inews - 'RAF admits ‘urgent’ need to solve shortage of trained pilots''

[Wig Wag]

Here we go again:

i-news - RAF admits 'urgent' need to solve shortage of trained pilots (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/raf-admits-urgent-need-to-solve-shortage-of-trained-pilots-2083957)Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, has revealed that at one point last year that the UK had more F35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets than it had pilots to fly them and that “the pilot pipeline was not where I wanted it to be”.

By November, the situation had improved with 27 F35s and 33 pilots, but that included Australian and US pilots over on exchange and was “not a staggering amount”, Mr Wallace admitted to MPs.

Nothing said about losing pilots to China then?

How about tempting them back? I'm sure they have their price!

EXCLUSIVE

[Bob Viking]

The RAF have paid £480,000 to a US consultancy firm to tell them how they can fix the problem. I could have given them a few nuggets for a lot less. In fact, instead of doing what the MOD always do (pay a bunch of money to a civilian company for ‘advice’, most of which comes from recently retired military personnel) they could just do a better job of listening to the people they already have. You know, those uniformed SQEP that turn up for work every day and tell their chain of command when things aren’t right. Those same people that get ignored and fed up and then leave. Those same people that may even end up working for consultancy firms.

On balance, maybe let’s just leave the RAF to it and allow those people to rake it in as consultants. The RAF hierarchy will never learn.

Remember: money is not the answer.

BV

[Fortissimo]

Quite right, BV. There is plenty of internal intellectual horsepower available and always has been.

This is old news, wrapped up as some sort of scoop, using docs leaked in May/June. As for the contribution from Lord West, his willingness to take any and every opportunity to have a pop at the RAF would embarrass the bearded bullsh***er himself.

[falcon900]

Plus ca change……..
The age old problem. If it is any consolation, the same situation applies in the civilian world. Even where the consultants aren’t employing your former staff, the first thing they usually do is interview your existing staff who almost invariably tell them the answer to whatever the problem is.
It is a hallmark of weak management that they can’t implement difficult choices without paying someone external to tell them to do it. It allows the option of scapegoating the consultants if it all goes wrong, but horribly undermines organisational self confidence, and introduces often fatal delay to remedial action being taken.
I can only imagine how it feels to serve in the RAF at the moment with insufficient aircraft and even then, insufficient pilots to fly them. I suppose we will be in to a new recruitment year shortly, so at least they will soon be able to recruit all shapes sizes and colours again….

[Uplinker]

Ermm.......train and employ more pilots?

If the government and/or the RAF really need to pay consultants to work out how many pilots they need for a given fleet; we really are lost !
I could lend them my calculator, or my pen and piece of paper if need be.

I would offer to be an F35 pilot, but I suspect I am not capable enough to pass fast-jet selection........

[Lima Juliet]

Total tripe woven into a MSM story again. The Boston Consulting Group contract is for RAF Digital and is not ‘advising’ on how to recruit, train and career manage Aircrew. They might help provide digital tools and suggest tweaks to management processes, but they certainly aren’t doing what iNews infers.

You’ll find the contract here: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W45/786301120 - linked within it is the SUR document: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/9458d6be-3d5a-4076-982f-ee61d917f267

It clearly states this is to deliver a modelling tool to help the RAF personnel better understand the problems and to be able to model various scenarios in advance - like a forecasting model. Here is a snippet from the above link:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

So, yet again, this is more slack research by an editorial team who couldn’t even be bothered to do a 2 minute search on Google and read the links. More wrapping for next Friday’s fish and chips, I guess…:ugh:

[Saintsman]

Its not just a shortage of pilots though. They need to be flying too.

To be the best, you have to train seriously and that means hours. On the ground and in the air.

A lot more than they do now.

[falcon900]

Total tripe woven into a MSM story again. The Boston Consulting Group contract is for RAF Digital and is not ‘advising’ on how to recruit, train and career manage Aircrew. They might help provide digital tools and suggest tweaks to management processes, but they certainly aren’t doing what iNews infers.

You’ll find the contract here: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W45/786301120 - linked within it is the SUR document: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/9458d6be-3d5a-4076-982f-ee61d917f267

It clearly states this is to deliver a modelling tool to help the RAF personnel better understand the problems and to be able to model various scenarios in advance - like a forecasting model. Here is a snippet from the above link:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

So, yet again, this is more slack research by an editorial team who couldn’t even be bothered to do a 2 minute search on Google and read the links. More wrapping for next Friday’s fish and chips, I guess…:ugh:

Seriously? “ an interactive conceptual model to simulate outcomes for different interventions on the recruitment-training-deployment process ( not linked to source data) “ ??
Just how big an airforce do we think we have? How have we managed up to now? This sounds even worse than I had feared, and I am struggling to understand how you would differentiate it from “advising”. Even if you can differentiate it from advising, it is surely a distinction without a difference. We are paying to have someone tell us something we should and do already know. ( The old joke about the consultant borrowing your watch to tell you the time springs to mind…) Sounds like we have used consultants to write the brief for the consultants. We will be held hostage for ever!

