to find one of your personnel sweeping-up on SWO's gang, great use of highly qualified personnel if ever there was one. Wonder how come LEAN has never picked it up?)


Hello all, I am newly registered here but have been reading posts for a few weeks now. I had to write a post about this particular quote.

Being a member of the above 'wonderful' unit, I am appalled at the actions of the said section. I know of the charge (it happened while I was away). I am going to find out tomorrow, the circumstances of how this happened. The thing I am worried about is the 'seniors' closing ranks and myself ending up in the poo. I know this would happen because I myself am having some problems and I am a JNCO. There is nowhere to turn. This has to be THE worst unit I have ever been to. I can't believe it. The morale is AWFUL and its clear to see why yet no one will do anything about it!

[pvr not dwr]

Not entirely gone. As much as everyone complains about Lean, having made some of my flt's bays more efficient we can do more work with fewer people and still get people down to the gym... Of course it helps that our Staish has consistantly rammed home to everyone that "fun" is high on his list of prorities.


So why do we have to wait for everything to be sent from the swamp? what work are you actually doing apart from sending things away????? One only has to look across the airfield at the "Fun Station" to see the effects of Lean 16/17 kites used to be the order of the day but it's been the effect of Lean to see 6/7 everyday. Go into any Rects and explain to me why you are going to the gym when all I can see is awaiting spares and my guys are "robbing" mad working longer so you can work fitter. :ok:

Love to see a direct comparision between the PVR rates of the "cushy life" in the bays and the real world. Not havin a go at you rather the half arsssed Lean events that have crippled spares.

[Samuel]

"The hearing officer advised him before the charge was read not to bother fighting it as it would just make things worse, surly not the correct procedure for such things"?


Absolutely not. If an injustice is being done, and it appears that way if what has been posted is correct, then why can't one or more of the many serving officers on Prune find out the facts and intervene? Aren't you all on the same team?

[Twonston Pickle]

Speaking with P1 experience, said airman should appeal against the charge on the grounds that the correct procedures were not carried out. Examples like this only provide more ammunition to those who say summary justice has come to its end.

[fireinthehole]

Hi again,

Made some enquiries and the 'facts' stated on here are not entirely true. The young man in question was indeed late.

[fireinthehole]

Sorry for the short reply but i wasn't sure if i was allowed to post on here :uhoh: :confused:

[TrenchardsLoveSock]

Hi again,

Made some enquiries and the 'facts' stated on here are not entirely true. The young man in question was indeed late.

Yes, as I understand it he was late for the revised but not well publicised parade. He seems to have been on time for the parade as was before he went away.

Can we charge people for not being psychic?

[fireinthehole]

The reliable source confirmed that he was late for the parade. The parade wasn't brought forward he was just late. However, someone somewhere obviously has a different view and we all know what happens with chinese whispers....things change. It is worrying though if the SAC who was charged was told 'not to take it further as it won't help'. Surely thats not the right thing to advise???!!!???

[Rigga]

TSL said:
"Can we charge people for not being psychic?"

Only in Hindsight!

IMO this is all hearsay and can't be proven one way or the other - and...

Why are you discussing it here?

Go somewhere else or start a new Forum/thread!
(e.g. Barrackroom Lawyers - free useless advice offered)

[fireinthehole]

It was being discussed here as this was the place it was mentioned :O

[nigegilb]

I remember back in the late 1980's when an SAC, at a secret airbase in Oxon, was charged for using a multi-point socket in his accommodation, contrary to SRO's, by an over-zealous officer who knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. The SAC was found guilty of this heinous crime and duly punished.

There were lots of people leaving in those days too......and morale was terrible.

[Yozzer]

The hearing officer advised him before the charge was read not to bother fighting it as it would just make things worse, surly not the correct procedure for such things

I stood on principle once, and had a letter from a solicitor advising a Wg Cdr of the error of his ways. I won the case in question and he positively destroyed my career in the following three years OJARs. High Rec to LTBF for example.

The above advice is a disgrace, but may well be reality. Especially if the advisor knew what (token) punishment was being proposed. What punishment was given?

[fireinthehole]

I stood on principle once, and had a letter from a solicitor advising a Wg Cdr of the error of his ways. I won the case in question and he positively destroyed my career in the following three years OJARs. High Rec to LTBF for example.

The above advice is a disgrace, but may well be reality. Especially if the advisor knew what (token) punishment was being proposed. What punishment was given?


As far as I am aware he got 7 days Jankers.

[Chugalug2]

IMO this is all hearsay and can't be proven one way or the other - and...
Why are you discussing it here?
Go somewhere else or start a new Forum/thread!
(e.g. Barrackroom Lawyers - free useless advice offered)

The reason why this case, rightly or wrongly, is being discussed is because it was instanced as an example of lack of leadership. I would say that whatever the facts of the case it seems to meet that criteria. Even, or perhaps especially, military justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. Here, on the face of it, is a case where it wasn't, if the cynical advice quoted was in fact given. This thread is entitled "RAF meltdown - Has it begun?". The posts relating to this story may not answer that question, but if the simple answer to that question is yes, they may well indicate why!

[HOODED]

Chugalug2, agreed however, to get back on track and on just as serious a note is it really true that aircraft availability is actually falling due to lean etc? Is Robbing, or should that be canibalisation, now endemic due to a lack of even basic spares? Is the huge numbers of engineers recently made redundant not having a positive effect on ac availability as it was stated it would? Time between maintenance increases surely means more jets for the two winged master race to play with and not more knackered jets grounded due to lack of spares and experienced engineers to fix them? Discuss!:hmm:

[Bid40]

When we can't even get the simple things like nuts, bolts, washers and clamps etc without having to put in state demands we have no hope of making flying programs and keeping aircraft in the air do we:ugh:

[Safety_Helmut]

Is the huge numbers of engineers recently made redundant not having a positive effect on ac availability as it was stated it would?
Engines running crew changeovers on Tornado anyone ?

