The Media and The Mythical Retention Of Aircrew

[Charlieboy]

So I am reading the paper last week (Daily Mail, not my choice) and I read that there is a shortage of pilots in the RAF and that the bosses are trying their level best to achieve this 'aircrew retention' that you all go on about. Great for me this as I am just applying and figure I am sorted 'cause if they're trying to keep the current levels as they are and they are still under staffed with aircrew than my chances for selection go up, surely?

But then in the Independant I read that they are closing down V squadron, and that the RAF is looking to make cuts right left and centre. Now this is not so good for me 'cause by my reckoning cuts means less officers recruited full stop...

So what is the score, have the media got their heads shoved where the sun doesn't shine? Are the RAF releasing conflicting Press Statements? (probably judging by the level of contempt that is thrown at them from inside their own ranks on this site alone).

Enlighten me please. Simply are the numbers of officers recruited going up or down or does none of this have any effect on selection?

Private e-mails welcomed...Cheers

[Jackonicko]

This isn't something the media has 'invented'.

The RAF has a massive shortage of aircrew. The disbanding of one squadron here or there is in no way sufficient to address this overall shortage.

Part of the shortage is due to retention.

Recruiting new 18 year olds does not solve the shortage of (say) two-tour Flight Lieutenants, though it might help overall numbers in the long term.

The RAF must recruit pilots in an evenly-spread manner, and must avoid glut-and-famine, in order to have the right age profile mix at the frontline. This is why retaining experienced chaps is accorded such a high priority, and why bumping up recruitment now is not a catch-all solution to the problem.

[Charlieboy]

Fair point Jacko, but if they are having problems retaining aircrew now (I am assuming that the bulk are lost to Civil Aviation). Then they are always going to have a problem, Civil Aviation hasn't had it so bad for years, and yet pilots will still leave the forces for the big wallets that come with Dick Bransons 747's.

Maybe if they upped the numbers of aircrew coming through selection then they could compensate for a problem which is only going to get worse. Refering to previous postings about the new recruitment adverts, they where not even popular with you guys so god knows what the uninitiated sixth formers thought.

Aircrew retention will not happen whilst the forces provide a limited income career. People get bored after a time and leave, its only natural. The problem is that Aircrew training is so bloody expensive that they cannot afford to let trained personnel go. Still once I am in I am sure I will see it from the other side of the coin..

[Green Bottle]

I'm afraid there are always lots of people who apply to be aircrew in the RAF but the retention issue is about retaining the aircrew the RAF has already trained. The pipeline of aircrew training is only so big - you can only train for example 100 pilots per year but if 100,000 apply or 50,000 still only 100 will be trained.

RAF aircrew do not want to leave just because Mr Branson will pay them more - there are a whole host of reasons. The Military is paying a wad load of cash to retain certain aircrew categories and I think the incentive will help to retain those targeted significantly. Other retention initiatives in addition will help the problem (hopefully).

Whilst the adverts (or averts) are cr*p there are always a stream of people who want to be Tom Cruise's of the 21st Century. It's not that people get bored as the job changes regularly (new postings/ac types/ locations), people are leaving because they want a better quality of life.

Boredom to me is flying at 28,000 ft and letting the auto pilot sort you out. The money is great, the responsibility is immense, and the quality of life outside work is probably better but 480 Kts at 100 ft or 120 Kts at 50 ft are things that would not and do not bore me.

CB if you really want to join the military as a aircrew check the attitude at the door ("Aircrew retention will not happen whilst the forces provide a limited income career.") I have had some of the best times of my life flying in the brit miltary and money is not the over-riding issue. There are times when you are on top of the world - if you don't feel that you took the wrong career path.

If you really want to join the military work hard and be enthusiatic. It is a great job and if you don't think that now you won't get in (unless you con them in which case see the last sentence in the last para above.) <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Charlieboy]

GB, not trying to diss the Air Force. I know that if I can fly anything or be involved in anything related to military flying, then my life will be a happy one. U C I am that unique brand of candidate who's priority is to serve in the RAF be it as a pilot, nav, EngO, NCO ALM, or anything. I will let the better judgment of OASC decide my career path, thats why they do those tests.

I was just trying to see it from the perspective of the people who think that Aircrew retention is the sole fix to the problem.

[DP Harvey]

CB, you have the right attitude, I think. Whatever is happening at the other end of the career path bears no relation to your chances of sucess at OASC.

For the foreseeable future the numbers of candidates accepted for training will remain the same, give or take a few (to balance the unexpected successes/failures at the other end of the training regime.

[Hertz Van Rental]

CB I'd be wary of letting OASC decide which branch you go into. Whilst the tests may demonstrate particular aptitudes, the staff at OASC have quotas and will attempt to fill them by sending you to where they need recruits rather than where you want to go. If you want a particular trade, stick to your guns, don't say you will accept x if you want y, because if they are short of x that is all they will offer you.

[Jackonicko]

Absolutely right! You can always go back to apply for your second choice. "Pilot or nothing" is forgivably keen for a first OASC visit, IMHO!

[Barn Doors]

CB, . .you have a great attitude towards a career in the RAF. One that will show through at OASC I'm sure. Hertz is very right....you must think what YOU want that career to be. So, when you're asked, tell them straight. Putting one firm choice smacks of commitment, and shows determination (tick) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> .

As for the whole V Sqn issue, it doesn't mean that recruiting levels will be cut. The RAF is short of aircrew (period!), and even with the new FRI, levels will remain the same if not worsen before they improve. The Flying Training system needs to output more qualified pilots to OCU's, a separate issue being addressed (see NFTC thread).

Ergo, OASC will continue to recruit even more good calibre sorts (just like you) to meet input/output targets. End of spiel

Give it your best. If they 'want' you, they'll take you (phnarr!)

Cheers, BD <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Charlieboy]

Cheers people, I'll keep you posted. Got my filter Interview on Mon. So OASC will be a while away yet I reckon. I'll be an old bu**er to go pilot though, I am 23 now and 24 in October, still......... on with the show.