[KrisKringle]

The system has been broken for over a decade and yet it seems as this has only just been realised. The only answer to an inadequate training pipeline was (and is) high levels of retention. I did my very best to argue that fast jet pilots should get paid the same or more than other RAF pilots, not less due to the farcical flying pay amendment (saving) of the noughties, but to no avail. Trainees then, as now, were far more financially astute, lifestyle aware and career savvy then back in the day of the RAF's senior leadership (80s and 90s), so these talented pilots are quite happy to do a tour or two and then explore another career opportunity. Opportunities that are far more lucrative, rewarding, with better work-life balance and far less risky.

[oldmansquipper]

“None so blind…..”

[Doctor Cruces]

The shortage of pilots could be helped greatly by taking their training back "in house" and not wasting money on poorly performing money making machines such as are the current trainers.

[pax britanica]

Falcon 900

I am a confirmed civilian but agree completely with your remarks. The problem is UK management attitude across the board not just the Services. The words they used here are completely cringeworthy adding up to sweet Fox Alpha.

[N707ZS]

Could do with another training base like Linton on Ouse. We don't seem to have learnt from Mrs Thatcher's cuts and the near embarrassment that caused.

[NutLoose]

The shortage of pilots could be helped greatly by taking their training back "in house" and not wasting money on poorly performing money making machines such are the current trainers.

Which by its very means will increase pilot availability by having service instructor's over civilian, I could never understand how farming it all out was cheaper. I could understand it with the odd specialised trades that may have the odd task to do every now and then, such as aerial erectors, chippies etc, but the core tasks, no.


I do wonder, have they looked at the Civilian system of bonding pilots? Ie, you have to give back so many years of service to cover the training costs, a bond becoming payable if you leave early.

[OvertHawk]

Which by its very means will increase pilot availability by having service instructor's over civilian, I could never understand how farming it all out was cheaper. I could understand it with the odd specialised trades that may have the odd task to do every now and then, such as aerial erectors, chippies etc, but the core tasks, no.


I do wonder, have they looked at the Civilian system of bonding pilots? Ie, you have to give back so many years of service to cover the training costs, a bond becoming payable if you leave early.

Military pilots are generally "bonded" by the length of their commission - so if you train them promptly and effectively then you get a decent length of service out of them.

However - if your training system is so crap that people who join as pilots are held for several years in make-work posts before they get onto a flying course and that course itself then takes much longer than it should then you've got people who have already served half of their commissioned periods before they get onto the front line. That's not the candidate's fault at all.

[Ninthace]

I've heard of The Few but this is kicking the backside out of it.

[SASless]

Different Country and different branch of the military but a large military aviation training program graduate and later Instructor Pilot in that same system.

The US Army in the 1960's was confronted by a need to ramp up Helicopter Flight Training due to a small bit of unpleasantness in Southeast Asia.

We were pumped through in one year from initial entry beginning with Basic Infantry Training, followed by Pre-Flight Training, Primary Flight Training, Advanced Flight Training, Instrument Flight Training, and finally Tactical Training.....in one year.

Primary Flight Training was a mix of Civilian Flight Instructors and Military in a 3:1 ration (Civvie/Military), with the other phases being done by Military Flight Instructors.

Conversion training following graduation from Flight School was determined by Class Standing and all Conversion Flight Training was done by Military Flight Instructors with a few very minor exceptions.

The one corner that cut in that training was the Army in its infinite wisdom elected to do only sufficient instrument flight training to meet the requirements of what it called the "Tactical Instrument Rating"....only real difference being no ILS Approaches were taught thus no "Standard Instrument Rating" was issued.

That was based primarily on the inability to conduct those approaches due to the sheer numbers of students being pipe lined and came back to haunt the Army post Vietnam.

I later did the Standard Instrument Flying Course which was taught by all Civilian Flight Instructors....mine being former USAF before his retirement from the military.

There is no reason the RAF cannot get the job done if sufficient resources and management priority is given to the task.

Or the US Air Force for that matter....but both the RAF and the USAF have very similar problems today.....and yes even the US Army. has forgotten how to get it done.

I would suggest a proper focus on the root causes of the problems would yield some common results in all of the services.

Politics and Funding with ever constantly changing priorities being the most serious culprits.

Sort those out and with some effort to secure effective managers to oversee the entire process and the hiccups down the line would soon be fixable.