S_H

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug2, agreed however, to get back on track and on just as serious a note is it really true that aircraft availability is actually falling due to lean etc? Is Robbing, or should that be canibalisation, now endemic due to a lack of even basic spares? Is the huge numbers of engineers recently made redundant not having a positive effect on ac availability as it was stated it would? Time between maintenance increases surely means more jets for the two winged master race to play with and not more knackered jets grounded due to lack of spares and experienced engineers to fix them? Discuss!:hmm:

HOODED, agreed however.....! How much of the above is driven by policy, and how much by its unforeseen effects? Not having a Babel fish handy, and not doing "Newspeak", I've no idea what "Lean" is, unless it be a new boy band? Would the gentlemen of the press please take a note of that question? I suspect it is all part of the bean counters vocab, and like the rest of their inventory, it is merely gobbledygook for cuts!
It seems from a distance as though the RAF, and for that matter the Armed Forces as a whole, are caught in a chain reaction of reductio ad absurdum. It reminds me of a friend who passed his annual medical year after year, with a well done each time from the MO for the steady weight loss he had achieved . It was only after other symptoms kicked in that the MO realised that what he was enthusing over was some wasting disease!
So indeed all the points noted on this thread are symtomatic of such a disease, or as its title so aptly puts it "meltdown". Spares and other shortages can be made good in fairly short order if the "MO" admits that he got it wrong, but trained experienced people who have PVR'd, etc, are a completely different scenario. That is why when they are almost goaded into it by incompetent leadership at whatever level it is unforgivable. Everyone in authority, from Cpl to ACM, should be aware of their responsibilities to their subordinates. Many posts on this forum would suggest that a high proportion are more concerned with the way the system has failed them rather than vice-versa. Perhaps it's the same problem, but from a different perspective?

[Rigga]

Wow Chug!
I now understand and recognise that you are unable to operate Babel Fish at this time and are either incapable or unwilling to adapt to “Newspeak” - by which I expect you mean new terminology or new translations of old terminology.
But you can’t half babble-on!
It took me AGES to cut through your verbosity and find the point you actually made (I think?)
What really stunned me though…was that…
I agree with you.

[Chugalug2]

Wow Chug!
It took me AGES to cut through your verbosity and find the point you actually made (I think?)
What really stunned me though…was that…
I agree with you.

OK, how about this: "material shortfalls are bad, but people shortfalls are much much worse!"
In the meantime I should exchange your babel fish as being obviously defective, that is of course if there are any left! :rolleyes:

[TrenchardsLoveSock]

There's one Babel Fish left in Tech Stores. You can't have it though because someone else may need it. :ugh: :ugh: ;)

[JamesA]

I drifted into this forum whilst waiting for a delayed flight and being fed up with the children in my home forum (Freight Dogs).
I left Aunty Mary's sanctuary many years ago for all the reasons I have read on this and other threads within the forum. I find it unbelievable that I and my colleagues who jumped ship did nothing to wake up the government of the day and their successors that there was nothing seriously wrong with the armed forces. I can only imagine the sand has got deeper or their necks have got longer. Having experienced the lack of spares, poor equipment, etc., I fully believe all of your grievances and , say as many have posted, you have to vote with your feet. Perhaps in my day, there were too many of us and early releases were a way to save money in the long run. But, as I read the present situation nobody in the ministry knows or cares how to look after their bread and butter (no armed forces - who needs a MoD). It appears standards are non-existent not just fallen. So much for the traditions of Cranwell and Halton, which set the precedent many foreign services wished to attain. Now the RAF is dragging along with the third world airlines. (I used that quote in my service time, but see no improvement today).
In case you are wondering why I think I can give my tuppence worth to you
currently seving guys and gals. I don't like to see people run over when they are giving up so much of their early lives, in some cases all of it, by such an ungrateful government. I will not say nation as I believe if and when the British people know how you are treated, they will appreciate your efforts. I served 20+ years between the kipper and shiny fleets. The lack of investment in the service finished it for me. When I saw a gang of men stripping a 'lightly' crashed Phantom for spares and flying VC10s on the 'war standard' due to lack of spares I knew it was time to go. Now in the civvy world of reality, I have been in and out of work - out due to companies which thought they could skip the afore mentioned investement. It works today, but next week it bites in the bum in a big way.

Whine/bitch over - do battle with secutity staff (see other forums)

Stay safe - we will carry you home if the Vicar and Uncle Gordy will open their wallets.

Keep your

[Chugalug2]

, I fully believe all of your grievances and , say as many have posted, you have to vote with your feet. Perhaps in my day, there were too many of us and early releases were a way to save money in the long run. But, as I read the present situation nobody in the ministry knows or cares how to look after their bread and butter (no armed forces - who needs a MoD).when the British people know how you are treated, they will appreciate your efforts. I served 20+ years between the kipper and shiny fleets.
Well of course, JA, the solution for any individual always was to vote with their feet. Like you, I did exactly that, but in both our cases the remaining guys and girls were left behind to carry on. Unless and until the RAF ceases to exist that will always be the case. My feeling is that it behoves those of us on the outside to use our experience and knowledge of when things were better to suggest how this particular Super Tanker can alter course to avoid that very fate. From what I read here, and I may well have got it wrong, the fundamental flaws are quite low down in the CoC. Commanders at unit, wing and station level no longer seem to have the semi autonomous powers that they used to. In other words, problems that could be resolved quickly and effectively by them are now referred up the CoC and as often as not into the maws of some unaccountable quango that doesn't then sort their pay, housing etc. The old system was not only quicker and more effective but had the bonus effect of raising a boss' credit rating in the view of his/her subordinates and a big plus for morale. By the same token disciplinary matters were also resolved summarily by the boss, well deserved clag handed out, and life moved on. Now it all seems bogged down in endless investigations and referrals, bad for morale.
So never mind the endless cuts; those, and panic rearmaments, are the inevitable boom and bust of the military cycle. The responsibility of the CoSs is to keep viable effective core Armed Services going throughout. My feeling is that they have fallen down on this, and that the present and past CGSs have tacitly said so. The CAS hasn't, and he and his predecessors need to get onto this pronto. It's bust Sirs, so fix it!

[ancientaviator62]

Chugalug2 has it about dead to rights. I remember a Stn Cdr at Lyneham saying to me that it was not until he became the Boss that he realised how little control over what went on on 'his ' station. This was after workmen arrived to commence building a substantial structure at Lynehamthat no one on the station knew anything about.
If any CAS rocks the boat then goodbye to lucrative directorships etc

[flipster]

Senior offs are no different to the rest of us - we all are caught by the short and curlies of promotion/apparent prestige/money/mortgage/family as we are all human but we do seem to be losing our grip on our consciences and selfless duty to the greater good.

