Senior RAF Officers Highlight Safety Dangers From Ground Crew Cuts

[Blue Bottle]

RAF Officers Highlight Safety Dangers (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_07_05_2013_p03-02-593852.xml)

The truth is out there, brave words to go public with:D

[dallas]

Wow, smells a bit like leadership...

[CoffmanStarter]

Mentioned in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks back.

See Wing Co Spry here ...

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517986-wing-commander-spry-3.html

[BEagle]

Well spoken, Windy! Hope that your concerns might get through the politicians' thick heads before the whole RAF enters a death spiral.....:uhoh:

[wilnot]

Interesting to know whether anyone at air rank level has commented on this. It's good to see some leadership from the station's senior officers, but what (if anything) is the top hierarchy doing about it? Hoping it'll die the death, I suspect.

[Wander00]

That's a worry "Leadership", that is. Good on him.

[JTIDS]

If only every fleet had the option to have a three day reset and reduce flying hours....

[NutLoose]

The thing they miss is a valuable point.
They probably look on it as it takes a year plus to train an Engineer, so assume they can replace them in a year with a new Engineer if needed, however they have lost the core experience that only comes with time, and that leaves a big hole in the middle of your engineering capability.
That is different to natural wastage as you are in effect cutting out the central core of Engineers and they can only be replaced with time, and of course that time period relies on fresh intakes of Engineers building their knowledge base which would normally be provided by those that are no longer there, so you then also suffer from a lack of continuity as well.

[smujsmith]

It strikes I, as a mere squib of a lad, that you can reduce any amount of people when "belts need tightening", but, replacing anyone, Aircrew, Groundcrew or other trade can never be accomplished by simply promoting someone and recruiting more. One thing I always found when posted or promoted was that there was always someone with experience and nous to give me a few pointers. They are busy removing the very people I for one relied on. I'm sure people will try to meet whatever is thrust upon them, but, without that nous and experience they might struggle a bit.

Smudge

[NutLoose]

The odd thing considering the way the RAF now emulate the Civi world is that we have laid down requirements for minimum licensed coverage and staffing, without which a company cannot operate or will be pulled up until its addressed.




..

[Shack37]

The decisions for cuts requiring redundancies are made by our blinkered politicians. This begs the question, who decides and at what level are personalities selected for redundancy?

If at station level surely local bosses will be aware of experience and ability of the troops they see every day or by assessment records and be able to recommend which bodies to "let go" and who to keep.

[reynoldsno1]

The thing they miss is a valuable point.
They probably look on it as it takes a year plus to train an Engineer, so assume they can replace them in a year with a new Engineer if needed
Sounds hauntingly familiar to where I work at the moment. Knowledge base? Management don't like talking about knowledge - sounds old-fashioned. It's all about 'skills'.:hmm:

[reynoldsno1]

The thing they miss is a valuable point.
They probably look on it as it takes a year plus to train an Engineer, so assume they can replace them in a year with a new Engineer if needed
Sounds hauntingly familiar to where I work at the moment (civil aviation). Knowledge base? Management don't like talking about knowledge - sounds old-fashioned. It's all about 'skills'.:hmm:

[Melchett01]

This begs the question, who decides and at what level are personalities selected for redundancy?

I wouldn't ask that question too forcefully. I've seen senior officers making decisions - not in any situation so serious as this - but decisions that have been made in full knowledge that the outcome will be to break an organisation to make a point. Perhaps that has been happening in the redundancy deliberations - to make a point to the politicians.

It's a dangerous game to play though. When you get it right, this happens. When you get it wrong, well, lets just say reading that article sent my mind straight back to what happened to the Puma Force in the mid-noughties.

[gr4techie]

If only every fleet had the option to have a three day reset and reduce flying hours....

Do they really think a reduction in flying for 3 days will turn around the en-mass PVR exodus ?

[A2QFI]

Thread Drift. Where are the RN going to find anyone who can remember deck skills for our new aircraft carriers, whenever we actually get even one of them?

[orca]

Does anyone know what the PVR rate is at the moment?