One note.....our service commitment BEGINS the day one receives those Wings and in my situation should I have failed Flight School at any point or for any reason I would have had a Two Year commitment from initial entry with the rank of Private.

[Yellow Sun]

The one corner that cut in that training was the Army in its infinite wisdom elected to do only sufficient instrument flight training to meet the requirements of what it called the "Tactical Instrument Rating"....only real difference being no ILS Approaches were taught thus no "Standard Instrument Rating" was issued.
entry with the rank of Private.

I'm so glad they didn't curtail your Diversity and Inclusion training. That must have been a great relief all round!:E

YS

[Lima Juliet]

NutLoose

I do wonder, have they looked at the Civilian system of bonding pilots? Ie, you have to give back so many years of service to cover the training costs, a bond becoming payable if you leave early.

All Aircrew, Officer and SNCO, are bonded by a 6 year initial training return of service which starts on the first day of flying training and finishes 6 years after finishing your first OCU. It was the same many moons ago when I started on a short service commission, where you couldn’t leave until you had done 6 years on the front line post OCU. Then, if you do another OCU (the equivalent of an OCU) then it comes with another 3-5 year training return of service depending on type - Voyager and Lightning have 5 years for sure.

So that’s a long winded way of saying “yes”! :8

[Lima Juliet]

Seriously? “ an interactive conceptual model to simulate outcomes for different interventions on the recruitment-training-deployment process ( not linked to source data) “ ??
Just how big an airforce do we think we have? How have we managed up to now? This sounds even worse than I had feared, and I am struggling to understand how you would differentiate it from “advising”. Even if you can differentiate it from advising, it is surely a distinction without a difference. We are paying to have someone tell us something we should and do already know. ( The old joke about the consultant borrowing your watch to tell you the time springs to mind…) Sounds like we have used consultants to write the brief for the consultants. We will be held hostage for ever!

How do you know it doesn’t link into STARs, JPA, TAFMIS, etc…? Also, how do you know what it actually does when the tool, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t been rolled out for use? How many IT gurus do the 3 Services have laying around to run a project like this - to plan, develop, code, deliver and then support a software tool like the one proposed in the link?

I would offer that part of the problem is that for years we have used whiteboards, spreadsheets and magnetic tiles to plan stuff like this. Is it any wonder that all 3 Services end up going feast-famine-feast with their training pipelines if we continue to allow a bunch of mates huddled around a planning board/computer trying to cuff it? (I know how pants that is as I’ve been there).

I, for one, think that having an ‘end to end’ planning tool that looks at a through life pipeline of individuals - recruiting, basic training (Cranwell or Halton), flying training (and the various pipelines), the myriad of extra courses (SERE, RAFCAM, HF&CRM training, centrifuge, etc…), then OCU. But it doesn’t need to stop there either - what about all of the Phase 3 training - IODs, IMLC/AMLC, ASWS and MAA courses. Wouldn’t it be neat to have a singular planning resource for everyone to use and for everyone to see where they and what is coming up? :confused:

I would have loved to have had that instead of a whiteboard, some coloured pens and tiles and a bottle of meths! (Which, at times I felt like drinking!) :cool:

[airsound]

Thanks for posting those contract details, Lima Juliet. https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W45/786301120
But that document appears to be the source for at least some of the iNews article.

For instance, section 2, THE REQUIREMENT, starts:
The Authority urgently needs to increase the number of trained aircrew to match operational demands. The Authority is seeking consultancy support for guidance on how best to:
1. Uncover the true drivers of the aircrew recruitment-training-deployment processes and visualise this for easy consumption
2. Allow RAF to simulate outcomes (e.g. number of trained aircrew over time, cost incurred) given a selected set of potential interventions and engage stakeholders across the organisation on what the path forward should be
3. Work with our existing tech systems and data partners to develop a roadmap for how to deploy and scale appropriate digital tools and hardwire appropriate change into the organisation.

It then goes on to detail the deliverables that you quote.

So I’m at a loss to understand your invective against iNews, which you accuse of slack research by an editorial team who couldn’t even be bothered to do a 2 minute search on Google and read the links.
It seems to me that iNews has done us all a favour by publicising this, and that, very far from offering “total tripe”, the paper is actually reflecting a deeply disturbing situation that the taxpayer needs to be aware of.

airsound

[Asturias56]

"There is no reason the RAF cannot get the job done if sufficient resources and management priority is given to the task."

And there is the problem - what we're getting is another "investigation" which will "make recommendations" no doubt. The system is almost designed to do nothing

[MPN11]

I would have thought getting enough aircrew would be a management priority, rather than new uniforms or terminology. But I'm an old bottom-feeding ex-ATCO.

