Multi-Engine shortfall and 38/16 info

[Tocsin]

Apologies for the length ;-) and any formatting gremlins - here is what Buff and company think will happen...

Multi-engine Aircraft Pilots
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what multi-engine pilot shortfalls were predicted at the 22 November 2000 meeting of the multi-engine aircrew Training Steering Committee. [2696]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 10 July 2001]: An unspecified pilot shortfall was predicted to cover within the next two to three years.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what target the Training Group Defence Agency set for into productive service multi-engine pilots for 2001; and how many went into service in 2000-01. [2698]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 10 July 2001]: Against an Into Productive Service target of 55 for multi-engine pilots in the RAF, a total of 57 entered service in 2000-01.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the lack of RAF flying personnel staying on past the 38/16 point will have on the supply of pilots for multi-engine aircraft in each year up to 2012. [2700]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The number of pilots trained to fly multi-engine aircraft who leave the RAF at the age 38/16 years of service point is small. Last year 16 pilots (1.9 per cent. of trained strength on 1 April 2000) left the service at that point and although a small increase is forecast over the next five to six years, the rate is expected to return to current levels by 2007-08.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he last made of the likelihood of a shortage of junior officer multi-engine aircraft pilots in the RAF from the end of 2001. [2699]

13 Jul 2001 : Column: 661W

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The current assessment is as follows:

RAF multi-engine aircraft--junior officer pilot forecast shortfall Requirement Forecast strength Forecast surplus/ shortfall
2001-02 568 586 +18
2002-03 571 580 +9
2003-04 580 575 -5
2004-05 593 563 -30
2005-06 603 552 -51
2006-07 600 543 -57
2007-08 608 538 -70
2008-09 586 539 -47
2009-10 585 542 -43
2010-11 574 549 -25
2011-12 571 555 -16

Addressing pilot shortfalls is a key priority for the Government and RAF and a number of initiatives are being undertaken to address this problem. These include the introduction of an in-service degree scheme to attract aircrew at a younger age, fully manning the RAF training systems, and the introduction of targeted financial incentives and the Linkup scheme to help improve retention. A comprehensive review of aircrew retention measures across the armed forces is also being undertaken and will report later this year, hopefully in time to influence the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's deliberations for their 2002 report.

[Scorpius]

I'm not a great fan of statistics. You can throw up some numbers to make people believe exactly what you want. I know for a fact that at Waddo there are currently 28 posts for pilots. The QFI on the Sentry Training Flight worked a fairly realistic picture of how many pilots would be around at 2003 - he estimated a shortage of 14. So where these other stats arrived from is a mystery as they estimate a short fall of only 3 total Air Force wide!!!

[uncle peter]

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the into productive service requirement is for junior officers this year; and if the requirement will be achieved. [2697]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 10 July 2001]: The into productive service target for junior officer multi-engined pilots in the RAF for the financial year 2001-02 is 55. Unfortunately, problems with the Tucano training fleet at the end of last year meant that the number of fast jet students restreamed to multi-engined aircraft training was fewer than expected and this is the main contributing factor to the target not being met. The current forecast is for 44 multi-engined aircraft pilots to join front line squadrons from Operational Conversion Units in 2001-02. The position is expected to recover in subsequent years.

call me a bluff old traditionalist, but isnt it a bit remiss to rely on restreaming from tincans to attempt to achieve me ips? one would have hoped the manning strategy would have made allowances for this despite any boom / bust in other streams. seems to be a tad convenient to blame failure to achieve ips on the tincan problems. like many others - ill get me coat.

ps rumour has it even me ips is going up to 70!

[ol_benkenobi]

:rolleyes: Changing tack just a little, rumour has it that a number of us stinking pongo types may be moving across to multi to:

a. Assist in any shortfall.
b. Actually do some flying.

Heard that a number or WOs were looking at it, can anyone confirm or deny?
:confused:

[uncle peter]

true. several army and navy wallahs - ones i know are all QHI's but all officers... but not beyond the realms of possibility considering the bobbins state we are in. active poaching is the way ahead apparently.

[eammon]

I was under the impression that the RAF was seriously short of JO pilots. Why do the figures appear to show that everything is fine and dandy? (ie plus two on the ips for 00/01 and current excess across the ME board of +18) What particular "massage" is being given to the figures to make them appear so rosy. is it just that they have included all the guys and gals who are about to leave? or have they simply changed the ME requirement?

Speaking to a mate on VC-10s i was told that they had operated some sort of "You will now all achieve 150% of task, the manning requirement is therefore reduced by a third, so we are no longer any pilots short" :confused: is this just apocryphal?

[eammon]

By the way, does anyone know who 'they' (referred to in my last message) are?

[uncle peter]

plus 2 on ips for this year is a typo i reckon. real figures are: requirement 55 actual 38 - thats just from 45. everyone knows that 65% of statistics are made up and 95% agree with me. so this alleged shortage just isnt true. you tell that to the boys working their butts off.

[The Gorilla]

It isn't just Pilots we are short of!! Just about every aircrew branch is undermanned. :p

[Scorpius]

The Gorilla

You are absolutely right - we do need Engineers as well! Perhaps we could all share the wages of the E3D Navs when they get the boot - but personally I think that
removing the Nav is not a good idea. Unless they teach us global navigation to the depth that the Navs did at BFTS.

What was that formula for working out your crit point again?

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Scorpius ]

[Next Waypoint]

Scorpius,

It looks like the navigator empire at Waddington has convinced you they are indispensable. Ask all the captains who have left the E3 in recent years for the right hand seat of the 747. They travel the world using the same navigational technology as the AWACS and all without a Navigator. Why do you need a nav to fly around the same waypoint all day anyway?

PNR's etc are not difficult. Most of the E3 pilots have more than covered this subject during their ATPL studies. Presides, the Jet Plan software will do it for you. If you decide to go to a 3 man flight deck, then ask one of the 747 Classic operators if you can sit in on one of their simulator sessions. You'll find they have a very robust set of SOP's, developed over many years, which could easily be blended into your current procedures. Remember that the 707 spent most of its service life with 2 pilots and an engineer.

[The Gorilla]

Scorpipus and next waypoont,

I am sorry, but I cannot become embroiled in the "why do we have navs argument". Some of my friends (only?)are navs and indeed, I like nothing better than to take my crew nav away on deployment. To see his face as I push his wheel chair in sunnier climes makes me stop wanting to be a train driver!!

Besides which, I have other Eng's that I would like to bury my hatchet in!!

I can't ever see navs leaving the E3D, they are the only ones who understand whats happening!! ;)

[Next Waypoint]

Gorilla,

You are right. I should go easy on the navs. I to remember those sunny dets, listening to the nav tell his stories about Coastal Command and how they should never have done away with the RFC. And the look of disapointment on his face when told that the mess didn't accept the white five pound note any more. etc etc etc.............

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Next Waypoint ]

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Next Waypoint ]