I for one found it slightly fanciful that we could make 'targeted redundancies' and everyone else would simply march on the bearing. I assumed some would walk immediately following SDSR but the larger proportion would see out a tour or test the water before walking...which would be about now.

[Pontius Navigator]

If at station level surely local bosses will be aware of experience and ability of the troops they see every day or by assessment records and be able to recommend which bodies to "let go" and who to keep.

Good point but . . .

Imagine you are that boss. Who do you keep? The good guy, shed loads of experience, does the job in his sleep - potentially promoted soon and posted, or the new guy, well trained, keen as mustard, still learning on the job - sparkling future ahead of him?

I suspect you would keep the former and the posters would select that person for redundancy. Short term pain for long term gain.

[alfred_the_great]

A2QFI - probably the Officers, SRs and JRs that are currently working US and Fr Decks.

[Heathrow Harry]

simple answer - get rid of the "senior Officers" and keep the ground crew

[Rigga]

It's taken about 12/18 months for the lossie situation to break outside the gate...glad to see it.

[[email protected]]

Frankly rather typical of the modern RAF - senior officers who know better, won't listen to the concerns of their SMEs and believe that more efficiencies can always be made by just working harder.

Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it:ugh:

[Rigga]

"Frankly rather typical of the modern RAF - senior officers who know better, won't listen to the concerns of their SMEs and believe that more efficiencies can always be made by just working harder.

Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it"

Unfortunately - this example of leadership is not a military trait but an industrial trait.

THAT's a sign of the times.

[Uncle Ginsters]

It's taken about 12/18 months for the lossie situation to break outside the gate...glad to see it.


And how many other similar stories are banging on other gates...at least two that I know of...

Proof of what many knew...you can only stretch elastic morale so far before its irrecoverable...very sad indeed.

[Biggus]

I believe that there is more to this particular situation than is immediately apparent. While I don't personally work at Lossiemouth, I have heard directly from people who do, so believe there is more than an element of truth in what I am about to say.

The article leads one to believe that the problem at Lossiemouth was solely a result of compulsory redundancies as part of SDSR. This is only partly true. I believe the "huge" PVR rate at Lossie is a major, perhaps the major, factor. Why a huge PVR rate at Lossie?

The story goes something like this. As part of SDSR RAF Kinloss is closed, with many compulsary redundancies. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Moray area at the prospect that Lossie may go too, devastating the Moray economy. Concern is such that MPs of all Scottish parties, lead by the first minister himself, march in protest at possible closure of Lossie.

However, what actually happens? Lossie stays open. As for those made redundant from Kinloss, the vast majority actually land on their feet, finding generally better paid jobs in the offshore oil and gas, and renewables sector. Aberdeen is a relative boom town, and many of the companies have only recently discovered the benefits of employing ex-military personnel. Those still serving at Lossie suddenly see ex-RAF people they know, possibly less qualified than themselves, earning much more money than them, with a fixed work pattern and better overall quality of life. As a result the PVR rate at Lossie goes up dramatically as many elect to jump ship and do the same.

With Aberdeen not far away geographically, a steady demand for good quality people to work offshore, friends and colleagues already doing so (thus providing networking opportunities to gain employment, and even headhunting), and increased pressure at the RAF workplace with shortages of personnel - you have the situation for a perfect PVR storm. I have also heard that Lossie is not a very happy ship, at least at junior ranks level. Lossie could be a running sore for Manning for years to come - purely as a result of geography.

How many PVRs have there been from Lossie in the last 12 months?

As for the article itself. How you read it depends on your perspective - what exactly was its purpose.

As I say I don't work at Lossie myself, but believe from what I have heard that the above is a fairly accurate description of the current situation. Perhaps someone better placed would care to confirm or deny?

[Just This Once...]

I can only confirm that I heard a version of the above direct from a gentleman at Manning.

[kapton]

Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.

[Pontius Navigator]

being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit.

Have you noticed it is usually to say goodbye rather than hello? I was part of rent-a-crowd when a CAS and a CinC both came round in a fairly short space of time.