[Two's in]

"There is no reason the RAF cannot get the job done if sufficient resources and management priority is given to the task."

And there is the problem - what we're getting is another "investigation" which will "make recommendations" no doubt. The system is almost designed to do nothing

Exactly this. This is the equivalent of the meeting to discuss what we're going to discuss in the meeting. Back to those requirements again;

'Uncover the true drivers of the aircrew recruitment-training-deployment processes and visualise this for easy consumption"

If the leaders and members of the flying community within the RAF don't understand this better than outside consultants, then something is very wrong - back to Bob Viking's point about asking the people in uniform what they know. As for "visualizing it for easy consumption", if you are in a leadership position and can't understand the problems you are encountering/causing without pictures and crayons, maybe you are in the wrong job? What I suspect they really mean is create a few easy soundbites for the MinDef to spout on the BBC where it's clear this is no-one in the Government's fault, and never has been".

[Timelord]

The requirement perfectly demonstrates the problem:
” True drivers”, “potential interventions “, “stakeholders”,”roadmap”, “ hardwire” etc
Fashionable management speak nonsense instead of military common sense.
A bit less of the former and more of the latter would by itself help the retention problem a lot.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Well the fundamental problem is that they're focussing on recruitment. I don't have the link, but USAF figured out a couple of years ago after extensive study that it is far more effective to retain than recruit. But recruitment gives easily measured statistics....

[_Agrajag_]

The RAF have paid £480,000 to a US consultancy firm to tell them how they can fix the problem. I could have given them a few nuggets for a lot less. In fact, instead of doing what the MOD always do (pay a bunch of money to a civilian company for ‘advice’, most of which comes from recently retired military personnel) they could just do a better job of listening to the people they already have. You know, those uniformed SQEP that turn up for work every day and tell their chain of command when things aren’t right. Those same people that get ignored and fed up and then leave. Those same people that may even end up working for consultancy firms.

On balance, maybe let’s just leave the RAF to it and allow those people to rake it in as consultants. The RAF hierarchy will never learn.

Remember: money is not the answer.

BV

I worked as a consultant for over a decade after leaving. Money for old rope. Getting paid a lot more to say the same stuff as I'd been saying when serving. The difference was that they tend to believe consultants. Never understood the weird mentality behind this. One of my colleagues (former corporal) was earning around £800/day as a consultant. The job he was doing was at OF-6. This was over 20 years ago.

[mahogany bob]

link:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

KISS - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Funny the link must have been corrupted because it is missing what should also be there:

Deliverables not to be included:

1) Any result that would indicate poor planning, lack of prioritization, failure to adequately resource training, or any other causal factor that was due to the failures of the senior leadership managing the recruitment-training-deployment process

2) Any models that would clearly show the actual costs and project effect on operational readiness for different interventions on the recruitment-training-deployment process

3) A high level roadmap that would provide a practical framework on how to address the current failures in the recruitment-training-deployment process

[punkalouver]

Hey RAF recruiters,

I have a bunch of flying time mostly on freighters from small twin turboprops to heavy four engine turboprops and the heaviest of jets.

My great grandpapa came from England and apparently, the other one was from northern Ireland(I think one of the loyal groups). The other side is Eastern European but nobody's perfect.

Anyways, I would be happy with a month on, month off schedule on the A400 with first class tickets to work like my old company provided.

But be advised...
(a) I am a straight white male
(b) I don't want to work with stuffy people that have superiority attitudes with colonials.
(c) While I liked the Queen, Charles is a bit iffy(but I like him more than Harry now).
(d) Flying duties only, not desk stuff, etc.
(e) I don't like marmite(but I do like Elizabeth Hurley).
(f) They are called chips not crisps.
(g) I have previous British aircraft experience and know what a punkalouver is.

Call me if you need me. You know you do.

[MENELAUS]

And yet you can’t spell punkah louvre correctly. Might be a stopper. That and finding our King ( and yours I assume ) a bit iffy. I wouldn’t mention that at the interview.

[Lima Juliet]

airsound - OK, I’ll spell out the total tripe for you from the article:https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/raf-admits-urgent-need-to-solve-shortage-of-trained-pilots-2083957

A review into the aircrew shortage has been commissioned, with the RAF bringing in the Boston Consulting Group on a £480,000 contract to suggest potential solutions and to gauge support for different options.