Is that anything to do with our increasingly introverted, impersonal and godless society? Who knows but until we all start asking ourselves questions like:

Where am I going?
What have I achieved?
Can I look myself in the eye in the mirror?
Is the prestige/promotion worth the loss of self-esteem?
What do my family/friends think?
Is there some better way?

....then we will continue a downward spiral - led by our superiors.


Those people who hold high office must be the ones to set an example.

[Chugalug2]

Flipster, your very last word says it all :EXAMPLE. When we joined up, we came with all the bag and baggage of our civilian backgrounds. Little by little this was replaced with a Service ethic. Some of that came from a DI breathing literally down your neck and asking with concern if he was hurting you, but in the main it was by observing the conduct of your superiors. If you were fortunate you had examples set for you in the way compassionate and welfare situations were handled. You would note that not only was the problem itself addressed, but that note was taken by yourself and others of that care and of its positive effect on morale. Little by little you acquired a sense of what a duty of care meant, and of how you in turn should exercise it. It seems to me that this delicate but essential core of the Service Family has been neglected and allowed to whither because those who set the examples are either unwilling or unable to do so. If the former, they need to change attitude or go, if the latter, they must be re-empowered. If the Staishes etc are no longer in charge, then that must be reversed. Restore the powers of subordinate commanders and re-integrate the Chain of Command, and quickly!

[Exrigger]

I have been a lurker on various threads on the forum and decided to join in. I like to think I made a small difference as I made the decision early on in my career to follow my fathers example, it was the way I was bought up. When I left training I looked at my peers and those above me, from the examples I observed I made a decision early on of the type of person I was going to be should I get promoted. From JT to Sgt allthough took longer to get there than usual I followed my principles, in the 70's this was a good thing to do. Unfortunately as a SNCO principles were harder to maintain as the current Management team saw this as a thorn in their sides and was frowned on. Who has heard the similar comments to " if you want to further your career I would re think your current working practices", I asked said officer " do you mean if I kow tow and lick A*** I can get promoted", the answer was frequently "if you put it that way then yes", my response was " then I will stay a Sgt then". This left me 16 years in this rank seeing people who knew nothing getting on, these are the people that are now running the forces and is why it is in the position it is. I had the opportunity of speaking to Sir Michael Graydon at Coningsby and he had know idea what Ripple robbing, Sqd christmas trees, to name but a few, meant. His only response was "I have just reduced the Tornado spares budget by 1 million pounds and have not heard that there is a spares problems". When it was explained to him what was going on the Station Cmdr. got a bit miffed and set the SWO on me, still it was fun while it lasted, I still got my chiefs before I left and before my Wingco left the RAF. I got fed up of highlighting all the shortfalls both down the Falklands, Ireland and the first Gulf War, but never ever stopped looking after "my guys", but I do agree that a lot of the officers did tow the party line and did not do justice to their subordinates. As I usually say I can count on the fingers of one hand all the officers I had respect for, I can also count on the fingers of one hand all the officers who should be shot at dawn. That leaves an awful lot in the middle who were basically invisible.

[Chugalug2]

ER, a very warm welcome to this thread and thanks for your memories of the mob! It is very interesting to attempt to put a timeline on this story. My experiences go up to 1973, and I just cannot relate to the contemporary picture of the RAF in this Forum. I see that in your case all was well into the 70's so it would seem that things changed for the worse in the last 25 years. If others confirm this, perhaps we can relate administrative changes to the RAF in that time to see what really did the damage. I don't think myself that officers were suddenly minded to forget their duty and just look after number one. It is my belief that many found the former less and less possible to do and the latter more of a necessity for the good of their careers. Perhaps some of them could comment? In any event if that is essentially the case it is not only unacceptable, but unsustainable as well. The RAF isn't the CS in uniform that operates aircraft. It is a fighting service that will, indeed sadly does, sustain casualties. To do that and prevail it must have an esprit de corps, which requires high morale and discipline, which in turn requires every officer and NCO to do their duty, not only to those who command them, but to those who they command. It has to get to grips with the despond that it appears to be in the grip of. The fact that it is engaged in war now only makes that need more urgent. I put my two penneth as to what should be done in earlier posts, but may be way off the mark. But as it is said "now is the time for all good men....etc"!

[Exrigger]

Hi Chugalug2

Thanks for the welcome, I do contribute to a Quality forum within Bae Systems, but this is the first time I have entered the fray of one of this stature in the big wide world. I could throw up many examples of the way the airforce has changed since the early 80s, I am also renowned for my war stories, but that as they say is another story (pun intended). I remember coming of a Management Course at Newton, my WO asked me how I found the course, I replied that it reinforced what I believe is the right way to do things, his response was, nice, good, but we do not want any of that new fangled rubbish in my airforce. I have had a lot of correspondance with the MOD/Government through the local MP re the first (or was it really the 2nd/3rd Gulf War) reference the vivid imagination that all those who suffered from undefined illnesses (and those that died from it) had. This futile effort made me realise that the MOD/Government do not care a jot about the Forces/British Public. I also realise that a lot of people have just given up, to try and do what is right is stressfull and does make you suffer all manner of ailments, I am still having this problem in civvy street (all be it I am still working within a military establishment :O), I sometimes think I am to old to keep this up, then I remember what one JNCO said to me before I left, you have been the one of a few SNCOs that has supported, protected and backed us up, so don't ever change.

[glum]

I think that people at all levels are more inclined to look after number one these days. Powers of punishment have all but been removed entirely for SNCO's - I was told in no uncertain terms that having one of my lads sweep the hanger or clean the vehicals was illegal, and my only recouse was a charge.

Now for a bloke that turns up late it's a bit steep to slap him on a charge, so you give him a bollocking and otherwise let it slide. He knows the worst you can do is get a bit shouty.

Of course, we are encouraged to counsel, and find out WHY he was late - maybe he has family problems etc etc. Well fine, but a good SNCO will know this anyway.