Quite funny really as when my wg cdr boss was about to introduce me CinC said 'Hello PN, we must stop meeting like this." :) I also knew CAS and was able to relate how I met his Turkish AF driver when he had been a gp capt at SHAPE. Boss went crinkle and said afterwards that I hadn't told him they knew me to which I responded that he hadn't asked,:}

Maybe they daren't do an arrivals tours lest they make rash promises that they can't keep.

[gr4techie]

Biggus,

There is an element of truth in what you wrote.... Nobody I know that has left Lossie to work in the oil and gas industry is worse off.

Manning always seem to blame the oil and gas industry for the pvr rate. However, I'd like to stress the RAF is as much to blame for pushing these guys out (with lack of incentive, lack of appreciation, poor quality of life, all the bull poo we have to put up with, etc) than Aberdeen pulling them out.

To answer your question Biggus, an article I read in Airclues quoted "270 TG1 pvr'd from Lossie in 18 months. Approx 35% of station TG1 strength. Equates to 1500 years of engineering experience."

[Jobza Guddun]

A subject dear to my heart so I'll have a pound's worth...:ok:

As mentioned in an earlier post, the RAF has indeed reaped what it has sown. For more than a few years now, we've seen squadrons steadily drained of experience due to (what appears to me to be) an increasing PVR rate coupled with more personnel leaving at 12, 15 and 22 years rather than signing on; also add in Project Zeus and Project Apollo which causes hurt however well it was intentioned.

What this means to the guys on he line is that the fewer experienced troops there are get used to achieve the flying programme - this is usually just about achieveable with them working flat out most of the time, going from job to job. The big snags that take 2 or 3 shifts to fix have to be left to whoever you have left, typically a supervisor or bod who have a bit of clue - rarely if ever do you have both. Thus the big snags take longer to fix but more importantly, new guys don't get the chance to learn properly as many of us did years ago. They pick up what they can when they can, rather than being taken through tasks in a structured manner depending on ability. This means that experience takes longer to develop and so, we are where we are. Does it all lead to cutting corners? Not necessarily, just longer hours that are relentless and eventually grind folk down.

Why spend your working life trying to do more with less when you can leave, maybe have a better quality of life and earn a lot more money elsewhere? Look at Lossie, and 99 Sqn currently - and wait till the UAE and Qatar (and Malaysia?) buy Typhoon...only 1 font of knowledge that BAES support is coming from. :uhoh:

Now consider the feeling of worth of your average RAF techie. For example, the scribbly next door who doesn't get cold, wet, dirty, prematurely deafened or slowly poisoned, takes 10 minutes to train compared to you, has a darn sight less responsibility and gets promoted quicker, gets paid the same as you do. Gets to the gym in work time, and closes the office now and again for training or due to the backlog of work...:ouch:

IMHO each techie in the RAF is now more valuable than ever before due to the numbers left. There just isn't the time to spend bringing someone on properly any more We either achieve the flying task or we develop people - we can't do both, so those with type experience are like gold dust. Manning appear to have no concept of this and seem to think a techie is a techie is a techie. As long as they fill the slot that's it job done. The RAF can't compete financially, so the only thing to offer is stability - if someone's happy at a unit then leave them there, as we did 2000-05ish. That period of time to me was the happiest I've known the RAF to be in 25 years - maybe we should have a look at how things were done then...

That Air Clues article - "look what we've done to try and recover this mess". Well, the other side of that is how did you let it get like that in the first place or what did you do to try and prevent it? :hmm:

Dons ECBA and helmet.

[glad rag]

Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.

Totally, totally 100% spot on.

This and the "Retention/Manning" threads just goes to show who the ones are who have totally failed to lead the RAF, at all levels, for many many years.

:D:D:D:D:D:D

[OutlawPete]

Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.

Back in 2004 and a Lossie station visit from Innsworth, one of those chinless wonders gave the worst briefing I had ever seen in my entire career, I'll never forget it. He was breaking the news to station personnel that the latest round of redundancies were going to mean longer time away, less money around, less time to do things and the general attitude of delivery was that if we didn't like it, then do one. Most of us listened and did just that. Most of us were career folk and in it for the long haul but that kind of attitude sealed the deal, for me and many who could escape pension intact. Button pushed.