Well, it isn’t, as per the contracts link, it’s actually been brought in to develop a software tool that can model the current situation and then be able to provide and visualise what options the the RAF management using it might wish to take. Of course, to make that tool they need to understand the flying training pipeline and course lengths (courses, capacity, etc…). They also need to understand the recruiting methods and timelines for an average ‘time of flight’ for a civvy being recruited and also how long someone takes to get through an OCU, LCR and CR work ups. Once you have that data then the software tool will allow the user, the RAF/RN/Army, to understand where problems may be starting to occur and hopefully react faster towards fixes. It will also allow the Services to create hypothetical scenarios to understand what effects things like Defence Reviews and aircraft grounding/pausing issues might do to the throughput. So, they have totally misread the SUR that is shared online (indeed if they read it all). As for £480k, sure it’s a lot of money, but about the going rate for something like that (my other half works in IT in the banking sector - they charge similar amounts for similar projects). The going rate for a single contractor is likely to be £1500-£2000 per day, so if you have a team of 5 and 40 chargeable days of work (which is 2 months) then that is is £10,000 multiplied by 40 or £400k.

Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, has revealed that at one point last year that the UK had more F35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets than it had pilots to fly them and that “the pilot pipeline was not where I wanted it to be”. By November, the situation had improved with 27 F35s and 33 pilots, but that included Australian and US pilots over on exchange and was “not a staggering amount”, Mr Wallace admitted to MPs.Well go figure, pretty much all aircraft types ever delivered have had fewer qualified to fly it in the early days than the manufacturers are churning out. If it takes 4-6 years to recruit and train aircrew and only 2 years to manufacture, then you can easily find you have more aircraft than crews to fly them. You also have to wait for delivery before you can learn to fly them! It was the same for Tornado and Typhoon, it was probably the same for Hurricane and Spitfire too.

​​​​​​​The latest six-week long Boston Consulting review for the RAF has been looking at the “true drivers” of the problems and costing different potential solutions or “interventions” to increase the number of trained aircrew.
No it hasn’t. It has been tasked to produce a forecasting tool to be used in the future. This is what that linked SUR on the contracts link states “Allow RAF to simulate outcomes (e.g. number of trained aircrew over time, cost incurred) given a selected set of potential interventions and engage stakeholders across the organisation on what the path forward should be.” But iNews seem incapable of understanding basic English (or they didn’t read it!).

​​​​​​​Some pilots for some spy planes are expected to have to wait three-and-a-half years for training, while there is a two-year wait for those learning to fly Chinook helicopters, Sky News reported in August.

Not true. For a short time in the summer that was looking like the upcoming situation but recent changes and agreed programmes of action have seen significant changes to those numbers for the better. So much so that some have been restreamed to fast jet and rotary types in the past month or so.

So, you go ahead, read and believe what you like. But ask yourself this: what do you know about that the press is also factually incorrect about or just plain making it up? Then transpose it to all the things you don’t know about and consider whether that may be “tripe” too, as my past experiences of mainstream media have.

Now was that Haddock or Cod with your chips? :ok:

[punkalouver]

And yet you can’t spell punkah louvre correctly. Might be a stopper. That and finding our King ( and yours I assume ) a bit iffy. I wouldn’t mention that at the interview.

I'm not French, so don't like spelling it like louvre. OK, I'll bring a teddy bear with me to the interview and say I like to carry it everywhere like the King.

Anyways, I probably failed at the straight white male part(regardless of total experience). See below.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/17/raf-pauses-job-offers-to-white-men-to-meet-diversity-targets-17197176/#:~:text=The%20RAF%20has%20effectively%20halted,UK%27s%20sec urity%20could%20be%20compromised.

[biscuit74]

Strewth. The spread of BS Bingo continues,. I'm with 'mahogany bob' - whatever happened to KISS? This sounds like something designed to cover up a fairly obvious clanger in somebody's forecasting. Not unusual.
.
It's not as if we have a large Air Force - or at laast its flying elements - these days. Nor is to the first time the Forces have got this wrong - as Lima Juliet commenst. So, maybe not enough 'learning' going up at the top end, if there is any truth to this. (And given what a current RAF pilot 'trainee in waiting' told me just a few weeks ago, I suspect there is some truth to it)

Surely any modestly competent manager should be able to figure out approximately what is needed using pencil and paper, or maybe a spreadsheet, just to look fancy and allow a few more tweaks and side estimates. We used to predict ahead our need for competent field experienced engineering staff in several complex & sometimes interlinked specialities worldwide for several years ahead, using spreadsheets to back up our pencil and paper intial estimates. It worked well enough for us to prosper and didn't cost the earth - get it wrong and the company would go bust - a major incentive!

Given those 'deliverables' brings to my mind the advice from RJ MIrchell to Jeffrey Quill, many moons ago - “If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.”

[Timelord]

LJ, Haven’t we already paid the MFTS contractor to understand all that?