To compound this problem, the middle management do not back up their SNCO's. I recall a Snco's meeting where the Sqn WO told us all to ensure dress standards were improved - no civvy T shirts under overalls, clean overalls, no steels showing through boot leather.

Within 2 days I observed said WO walk straight past a JT who was wearing filthy overalls tied round his waist, and an Iron Maiden T shirt proudly displayed. they even exchanged a 'good morning'.

Now as a newly promoted SNCO, what example am I to take? Where is my back up when I give the blokes a talking to about their standards?

[TrickyTree]

...I was told in no uncertain terms that having one of my lads sweep the hanger or clean the vehicals was illegal, and my only recouse was a charge...
I don't understand this. Hangars DO need sweeping. Wagons DO need cleaning. These are facts of life. The fact that you chose an erk to do it who just happened to be late for work - what on earth has that got to do with it?

But you're right. I charged an airman 4 years ago (the only one in nearly 17 years as an NCO) and it was thrown out. SEngO decided that the gross insubordination displayed was just a bit of banter. I decided SEngO was scared - he's not a lawyer and I, who preferred the charge, am not a scuffer. Hence he threw it out. The airman was promptly marched back in and given a stand-up hats-on interview without coffee but that's not the point.

I've got 2 years left to complete 22 years and there is no way on earth that I am going to complete the LOS 30 that I am signed up for. When Brain Porridge can come here and say to all the SNCO's and junior officers "this is how it is and will be, if you don't like it, leave" and my own gp capt tells all his seniors that "the air force doesn't owe you anything" - well, Mr Gp Capt sir, neither do I, after 21 years service, owe the RAF a goddamned thing, and Mr Porridge sir, after your little diatribe I now have to go back to my section and inspire loyalty in my subordinates. How do I do that when I have just heard with my own ears that the man (until not so long ago) at the top doesn't give a stuff about us?

I love the Service. I really really do, but I cannot wait to leave - that is sad enough but the real tragedy is that there are hundreds, nay! thousands like me.

Oh, I'm off for a cup of tea and a biscuit now. Ta-ta!

[glum]

The fact that you chose an erk to do it who just happened to be late for work - what on earth has that got to do with it?

Sadly it's seen as descriminatory, and since I have no powers of punishment, cannot issue anything more than words to assist in 'personal developement'.

[Rigga]

In the 1990’s, more financial control was given across to Stn Cdr’s with more responsibility to the direct running of all Station dealings and associated costs. Fuel and heating bills being the start of many of these items. Suddenly the Staish got all hot over Heating bills, and lights being left on in Hangars!

In 1997, there was a huge governmental change where (I think) all top-level ministers had no experience of the military apart from possible cadet service.

In the late 90’s, we also saw a change of attitude from a ‘defence’ orientation towards a ‘business’ orientation. (That’s just about when I left)

‘We’ have had a succession of business-minded ministers in charge of MOD since then, and they have introduced more and more “Cost Effective” measures, meaning less and less direct costs for procurement and replacement and less and less to spend on maintenance costs too.
Privatisation of more and more aspects of Forces Regimes has taken place – IMO straight into the coffers of the new 'few'.

The end result seems to be that defence of the realm has become a business concern first, a governmental publicity tool second, and a defence force later. ('Defence' because I believe the RAF can no longer mount a sustained or long range attack against any substantial counter force).

The only reason the present government is promising to spend money on a Trident replacement (only believe it when we’ve got it) is to retain some credence within world politics. A lack of nuclear clout for UK would remove us from every political forum going, and reduce us to the newest third-world country in the world.

My point in these ramblings?
Over the last 20-ish years, since the Berlin Wall came down, the politicos have changed the allegiance of the ruling ranks to more of a business acumen than a military attitude. I am pretty sure CAS is more worried about the state of his Accounts than the state of the Ammo he is buying.

The RAF is now being run as a business; employing basic and often crude business methods to reduce wastage, without regard for the type of work done or the effect on manning for any other reasons. (Chug – That’s what LEAN is about)
A bit like founding your current man-power on 1990’s weekend working times and conditions.

What remains is a force that can do the very tip of its former capability.

'We' can send our few jets into any trouble arena once.
'We' don’t seem to be sure if we can repeat the action successfully a second time - because we don't have the previously supportive infrastucture, materials or (due to LEAN) manpower.

Please Note : the Govt has now started to LEAN all Govt Offices - including Tax offices, watch the backlogs building there (possibly due to a lack of manpower).

[pr00ne]

Rigga,

There was no “huge Governmental change in 1997 where all top ministers had no experience of the military” at all.
There was a change of Government in 1997 sure, but no huge change in military experience in the cabinet or amongst Government ministers. What you got in 1997 was what you had had for several previous decades, i.e.; most ministers were career politicians, lawyers, barristers, journalists etc. The only manifest change in the make up of MP’s, as opposed to ministers, following 1997 was the preponderance of ex Trade Union officials as opposed to retired businessmen on the back benches.

Your change of attitude from defence orientation to business orientation did also not magically appear in 1997! I think you are right by the way, but it had started way before 1997, you only have to look at things like Options for Change, the Defence Costs Review, Front Line First, the Defence Costs Study to see the way things were going in the early 90’s. This was when agencies were introduced, contractorisation and civilianization were speeded up massively and non deployable and non front line posts contracted and leaned. That is Thatcher doctrine through and through.

Whilst disagreeing about the origins of this “defence is a business” affair I do have to strongly agree with you that it IS a nonsense and even though it was not a Labour invention they have continued with it with a passion that must delight the likes of Thatcher and Portillo and make the likes of Healey weep.

The rot started with Options for change and the peace dividend in 1990, that was when defence expenditure was reduced massively and sustained capability deemed unnecessary. Labour have increased defence expenditure steadily over the years but from too low a base. Add to that their rank incompetence in management of almost any sophisticated major expenditure and you have the situation we are in now.

I can’t see Cameron making one iota of difference if elected, which is a crying shame.

[Rigga]

Good!
Apart from a few self-opinioned meanderings - my point got through.



Now, what can be done about it.....