The RAF created this mess it now has, too many high up with a can-do attitude that was more about them climbing the greasy pole than doing the right thing and telling MOD/Westminster it had got it wrong. The oil industry simply recruits what it sees as good employees so don't blame it for taking advantage of a situation.

[Hammer Head Too]

The latest savage cuts all came off the back of pay 2000 (or what ever they called it). This was where the current rot started to set in as the Admin branch (and the bean counters) started their assault on the Technical trades. (and they won!) This and the wholly misguided current view of 'just in time, modular training'..... this modern (read cheap!!) ethos has eroded the systems knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of potentially very good people.... but mention this at your peril. Anyone 'in the know' going to let us have the actual PVR numbers for the technical trades by Station?? Suggest these would make many blanch if the rumours I'm hearing are true.... I despair for what used to be a well maintained air force :mad:

[PapaDolmio]

At least Lossie has the highest RAFFT pass rate. Must get priorities right.

[glad rag]

The latest savage cuts all came off the back of pay 2000 (or what ever they called it). This was where the current rot started to set in as the Admin branch (and the bean counters) started their assault on the Technical trades. (and they won!) This and the wholly misguided current view of 'just in time, modular training'..... this modern (read cheap!!) ethos has eroded the systems knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of potentially very good people.... but mention this at your peril. Anyone 'in the know' going to let us have the actual PVR numbers for the technical trades by Station?? Suggest these would make many blanch if the rumours I'm hearing are true.... I despair for what used to be a well maintained air force :mad:

Once again spot on; the shallow of depth of engineering knowledge coupled with a total lack of determination to do the job [and why should they? ****e leadership once again] was readily apparent as a civi contractor on the Firebirds. And that was HOW long ago?

[taxydual]

Where's CASWO in all this?

Isn't it his job to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on?



Apologies to the current CASWO, (the post didn't exist in my time), I suppose I'm one of the sad tossers who despair on what has happened to the Service I was a proud member of and proud to serve in.

[thing]

But then again some techies have had it easy for a while. I'm thinking of the large Lincolnshire secret squirrel airbase where techies I know have been er, not too hard pushed shall we say.

I'm not arguing the Lossiemouth point by the way, as an ex techie who was out of the RAF loop for 16 years I was amazed by how much things had changed in that time; not just for techies but for all.

I had my share of starting nights at 1700 and finishing when the day shift started at 0800 the next day. Then you had to run the gamut of arseholes on the way back to the mess/block who wanted to know why you hadn't shaved that morning/looked like a bag of ****. They will never know how close they came to being seriously damaged. A week of that soon puts the bags under the eyes.

I remember when I was without transport as a young erk and used to thumb lifts everywhere. I was kindly given a lift by a retired Group Captain all the way to the gates at Conners from Sheffield. On the way we were talking about shifts and the long hours we worked and he could barely believe it. He thought that the hangar was locked up at around 2100 each night.

[Biggus]

In my opinion a large part of the problem is that the RAF is now run on the basis of management rather than leadership (how many officers have MBAs these days, even down to junior level?).

This has created a tick chasing, box filling culture, where the performance of a base, and no doubt promotion recommendations for senior officers, is now measured in terms of certain KPIs (key performance indicators).

In the same way that league tables for schools ended up distorting activity (for example I have heard of schools not letting pupils sit exams because they would probably only get a D, which would effect the schools pass rate and therefore league table position), the same is happening within the RAF. Station senior hierarchy make meeting KPIs their main focus of activity, creating a culture where the box has to be ticked, whether or not it actually has any relevance to the individual involved, and despite the amount of effort/goodwill/overtime it might require to do so.

Yes, Lossiemouth, for example, may have the highest RAFFT pass rate, and other meaningful KPIs for stations no doubt include CCS currency rate, in date medicals, etc. However, who looks at such statistics for a base such as, PVR rate, divorce rate, retention rate, number of people applying for early postings etc. Why don't we measure the performance of the senior officers on a base in those terms?