[Easy Street]

It was Treasury pressure to address the variability of the annual spend on flying training which compelled the MOD to contract it out. MFTS as contracted was certainly steady and predictable, but ignored the fact that the variability of the spend reflected the variability of the throughput requirement as outflow rates, organisational changes and defence review decisions on front line numbers worked their way through the system. Guess what, those things are still unpredictable (COVID and its effect on inflow/outflow numbers being just one example of a surprise factor).

I wonder if any consultant would have the courage to recommend terminating MFTS, bringing aircrew pipeline management back fully in house where it belongs, and accepting that the system should be sized to allow ups and downs in demand? Training its front line aircrew is part of the core business of an air force; international students should be used as backfill during periods of low domestic demand rather than being the priority output (as might appear to be the case right now).

[1771 DELETE]

I think you will find that we are not just short of pilots, WSOP/O as well, I think the P8 fleet is badly undermanned.
The civilian training system is at fault but our major problem is retention, far easier to keep someone in than train someone new but lack of quality leadership never appears to be aware enough to care.
I enjoyed my 31 years but glad i am not part of the farce now.

[Lima Juliet]

Timelord

Nope - UKMFTS manage their own pipelines in flying training and they don’t even run everything. For example all of the ISTAR Mission Aircrew are still trained via the RAF and another contractor provides some key parts of that too. Also, this is a far wider than a tool for running the somewhat small bit that is UKMFTS. Here is an idea of the actual complexity:

Recruiting - AFCOs, UASs, OASC, Medicals (Capita initials and later ones at Cranwell) and then they come at different ages and some join from other Branches, Trades, Professions or even Services. All of that will affect the overall picture.
Phase 1 training - Modular Initial Officer Training or Basic Recruit Training/DE SNCO. Some go straight through, some take a little longer. Some fail all together. All of that will affect the overall picture.
Pre-Employment Training (PET) - AMTW with RAFCAM, SERE training, Centrifuge for those going on to live fly in Prefect (all types of Pilots inc RPAS), HF&CRM training at Cranwell and other course including the dunker for those going to helos. All of which will affect the overall picture.
Phase 2 training Part 1 - UKMFTS do MAGS, EFT, BFT, MEPT, BRT, ART and AJT, plus Observer/Aircrewmen and WSO training on 750NAS and Airborne Specialist training on 45 Sqn - this is the bit that you correctly identify is managed by the contractor. Then 45 Sqn provide some ISTAR training with another contractor to provide WSO and WSOp for the ISTAR Forces. Then the WSOp (ISR) Lg get language training from the Defence School of Languages. There is much more to all of this and all of which will affect the overall picture.
Phase 2 training Part 2 - OCUs and QFI/QHI work ups for Creamies and Skimmies. At the end of this they are deemed now ‘trained’ and are role disposed to their FL Sqns or to the Sqns at Valley or Shawbury. All of which affects the overall picture.
Phase 3 training - LCR/CR workups or B2-B1 Instructor work ups. QWI, EWI, QHI, QFI courses galore. 2-ship work ups, 4-ship or ups, Captaincy upgrades, aircraft upgrades, etc…etc… the list goes on. Then you have things like IOD1-5, IMLC, AMLC, etc… Then you have MAA training, or display work ups, etc…etc… All of which affects the overall picture.

Overlaying all of that you have failure rates, aircraft groundings or so-called ‘pauses’, then the weather doesn’t always play ball, or things like COVID (other viruses are available…) then you have plain life events - marriages, births, deaths and other such things. All of these affect the overall picture too. They can be estimated and that is what a proper planning tool will allow you to do.

Finally, understanding the whole aircrew demographic, their contract lengths, their extant Returns of Service, their medical status, their competences and qualifications, their hours, their preferences, etc… Also, understanding outflow, trying to forecast and understanding/estimating it within the tool to try and get an idea.

At present, all of this is run and managed in very distinct and localised ‘swim lanes’ where really only starts and finishes are understood at a basic level. Most are run on simple spreadsheets or worse. You need to remember that it might take, without any holds, a year to recruit someone, a further year for Phase 1 and PET, then 2-3 years for Phase part 1 then maybe up to a further year for those OCUs and a LCR/CR work up. There lies the problem - from understanding a requirement on the front line for a basic Wingman or Co-Pilot, then you are looking at a 5, or maybe 6 years with a bit of holding, lead time.

Tricky - doesn’t even go near describing it. Especially if you are fiscally constrained where any waste/excess is frowned upon and everything has to be “just in time”. Hopefully, that gives a slightly better understanding of what is needed to managing the aircrew requirements? Next add in Engineers, Air Traffic, Weapons Controllers, Fire Fighters, Med Services, Coppers, Scribblies (we are doing very badly for HR) and the myriad of other supporting staff and you can see how such a tool might be useful once proven to manage 10% of the RAF (which is the very rough numbers of aircrew compared to the rest).