[Chugalug2]

‘The RAF is now being run as a business; employing basic and often crude business methods to reduce wastage, without regard for the type of work done or the effect on manning for any other reasons. (Chug – That’s what LEAN is about)
Please Note : the Govt has now started to LEAN all Govt Offices - including Tax offices, watch the backlogs building there (possibly due to a lack of manpower)........
Now, what can be done about it?
....
Rigga, an interesting and well considered piece. Thanks for the meaning of Lean, it seems I was way off the mark with it being a Boy Band! I'm afraid I must share my personal opinions and agree with you. Up to 1997 there were people who had served in the armed forces on the Government benches, who probably had their interests at heart. After that they were replaced by people who in the main had spent their political lives opposed to the 'military industrial complex' or some such cliche, and do not have the interests of the armed forces at heart, including the PM and the present MOD incumbents. But all that is by the bye.
You ask what should be done about it? Well we used to have a system that worked and served the interests of military order and discipline. Now we do not. Tricky one that! Perhaps we should engage the services of some expensive consultants, or we could simply go back to readopting the old system! Sorry, I've just realised how loopy that sounds, I guess it better be the consultants!

[Pontius Navigator]

Rigga, I agree with the thrust of your argument.

If I need something now, even costing £10 I have to make a business case. I even had to make a business case for a commemorative wreath even though it is in QR J164a(4), IIRC.

From the same CS 2* I had a Dear Colleague letter. It was written in incomprehensive and turgid prose about WoW - Ways of Working. In the mid 90s we had SLAs - service level agreements - and sundry other things.

Trouble is they are generally 'old' new management speak as we play catchup with business and industry and no doubt adopted so that industry can 'recognise' what we are talking about. Also it looks good in your 4* CV - I introduced IiP and maintained it over *******

[An Teallach]

new management speak as we play catchup with business and industry

Please caw canny when pinning this bolleaux on 'Industry'. The great majority of British Industry gets by without it or pays lip service to it to make itself eligible for Govt contracts. The bits of Industry that seem keenest to kow tow to management speak and fads are the bureaucratized 'industries' that do not exist in real markets such as BWOS. The Civil Service and Armed Forces manage even to take something as simple as IIP, a scheme to encourage a minimum standard of personnel management and development, and bureaucratize it out of existance such that it becomes a brake on successful personnel management and development.

I find the greatest irony is that management science, pioneered by the likes of John Adair, took the best of military leadership principles and applied it to industry.

A whole academic discipline sprang up, 99% of it irrelevant, which now sells back to the Military its own successful formula (at great cost), but diluted with 99% bovine excrement. Add to the alleged academics the US-Style snake-oil management gurus, and you have fertile ground for 2nd rate Civil Service and Military Leaders to find alleged cure-alls for their own inadequacy.

Whether in the Military or Industry, if you use the schema of classic military appreciation, grounded in the Principles of War, you won't go far wrong. The rest is stuff and nonsense.

[Chugalug2]

Whether in the Military or Industry, if you use the schema of classic military appreciation, grounded in the Principles of War, you won't go far wrong. The rest is stuff and nonsense.

ie facing up to giving back to Commanders the power to command?
Which would be pretty much the system we used to use, so perhaps readopting it may not be so loopy after all!
By the way did anyone see the Emperors at the MOD today? I'm not one to gossip, but rumour has it... well, if I say not a stitch, my dear, not a stitch! Need I say more?

[Pontius Navigator]

Here, try this for size: Should I enter it for the Plain English competition. Some bits removed deliberately, I managed as far as para 2 and staggered into para 3 before losing my concentration. It may be useful at OASC as a test for would be Admin officers. It has half the readbility of a Dickens' novel and is more complex. Remarkably an insurance policy is actually harder to read.

1. As part of my Ops Business Plan for 2006-07, I set key objectives and targets that are designed to clarify and improve our relationships with both our Customers and Suppliers.

2. One such objective is to undertake a series of Maturity Modelling Exercises across Ops, engaging ** with our Strategic Partners, from across the Delivery Areas of ****** Management, Projects and ****** Management Services. Originally my target was to achieve level 2, in Smart Acquisition terms, by 31 Mar 07.

3. AD Business Management (BM) South, J************ was tasked with writing a paper for my Operations Management Board (OMB) on how best to approach this work.

4. At the OMB on 11 Oct 06, my Management Board agreed to proceed with these exercises using the Supply Chain Relationships In Action (SCRIA) Relationship Evaluation Tool. This was felt to be the most appropriate methodology for the partnerships that we have, and the aspects of partnerships that we wish to measure and develop. This strategic tool was formed in 1995 by the UK Aerospace Small and Medium size Enterprises and Prime Contractors, sponsored by the Society of British Aerospace Companies Ltd., supported by the MoD and part funded by the DTI.

5. The scope of the work will include the Regional Prime Contracts, Integrated Service Providers, Northern Ireland Term Contracts, the Housing Prime Contract, the main FM Contractors for USF, Vanguard and the two Land Management Services Office of Government and Commerce Partners.

6. Staff will recognise the work that has already taken place, in respect of EFQM and Smart Acquisition Maturity Modelling over a number of years both when DE comprised nine Business Units, and now as five Directorates. SCRIA can be seen as aligned to elements of Smart Acquisition, providing a behavioural model focussing specifically on customer-supplier relationships to enable strategy, shared vision, values and culture; enabling people; and enabling leaner support process through openness and trust. EFQM is a general-purpose model of “business excellence”.

7. **** will now be taking this work forward with his BM colleagues, and will be leading on this programme of work across Ops. Engagement and scoping work with the Supplier Relations Group, DPA will commence on 16 Nov 06, and a programme of circa 15 workshops will be setup, with a due completion date of Feb 07, with a report submission to me in March.

8. Areas For Improvement will be identified and managed through a series of Action Plans, embedded across the Delivery Areas and their Strategic Partners.

9. I hope that if asked to participate in the workshops, you will take an opportunity to support what I believe will be a major step towards a better and more credible business platform.

[r supwoods]

The RAF is now being run as a business; employing basic and often crude business methods to reduce wastage, without regard for the type of work done or the effect on manning for any other reasons. (Chug – That’s what LEAN is about)
A bit like founding your current man-power on 1990’s weekend working times and conditions.
What remains is a force that can do the very tip of its former capability.