Perhaps we might then see more leaders, as opposed to bureaucrats who spout meaningless management drivel (see this thread for an example:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/520860-shaping-uks-helicopter-force-post-afghanistan.html

) coming to the fore?

[Riskman]

This thread reminded me of a quote in the Haddon-Cave report.


17.35.1 By Brigadier General Duane Deal:
“If reliability and safety are preached as “organizational bumper stickers”, but leaders constantly emphasize keeping on schedule and saving money, workers will soon realize what is deemed important and change accordingly. Such was the case with the shuttle program.”


What was the point of setting up the MAA if the intent is nullified by lack of experienced manpower? As Jobza Guddun says What this means to the guys on the line is that the fewer experienced troops there are get used to achieve the flying programme - this is usually just about achieveable with them working flat out most of the time, going from job to job.

I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety but I infer from the comments on this thread that the RAF is doing just that as a result of government policy!

R

[NutLoose]

I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety but I infer from the comments on this thread that the RAF is doing just that as a result of government policy!

It's called up sh*t creek without a paddle, not that the paddle is lost of course, simply removed as a cost cutting exercise...

[cynicalint]

I really think that we need to look closely at the creeping infection of senior management applying MBA bolleaux. This insidious faux-management qualification, aimed at those in the service-sector providing a specific service in a commercial enterprise, has poisoned the Armed Service environment, where measuring ‘key performance indicators’ has superseded doing the job properly. Our 'Customers' do not want our services and if we deliver it properly there are no complaints or requests for refunds. The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the armed forces is that we can defend ourselves against an unseen threat at short notice, which is outside the remit of MBA thinking. MBA methods are single issue, commercial answers to ‘Just enough just in time’ operations. We need to attack this mind-set inculcated our senior management. Unfortunately, I think we have gone too far down this route to do anything about it. Too many senior ‘leaders’ have had their ‘political antennae’ tuned to see the armed forces as a political business, providing a service to customers and not an insurance policy which is prepared to visit violence against an robust attack on those who fully deserve it.

[ACW599]

+1 above :D

[Haraka]

Ditto the one above . MBA dogma (often blindly promulgated by those of somewhat limited practical managerial experience) is largely irrelevant to operations as erratic and diverse in nature as the Armed Forces.

[dallas]

You're right cynicalint. Even when I left in 2009 there was way too much 'In the thick of it' and not enough 'Saving Private Ryan' in the officer corps particularly.

[alfred_the_great]

Biggus - ask him

Reach for the Stars | Aviation, Photography and Leadership Blog (http://igale.wordpress.com/)

[[email protected]]

Anyone who feels the need to write such stuff about themselves seems to be a clear symptom of the problem in the modern RAF:ugh:

A leadership blog......perleeaze..:yuk:

[Biggus]

a_t_g

Whilst I do not wish to criticize the individual, perhaps I could make one constructive suggestion - why not let your SNCOs participate in the "command group meetings" rather than the junior officers. You know, the WO and Chf Techs with 20+ years of practical and technical experience, who won't ever be making comments with the aim of impressing or sucking up to the boss, and have seen some of these wonderful ideas tried years before and fail.

Once again, I have no wish, or authority, to either criticize or praise the individual concerned, but I do believe he is currently in charge of an unhappy ship (at least below junior officer level) with a large PVR rate. Maybe he can turn things around?

[BEagle]

crab and alfred, you're doing him a total disservice.

Windy is a top bloke and he goes out of his way in that blog to explain some of the new concepts ('Delivery Duty Holder'....ffs) forced upon him.

There are targets far more worthy of your derision - OC Lossie is one of the good guys!

[1.3VStall]

Beags, he may, indeed, be a top bloke, but why on earth does he need to use such modern management bolleaux as "Walking the talk of this aspect of authentic leadership..."?

Looking back at the many Staishes I served under I can't imagine any of them coming out with such pompous claptrap. However, in my day we had leaders and commanders, rather than managers and executives! (We also had an Air Force then).