[Lima Juliet]

1771 DELETE

Retention causes issues all of its own if you don’t keep a healthy churn going through. You end up with Dad’s/Mum’s Army with Cpl Jones everywhere. You also end up with too few with the reach to make Flt Cdr, Sqn Cdr p, Stn Cdr/CAW, Force Cdr, AOCs, DCOM Ops and potentially CAS/CDS. Therefore, only some retention is required and you can’t keep all or you end up with different challenges. Typically 30-40% of any workforce needs to keep moving up, 30-40% can leave and 30-40% can stagnate in retention. Those rates can vary a little, but if you retain say 60% of your workforce at the same rank - FS/MAcr/Flt Lt - then you bedblock the progress of the rest, then they leave due to a lack of advancement. So, retention is not the total answer. Even then, you must retain only those that you really need if they want to stay put.

But I agree, Mission Aircrew (WSO/WSOp) are just as important as the Pilots. Also, Engineers more than any other Branch/Profession/Trade are needed in support of the Aircrew and their aircraft. If those 2 fall over then you aren’t going anywhere!

[oldmansquipper]

link:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

KISS - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

Mahogany…..

“KISS!”

IIRC A Very popular phrase around the Lacey Green bazaars the 80s. From our low level in the engineering staff food chain it sounded good, and we tried very, very hard to comply.

However, our view was that putting people who actually knew their jobs and were dedicated to making them work, was the ‘simplest’ option. Sadly the hierarchy did not see it that way, as there appeared to be few opportunities for career enhancing cost cutting. In fact, by ‘lean managing’ the lower levels, everything became so complicated higher up that KISS went out the window. Obscuration seemed to become the name of the game.

Kiss? - I don’t think it was given a chance….Sad

The ‘Deliverables to be delivered’ yukspeak above is pretty typical bulls1t! Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Just my personal opinion, mind. 😉

[Timelord]

LJ, Yes, I understand all that - ‘‘twas ever thus even when we were training huge numbers of aircrew compared to now, but do we really need to pay external consultants to design an IT system to explain how our own system works to us?

[cynicalint]

Over 40 years ago, Phillip Broughton published an article “How to Win at Wordsmanship” (Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/) magazine, 1968). He suggested a Systematic Buzz Phrase Projector, a three-column table with 30 words (see below). The use is simple. Think of any random three-digit number, and then select the corresponding buzzword from each column. For example, number 911 produces "balanced organizational flexibility" a phrase that can be dropped into virtually any report or presentation with a flavour of decisive knowledgeable authority. The claim was that “No one will have the remotest idea of what you're talking about, but the important thing is that they're not about to mention it.”

(Was it the first buzzword bingo?)
http://www.gsrc.ca/buzzwo5.gif

[Lima Juliet]

That’s the thing that people still aren’t understanding. The external contractors aren’t “explaining how our own system works”, we’re telling them how it works and they are building the RAF a system to help track and manage it all.

How did we do it in the past? Chaos and sheer volume of numbers. That’s the snag, as we got smaller then relying on that means that we need to be more measured as there isn’t any fat in a system that trains such small numbers and a demand to cut out waste/overlap. That is also the other snag in the constant demands to return flying training completely to Service control - even if we had the money, we wouldn’t have the people (Aircrew and Engineers) to do it in house. It would take 5-10 years to train up the volume of people to spring the more experienced folks to be the instructors. It’s easy to axe fleets and people, but hellishly expensive and time consuming to build back up again.

That’s the thing too, the RAF has been shrinking since the end of WW2. It’s easy to manage a system when you have excess numbers to rely upon. The wheels really came off the wagon in SDSR10 when the RAF decided it had too many Pilots and sacked 170 students. Then did not recruit any for 3 years or so. Then for SDSR15 the RAF was asked to grow for the first time in about 70 years, and with a new flying training system that replaced just about every type save for Hawk T2 and Avenger in a 2-3 year period. Then you add the fact that the system was designed and catered for the reduced numbers of SDSR10 and you have a perfect storm brewing. Add to it all the complexities mentioned above, and the fidelity now needed due to the small numbers, then you get what we have right now.

Interestingly, the issue last summer was nothing to do with UKMFTS and it was all about an inability to absorb the excess numbers being sent to be trained on the front line. That was a lot to do with COVID when far fewer left than planned and left students waiting a couple of years for an OCU. Couple that to highly successful rejoining program that also filled the front line and you get the picture. Which is why bold statements can be made by the higher-ups about “operational effectiveness not being affected” - because in a lot of areas it’s full! But then again, with small numbers, especially an all single-seat combat air force then losing a handful or 2 of Pilots in relatively short order can tip you quickly into desperate times again.