And now the DLO Strike 2 Star, having "leaned" to destruction, is now getting out before it all comes crashing down ... wonder where BAES perhaps?:oh:

[Melchett01]

QUOTE]As part of my Ops Business Plan for 2006-07[/QUOTE]

Right - I will stop you there Sir. What do you mean Ops Business Plan? Since when did HM Forces become a business? Has there been a shares issue - if so where's my dividend? And more importantly, can the shareholders have a vote of no confidence in the Board??? Hmmmm thought not.

When are the Top Brass going to grow a spine and tell the bean counters to get back in their boxes?

When will the bean counters realise that HM Forces (not Gordon's or Tony's) do not deal in tangible assets and concepts of profit or loss? The whole country profits when families can sleep safely in their beds at night knowing they aren't going to be invaded or blown up. Contrary to popular opinion at MOD and the Treasury, profit and loss is not measured by the number of assets on each station and how much they are worth. Profit and loss as far as I am concerned is all about lives and operations: when I go on ops, do I achieve my mission and do I bring the same numbers of troops home that I took out at the start of the op? When I call the roll, if everyone answers and the job has been done, then that's all I care about.

As soon as the bean counters took over, that's when the RAF started to go down hill. Sir Jock - you want to save some money .... how about firing the management consultants and accountants that cost millions yet keep telling you we are skint and have to flog another Sqn, Regt or destroyer or 3 to pay their fees!

[lampeterexile]

QUOTE]As part of my Ops Business Plan for 2006-07
Right - I will stop you there Sir. What do you mean Ops Business Plan? Since when did HM Forces become a business? Has there been a shares issue - if so where's my dividend? And more importantly, can the shareholders have a vote of no confidence in the Board??? Hmmmm thought not.
When are the Top Brass going to grow a spine and tell the bean counters to get back in their boxes?
When will the bean counters realise that HM Forces (not Gordon's or Tony's) do not deal in tangible assets and concepts of profit or loss? The whole country profits when families can sleep safely in their beds at night knowing they aren't going to be invaded or blown up. Contrary to popular opinion at MOD and the Treasury, profit and loss is not measured by the number of assets on each station and how much they are worth. Profit and loss as far as I am concerned is all about lives and operations: when I go on ops, do I achieve my mission and do I bring the same numbers of troops home that I took out at the start of the op? When I call the roll, if everyone answers and the job has been done, then that's all I care about.
As soon as the bean counters took over, that's when the RAF started to go down hill. Sir Jock - you want to save some money .... how about firing the management consultants and accountants that cost millions yet keep telling you we are skint and have to flog another Sqn, Regt or destroyer or 3 to pay their fees![/QUOTE]


well said :D :D :D :D . They have finally worn me down after 26 years service. PVR submitted 18 Oct 06 :) :)

[An Teallach]

Congratulations on reaching paragraph 3, Pontius. I was contemplating dangling myself from the light fitments by the 2nd sentence of paragraph 2.

Pray tell: Would the author qualify as one of my 2nd rate Civil Service and Military Leaders seeking alleged cure-alls for their own inadequacy?

Anyway, we're missing a trick here. With the combined wit of PPRuNe, surely we should be drawing up the next generation ISO LEAN (No, Isolean - sounds Greek and therefore must be scientific!). Now, Personnel is too self-explanatory, Human Resources is so 90s. By Jingo, I have it:

Isolean Anthrocapital Development.


Shall we see if PPRuNe can develop a (barely) plausible management fad and market it as the cure-all for their own inadequacy to the chimps in MoD?

[Mr Blake]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006570573,00.html

You know things are bad when even the current bun is jumping on the bandwagon.:bored:

[Mr Blake]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=422143&in_page_id=1770

And more. The right wing press now fully on the case.

[Rigga]

LOL!
"Isolean Anthrocapital Development."


An T,
Please start your Patent application now, and don't forget to go for the .com addresses too.

I can see the headlines now...

IAD bites at the Ankles of Wall St" - The Pink 'Un.

"MOD reverberates to IAD" - True Blue Times

"IADicalisation rules" - New Biz-Speak monthly.

"IAD.com Best Web-site ever" - PC User

"Waht?" - Translations Cost Manager.

[Chugalug2]

Sadly it's seen as descriminatory, and since I have no powers of punishment, cannot issue anything more than words to assist in 'personal developement'.
I find this concept risible. Summary discipline at unit level, always under the constant review of superiors, is the very keystone of military discipline. Take that away and you are no longer an effective military force, but part of a huge faceless bureaucratic soulless machine with the attendant low morale so apparent today. As to the removing of powers of command from NCOs and JOs ending discrimination, it would seem that said discrimination moves inexorably up the Chain of Command, witness the outrageous and flagrant discrimination against two Chinook pilots by two Air Marshals, not only in contravention of accepted RAF procedure, but then repeated and compounded by one of them on National Television! When Paxman describes what you say as "arrogant" you have surely attained a plane of uniquely unacceptable behaviour!
If anyone in power in the RAF truly cares about its immediate future, they must attend to lancing this boil now. Waiting for a change of Government, CAS, or their own retirement will be too late. Sort this now or go down with the ship. Meltdown has begun!

[Pontius Navigator]

Pray tell: Would the author qualify as one of my 2nd rate Civil Service and Military Leaders seeking alleged cure-alls for their own inadequacy?

You might think that but I could not possibly comment except to say that they speak of the author is hushed and reverent terms. A 2* equivalent CS even.

[JamesA]

Who does the last key orderley hand the keys into????????????

[Pontius Navigator]

Who does the last key orderley hand the keys into????????????


eBay? :\

[GlosMikeP]

You might think that but I could not possibly comment except to say that they speak of the author is hushed and reverent terms. A 2* equivalent CS even.
It really is complete bollderdash, isn't it! I suspect his 'note' was written by a consultant with wide red braces never knowingly previously exposed to military work. Oh, and who must have worked at No10, learning how to say nothing in 1000 words.

What I think he might be trying to say, is there's adrive to improve process using CMMI style techniques.

If so, he'd do better to get on with it rather than write about it.

Whatever happened to good management went out the window. Sadly, I bumped into an old pal in MOD recently - someone you and I both know - who is utterly despondent of such actions. Understandably so.