[OutlawPete]

Agree fully with Beagle. Met him at community events, he does indeed seem like a decent chap and his blog is much better than many I've read. Let's not forget he was one of the few to speak out about the situation the RAF currently faces and that can't have been easy.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jobza Gudun Why spend your working life trying to do more with less when you can leave, maybe have a better quality of life and earn a lot more money elsewhere? Look at Lossie, and 99 Sqn currently - and wait till the UAE and Qatar (and Malaysia?) buy Typhoon...only 1 font of knowledge that BAES support is coming from.

Indeed. BiL, Lightning FLM to Cpl on Tornado at St Athan - instructor in Saudi - instructor with BAE - turbine engineer on oil rigs, then power stations, now back on a oil barge - 2 weeks on 3 weeks off, mega bucks. Thanks for the training, not thanks for the job and he banged out 20 years ago.

[Herc-u-lease]

So it seems the MBA qualification is the root of all evil :ugh:

The erosion of techie pay in pay 2000 was the start of the rot. How on earth a JNCO chef held the same responsibility (and pay) as a JNCO techie was lost on me at the pay 2000 briefings. The NEM has made noises about specialist pay; let's hope they follow through on it for tech trades - that would at least be a start.

The core poison in this is the reduction in overall manning and the result this has on harmony. In the pre end to end (remember that buzz word?) days we had multiple bays, ASF etc. this allowed rotation of personnel through the 2nd and 3rd line environments to improve domestic harmony if required. It also provided a very good pool of knowledgable guys who could supplement 1st line techies with their knowledge on dets etc. The other consequence of having higher tech manning on Stn was people who could run the things that made the RAF worth being in i.e. expends, sports clubs....

The arrival of the fwd and depth concept really was the line in the sand where we lost that on Stn rotation ability. Couple that with manning being cut to the bone and more dets to sh1t places and we have a recipe for disappointment in a volunteer force.

The initiatives I have cited above are, I believe, the brainwaves of mgmt consultancy firms (McKinsey et al) and have been adopted by those above. Undoubtedly there are some areas of defence which can have general management concepts applied - but one has to step back and examine if those concepts are really appropriate to a unique organisation whose primary job is to rapidly generate aircraft to meet the flying program in peacetime and in theatre.

We find ourselves in a scenario where the defence budget does not stretch as far as it used to. The additional oversight/policy (MAA etc.) is making defence more difficult and ultimately more expensive (i am not arguing for or against MAA). This means the old days of tech pay, ASFs, spare manning and the derived benefits they brought are behind us. It is much easier to quantify the (increased cost) of bringing a piece of kit into service than it is to quantify the value a few more Stn bods would bring - and guess which wins.

It is only when incidents like lossiemouth raise their head do the people who hired McKinsey think for a second. But then their job is to deliver a capability and not blow the budget.

Holding an MBA does not instantly make you a cock, nor is it a bad qualification as long as its content is applied to contexts where it suits. It is not a substitution for good management merely an education in theoretical management practices.

I sincerely hope some lessons are learned from the Lossiemouth saga and actually acted on.

H

[alfred_the_great]

Beags - I have no 'beef' with the Stn Cdr of Lossie, I was simply inviting Biggus to actually address his concerns to the man himself rather than gobbing off on the internet about it.

And I have had both SRs and JOs at the Command Briefs I run - both provide valuable talking points.

[NutLoose]

In this way, they get to see what we're doing at 'senior' level whilst they get to raise issues direct. So far, both parties have found the experience very useful – it has certainly kept me on my toes and its great to have the juniors especially critique your work, it keeps you extremely focussed!

I suppose the fact they are walking out the door in droves is the best critique of how well you are doing..

[BEagle]

a_t_g, sorry - I misinterpreted your post.

I also read that Lossie has recently held an event to recognise and reward the excellence of the station's technicians. Just one step in a concerted and determined programme to restore the pride and status of such valuable and hard working people.

[Wrathmonk]

inviting Biggus to actually address his concerns to the man himself

IIRC Windy used to be an active participant on this very site. Can't remember his Nom de PPRuNe mind but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to identify!

[Chugalug2]

Riskman:_
I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety
Well certain Air Officers did in the 1980s breaking a system that still doesn't work, and others have been covering up that sabotage ever since. The MAA continues to do so, and will go on continuing to do so, unless and until it becomes separate and independent of the MOD. Ditto the MAAIB which must also become independent of the MAA. Finally, both must become civilian led.
At the moment you have a totally compromised Military Airworthiness Authority that cannot provide airworthiness and an Air Accident Investigator that cannot be relied upon to objectively investigate Air Accidents. In short the whole rotten mess is a recipe for disaster. Aviation being aviation, it will surely happen.

[Rigga]

To throw my 2p worth in... 'Windy' inherited this mess - he didn't create it - and (IMHO) his predecessor appeared powerless to prevent actions that helped create it.

[NutLoose]

Then the simple fix is to extend the PVR period to say two years plus and or raise the price to tens of thousands to reflect the training costs involved....keep extending it to control the flow... That's how they did it in the 80's, one guy I know was looking at several hundred pound and a year plus, the chief clerk told him to come back tomorrow as he had wind of a change, he left that week for free, as the trade numbers had swung the other way...

Not rocket science, an airline will expect you to refund their training costs if you bail early, the RAF should too. They write it into your contract, the armed forces should too.


..

[BEagle]

Not rocket science, an airline will expect you to refund their training costs if you bail early, the RAF should too.

An airline doesn't send you into hostile areas at the whim of self-serving politicians....

[NutLoose]

That has nothing to do with it, end of a day it is a contract, you join the Military and in this day and age you accept you may end up in harms way, if you do not, simply do not sign up, you are contracted for a set time period, if you then choose to leave early, you need to do that on the terms laid out..

As for airline pilots not being in harms way.... How many none military flights are there? A lot.

Sorry Beagle that excuse does not cut it.. WW2 they would have had them down as low moral fibre and imprisoned... WW1 shot.



..

[VinRouge]

Nutloose, bit difficult to justify with the current major changes to TOS enforced on individuals.

AFPS15

NEM (including the opportunity to make you redundant with 12 months notice, up to the day before your IPP)

Raping of allowances


etc etc...

We don't operate a conscription force any more. People join for many reasons, but it is still supposed to be a 2 way deal. If we were fighting for our nations survival a la WW2 I would agree, but we absolutely are not.

[NutLoose]

I agree, but this also works two ways, the contract you signed with pension rights, termination etc should be legally binding on BOTH parties.



..

[CoffmanStarter]

Looks like Gp Capt Mark Chappell is to takeover as Station Commander at Lossie in November when Typhoon ops move there ...

Going back on a few points mentioned a couple of posts back. Many, especially non military HR Dweebs, mistake Managers for Leaders ... WRONG :=

Whilst Management and Leadership aren't mutually exclusive ... there are fewer Leaders than Managers and even fewer Good Leaders (first) who are also Good Managers ... but there are simply shed loads of Mangers who think they are Leaders (and some delusional idiots who even describe themselves as World Class Leaders :yuk:)

The problem is that it's comparatively easy to evaluate the effectiveness of a Manager by using objective measures ... such as "stay within this budget", "reduce flying hours by x%" etc etc. But it is more difficult to directly measure "Leadership" ... hence organisations tend to use management effectiveness as a surrogate for appointing what they believe to be "Leaders". This is further compounded by these people/organisations tending to recruit in their own likeness.

Some might have seen something like this before ... it still remains true today :ok:

The manager administers; the leader innovates.

The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

The manager maintains; the leader develops.

The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader’s eye is on the horizon.

The manager imitates; the leader originates.

The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

From what I can see ... Gp Capt Gale seems to be both a good leader and manager ... let's hope he is given a good next appointment.