[D-IFF_ident]

Read the MOD Annual report from the Defence Committee here:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/57/57.pdf
It's an 80 page PDF, so for the deployed borrowing Uncle Sam's hardware for 15 minutes per sitting, here's the summary:
This report analyses the Ministry of Defence’s Annual Report and Accounts 2005–06 which combines the Annual Performance Report and the consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts.
The MoD’s assessment is that it is on course to achieve its Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets which run until March 2008.
The Annual Report describes military operations undertaken in 2005–06, but the MoD has refused us the information on which it bases its assessment that these operations are on course for success. Future MoD Annual Performance Reports should provide clear performance criteria.
The MoD’s performance against its PSA target for generating forces has deteriorated, which is understandable given the level of operational deployments. The readiness targets should be made more challenging in the longer term. The reliability of air transport and the shortage of serviceable battlefield helicopters should be addressed.
The MoD has broadly achieved its manning requirement for the Armed Forces but this is because the manning targets have fallen. It needs to revise its Defence Planning Assumptions to take into account the increased level of operational activity. The Armed Forces continue to experience difficulties in the recruitment and retention of personnel although the outflow figures provide no evidence of an exodus. The MoD has introduced financial incentives to improve retention in certain trades, but significant shortages of personnel remain in some areas. The Armed Forces are operating in challenging conditions and without all the equipment they need. The current level of commitments is impacting on training. With problems of undermanning continuing, there is a clear danger that the Armed Forces will not be capable of maintaining current commitments over the medium-term.
The MoD’s performance against its diversity targets is poor. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, in particular, have failed to recruit sufficient people from ethnic minorities. Progress has been made in the number of women joining the Services but there are alarming levels of recorded sexual harassment.
The MoD met its procurement targets. The merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation will shift focus onto through-life support of equipment, and the PSA targets should reflect this.
The MoD’s performance against its value for money targets is good. It has exceeded its efficiency savings targets but should continue to improve the way efficiency savings are measured.
The MoD is rationalising the number of Defence Agencies. The Committee would be concerned if this reflected a wider centralist tendency or led to less transparency in the MoD’s work.
New and potential losses reported in the MoD’s Resource Accounts totalled some £143 million in 2005–06, a lower figure than the previous year. The MoD should continue to make improvements in the way it records and reports losses.
Standby for briefings about our excellent value for money from the highly paid help - questions will not be allowed during this briefing etc.
Aye

[The Helpful Stacker]

.....The MoD’s performance against its diversity targets is poor. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, in particular, have failed to recruit sufficient people from ethnic minorities......

Question is what is really important? Filling vacant slots with able bodied people or filling vacant slots with the 'right' colour/sex people?:ugh:

[TMJ]

Question is what is really important? Filling vacant slots with able bodied people or filling vacant slots with the 'right' colour/sex people?:ugh:

At the risk of sounding like the party line, if you're under-recruiting in significant portions of society, you are unlikely to be getting the best people to fill the slots you've got. I think targetted advertising/recruitment pushes are perfectly reasonable...

[Mr C Hinecap]

And now the DLO Strike 2 Star, having "leaned" to destruction, is now getting out before it all comes crashing down ... wonder where BAES perhaps?:oh:
There seems to be a bit of a rush at that level to have Happy New Years rather than a miserable one in their current posts. :suspect:
Rats. Ship. Any more words anyone?

[diginagain]

One springs to mind.

"CLICK"

[LeanMe]

There seems to be a bit of a rush at that level to have Happy New Years rather than a miserable one in their current posts. :suspect:
Rats. Ship. Any more words anyone?

I was going to suggest "sinking" but then realised that under Navy drawdown the ship has been retired from service and has spent the last eighteen months in dry dock, so it's unlikely to be doing anything water related...

[Chugalug2]

At the risk of being poo-pooed, I do not see the relevance of a great many of the preceding posts. Would they not be better suited to a thread entitled "rib-tickling gobbledygook"? Unless of course it is a serious contention that RAF meltdown is the result of bad writing!
If indeed meltdown has begun it would surely be the result of a fundamental flaw in the construct of the existing body. Even the rates at which people might be leaving, or for that matter joining, would surely be a consequence of that flaw, rather than a cause in their own right. It would perhaps be more profitable to identify the flaw(s) rather than demonstrate our cleverness in writing appraisal?
Down everyone, incoming!

[Rigga]

As I say to many of my colleagues here, in this high pressure (and indeed highly commercial) atmosphere;

"Aviation Safety is a very serious business - but that doesn't mean you cant have a sense of humour!"

Its nearly Christmas Chug.

[An Teallach]

Unless of course it is a serious contention that RAF meltdown is the result of bad writing!

I doubt anyone would advance that as a contention. However, the contention that the "Rib-tickling Gobbledegook" is merely a symptom and product of the grave failure of leadership that has led to the posited 'RAF Meltdown' is, to my mind, approaching the undeniable.

[toddbabe]

At the risk of sounding like the party line, if you're under-recruiting in significant portions of society, you are unlikely to be getting the best people to fill the slots you've got. I think targetted advertising/recruitment pushes are perfectly reasonable...
I think it is unreasonable to push for certain target numbers, there is nothing wrong with advertising campaigns and recruitment drives for certain people but only as part of an overall drive for a certain number of people full stop.
How you make up that number is irrelevant, if you have advertised the jobs and only a tiny percentage of ethnic minorities take up the offers then so be it! to say that for eg twenty per cent should be from ethnic minorities is a joke, all that you end up doing is prejudicing against none ethnics to help you make your stats and appear to be multi cultural.
The met police have been given a very high figure of ethnicity to be attained by 2012 and already their is evidence of positive discrimination to help achieve this, perfectly good white candidates have been overlooked so that the stats will be met!!!!
And what happens, you get certain ethnic types asking to be removed from certain duties cos they don't agree with them! I am all for ethnic minorities doing any job in society as long as they have been recruited fairly and equally alongside their counterparts irrespective of race, and whilst I fully respect their cultures and different religions they too must respect ours, if they don't think they can fullfill their role due to their religion or beliefs then they shouldn't do the job full stop, nobody should be able to ask for special treatment due to their religion or culture if you want the job you do it in our country by our rules.

[Mead Pusher]

nobody should be able to ask for special treatment due to their religion or culture if you want the job you do it in our country by our rules.