[light_my_spey]

Having read the posts up to now, Biggus and Jobza Guddun, have pretty much summed it all up. I am one of those that PVR'd from Lossie, and yes went into the very attractive offshore industry afterwards, looking back I wished I did it years ago although I still look back with a sense of utter pride with what I was able to be apart of over those years in service, you have heard it all already no doubt, work hard, play hard, great detachments, a good life. I could however, no longer tolerate the utter (and i couldn't phase it better) piss poor leadership I was forced to endure during my last few years of service. My boss deciding to go on holiday in the middle of our first Tornado deployment to Aghanistan in 2009, (having banned everyone from taking leave) was the final blow for me. You want to stop people leaving? Stop treating them like another number to fill a gap with, a techie is a techie is a techie rings so true. Why manning seemed to thing I had the same responsibility as an egg cracker or the scribbler who was more interested in getting to B&Q on a Wednesday afternoon to get plants for the office than dealing with the JPA nightmare everyone was dumped with, is just incredulous. The reality of what skills have been lost is already biting, but the realisation is too late I fear.

[Biggus]

a_t_g,

I'm sorry if you feel that my attempting to explain some of the peculiarities of the situation at Lossiemouth, including aspects beyond the control of the RAF - such as the close vicinity of Aberdeen and lure of offshore jobs - along with the drift towards management, as opposed to leadership, throughout ALL of the RAF, to be "gobbing off".

No doubt I'm demonstrating poor "followership". Just as well I'm retiring. Maybe you'll feel I'm entitled to write what I want when I'm a civillian - after all, you're supposed to be protecting my right to do so.

Perhaps if I'd written a personal blog about it, or an article for airclues, you would have considered it more acceptable! ;)

[enginesuck]

Its not Just techies who have benefitted from the O&G industry along the A96 i know of many AEOps who now fly ROVs underwater. They are earning significantly more than their previous Squadron Commanders. Even Armorers have gone down this route !

[gr4techie]

I'm sorry if you feel that my attempting to explain some of the peculiarities of the situation at Lossiemouth, including aspects beyond the control of the RAF - such as the close vicinity of Aberdeen and lure of offshore jobs

I stress it is within the control of the RAF. They can look after their manpower for a start, stop messing them around and offer a package thats competitive with what we can expect working elsewhere. Its not just the lure of offshore, but the lack of "lure" of the RAF.... Theres just no incentive to be trade group 1 in the RAF anymore. Nobody I know who has PVR'd from Lossie is worse off.

[OutlawPete]

If anything the situation has made Lossie the posting of choice for final tourists. The North East is a fantastic area, affordable property prices, job opportunities with good salaries and a nice spot to raise a family.

[smujsmith]

Outlaw Pete,

Fracking heck mate, last week we were being told the NE is a desolate and isolated place, ideal for oil and gas exploitation. Proffered by no less than a "noble lord". Now we are exposed to the NE as a land of marvellous opportunity and beauty. I know where my vote lands, it is not with the "knobbly Fraud" :ooh:

Smudge :ok:

[gr4techie]

I agree with your description of the area in post #70 but I can't think of any last tourists recently posted in, most have been juniors to fill the gaps. The people Im guessing are last tourists have already been here or Kinloss for the past few years (once Q'd there's no escape?)

[ralphmalph]

Herc-u-lease,

Great post my friend.....bang on.

Ralph

[OutlawPete]

I suppose it depends what you're looking for Smudge. I'd hardly call it desolate but it suits those who, like me enjoy outdoor life. On my first tour here I didn't think it was anything special and was quite happy when I was posted back down south. The second tour changed my outlook completely, plus I'd become tired of a 10 mile journey on the M6 taking an hour or more.

[Biggus]

I think people are confusing comments made by a (English) politician about the NE of England (with respect to fracking, where such terms as "desolate" and "isolated" were used) and the NE of Scotland, which is neither desolate or isolated!

[gr4techie]

I suppose it depends what you're looking for Smudge. I'd hardly call it desolate but it suits those who, like me enjoy outdoor life. On my first tour here I didn't think it was anything special and was quite happy when I was posted back down south. The second tour changed my outlook completely, plus I'd become tired of a 10 mile journey on the M6 taking an hour or more.

Unless you buy something of the internet. Some shops charge more for sending a parcel to Lossiemouth, thinking its the same logistics as sending a package to the moon.
Some couriers must think life does not exist past Hadrian's Wall and North Scotland is on the edge of the world.