I think the point is that it's their country too, so why haven't "our" rules changed to reflect that. Just because they're ethnic minorities doesn't mean that they're not British!

I agree with your sentiment on quotas, though. It is fine to have a big push to get more ethnic minorities to apply to join, but everyone that applies must be treated the same - even if it means that we don't meet our targets.

[TMJ]

I think it is unreasonable to push for certain target numbers, there is nothing wrong with advertising campaigns and recruitment drives for certain people but only as part of an overall drive for a certain number of people full stop.

Absolutely; and that is what we're doing; within the overall publicity drove, money and manpower is being focussed on areas of the population where we traditionally under-recruit.

How you make up that number is irrelevant, if you have advertised the jobs and only a tiny percentage of ethnic minorities take up the offers then so be it! to say that for eg twenty per cent should be from ethnic minorities is a joke, all that you end up doing is prejudicing against none ethnics to help you make your stats and appear to be multi cultural.

Eh? I certainly made no suggestion that we should have different entry standards for different groups for the same job and know of no Serrvice policy that would allow for that. The target figures are a way of keeping score how well (or otherwise) we are doing in getting the "Life in a blue suit's pretty good" message to people outside the traditional recruitment pool. I fear you're sniping at a perception which is way left of arc of the reality; unfortunately you're right thtat that perception can cause resentment and further problems.

The met police have been given a very high figure of ethnicity to be attained by 2012 and already their is evidence of positive discrimination to help achieve this, perfectly good white candidates have been overlooked so that the stats will be met!!!!

I have a mate who's just joined the Met who reckons his application took years for just that reason. And I think that's wrong. And so do our Services, based on my experience at IofR at Cranwell and the message I got on a recent course at Shrivenham's Jt Equality and Diversity Trg Centre.*

And what happens, you get certain ethnic types asking to be removed from certain duties cos they don't agree with them! I am all for ethnic minorities doing any job in society as long as they have been recruited fairly and equally alongside their counterparts irrespective of race, and whilst I fully respect their cultures and different religions they too must respect ours, if they don't think they can fullfill their role due to their religion or beliefs then they shouldn't do the job full stop, nobody should be able to ask for special treatment due to their religion or culture if you want the job you do it in our country by our rules.

No time off for Easter or Christmas then, that's special treatment according to religion. Less sarcasticly, the Met constable case you're refering to is obviously wrong and an abuse of the system, but if people have religious requirements that can be met without compromising operational effectiveness, should we not try to meet them? The intention being to make the individuals feel looked after and therefore get the best out of them as well as avoiding putting potentially good candidates off applying in the first place? Example that spring to mind are Sikh turbans vs berets or caps, veggie and kosher rat packs etc. The "do it in our country by our rules" point is needlessly confrontational and frankly misleading; most of the people being targetted were born and raised here. Indeed, gven that I'm a second generation immigrant from a religion institutionally discriminated against by the Britsh state, I guarantee it's perfectly possible to feel totally loyal to the Crown and the Service in such circumstances; it's my bloody country too. Granted as my family's Irish Catholic and my accent's on the RP side of things I don't exactly stand out as being of immigrant stock, so I don't actually get that sort of comment much but can understand how it'd rile people.

And going back to my Christmas point, a mix of religions can work in your favour; "Certainly you can have time off for Eid/Diwali/Yom Kippur; by the way, you're duty bod on 25 Dec..."


*Yes, I know; "Jt Equality and Diversity Trg Centre?!?!?" Having been pinged to be the bloke from our sqn to do an EO adviser cse there, I must say I think they've got a pretty good grip on things and are pushing a message of getting the best out of each individual to enhance operational effectiveness, which is what the whole agenda should have been from the offset. I don't like the some of the the use of language which I think exacerbates the sort of reaction toddbabe has, but the overall drive is in the right direction

[toddbabe]

Thanks for the very thorough reply, I am in no way trying to be argumentative or confrontational but just have strong but I believe fair and open views on the way that it seems to be we are doing things in this country.
I am all for a nation of acceptance and respect for others beliefs, and whilst I don't wish to appear inflexible I just don't really believe that we should ammend our ways to accomodate others at the expense of others, I believe that if a person wants a job then they should do it according to the rules that are already in place, that others have to adhere to, the emphasis should be on them to be flexible and not us.
The argument about Christmas and Easter, doesn't really stand up as we are a Christian nation, approx 70 percent of this nation are Christians and therefore it is not unreasonable for us to primarily celebrate those festivals.

[geezerBJ]

[QUOTE=TMJ;3021102
No time off for Easter or Christmas then, that's special treatment according to religion. [/QUOTE]

I think that you will find that these are British Public Holidays and all HM Forces and Civil Services are entitled to the time off, along with Christmas and New Year. They may be based on Christian religious celebrations ..... thats because Britain is a Chrisitian nation ... and long may it remain that way. If you don't like it you know where the door is :ok:

[Climebear]

I think that you will find that these are British Public Holidays and all HM Forces and Civil Services are entitled to the time off, along with Christmas and New Year. They may be based on Christian religious celebrations ..... thats because Britain is a Chrisitian nation ... and long may it remain that way. If you don't like it you know where the door is :ok:

Actually there is no legal entitlement to Public Holidays. As for Britain being a Christian nation - I assume you meant the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Well that will be the Christian nation in which the vast majority of the population do not attend a Christian church and a significant proportion do not follow any faith at all (although they will most probably say that they are CofE).

[geezerBJ]

There is a contractual entitlement to public holidays and as employment contracts are legally binding, I disagree.
As for your comments on religion,the most popular religion in Britain and indeed Europe is Christianity....Fact. You don't have to attend Old Trafford every Saturday afternoon to be a Man Utd fan.

[glum]

Possibly not, but does one have to go to church to believe in God?

More to the point, I think it's the fact that the nation's rules were built up from the base of the Christian teachings, and at their basest, the ten commandments.

Our outlook and philisophy is based on Christianity as opposed to Hindu, Muslim, Jedi or whatever else is out there to follow.

Surely anyone wishing to join the armed forces must be prepared to accept all (legal) orders that are asked of them. If not, then they leave - as we are seeing more and more now.

The fact that more and more of the forces are leaving becase they are no longer prepared to tolerate the latest orders and changes to our working pracitces is perhaps what those at the top require.