So we really can’t do it the way we used to - the current situation proves that! :ok:

[falcon900]

How do you know it doesn’t link into STARs, JPA, TAFMIS, etc…? Also, how do you know what it actually does when the tool, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t been rolled out for use? How many IT gurus do the 3 Services have laying around to run a project like this - to plan, develop, code, deliver and then support a software tool like the one proposed in the link?

I would offer that part of the problem is that for years we have used whiteboards, spreadsheets and magnetic tiles to plan stuff like this. Is it any wonder that all 3 Services end up going feast-famine-feast with their training pipelines if we continue to allow a bunch of mates huddled around a planning board/computer trying to cuff it? (I know how pants that is as I’ve been there).

I, for one, think that having an ‘end to end’ planning tool that looks at a through life pipeline of individuals - recruiting, basic training (Cranwell or Halton), flying training (and the various pipelines), the myriad of extra courses (SERE, RAFCAM, HF&CRM training, centrifuge, etc…), then OCU. But it doesn’t need to stop there either - what about all of the Phase 3 training - IODs, IMLC/AMLC, ASWS and MAA courses. Wouldn’t it be neat to have a singular planning resource for everyone to use and for everyone to see where they and what is coming up? :confused:

I would have loved to have had that instead of a whiteboard, some coloured pens and tiles and a bottle of meths! (Which, at times I felt like drinking!) :cool:

I admire your confidence in the ability of a system to accurately predict future events. Should such a system exist, I would be inclined to use it to predict the winner of the grand national, do the football pools, predict the lottery numbers etc. The defence budget would be much higher.
Back on planet earth, history tells us that the more systems are interlinked, the more the consultants and the IT contractors benefit. And still the future tends to confound us. Was it not just last month the Bank of England were telling us the recession would last 2 years ( despite the fact they didn’t see it coming) and now it turns out we aren’t in a recession at all ( at least not yet)?
Working out how many people you need to recruit to have sufficient numbers of pilots to fly our diminishing fleet of aircraft is not rocket science.

[falcon900]

I admire your confidence in the ability of a system to accurately predict future events. Should such a system exist, I would be inclined to use it to predict the winner of the grand national, do the football pools, predict the lottery numbers etc. The defence budget would be much higher.
Back on planet earth, history tells us that the more systems are interlinked, the more the consultants and the IT contractors benefit. And still the future tends to confound us. Was it not just last month the Bank of England were telling us the recession would last 2 years ( despite the fact they didn’t see it coming) and now it turns out we aren’t in a recession at all ( at least not yet)?
Working out how many people you need to recruit to have sufficient numbers of pilots to fly our diminishing fleet of aircraft is not rocket science.

Especially as the cost of some extra pilots every year would take about 30 years to exceed the cost of the system to prevent it happening, even if it worked!

[Lima Juliet]

Mate, you need to check your maths…

The annual capitation rate for a junior aircrew mate is in excess of £100k. So you would pay off £480k if it saved buying over 4 of your so-called “extra pilots” in a single year. That doesn’t even account for the training cost of a single Pilot either, which is well in excess of £480k for just one!

PS. We are in a recession! The Nov 22 figures confirmed that. :ugh:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1769x1185/14078b5e_d618_4371_8e6a_64eae70b98cb_cf3820d5635e56c0cc1fc2e d4b51b3e4142ed464.jpeg
PPS. This system won’t predict anything, it will allow the folks that manage this to throw in scenarios and “what ifs” to see what effect they may have. Also, if there is a big change like an SDSR or IR, then it will allow them to understand its effects and then model some outcomes to try and mitigate things. It isn’t some sort of Gypsy with a crystal ball, it’s a management tool, but a complicated one with many variables.

[SVK]

This system won’t predict anything, it will allow the folks that manage this to throw in scenarios and “what ifs” to see what effect they may have. Also, if there is a big change like an SDSR or IR, then it will allow them to understand its effects and then model some outcomes to try and mitigate things. It isn’t some sort of Gypsy with a crystal ball, it’s a management tool, but a complicated one with many variables.


Sweet. In that case can we kill two birds with one stone and feed it the variables for the McCloud Remedy? We could have the new Pension Calculator ready to go in six weeks!

[NutLoose]

Surely procurement and manning should go hand in hand, nothing these days tends to be off the shelf, if you order xyz flying Thrungebuckets, the into service date / delivery date will be measured in years.

Therefore you need to recruit and train those required to operate and service your Thrungebuckets plus a percentage for support, natural wastage and failure rates at the time the orders are put in.

Otherwise you will have Thrungebuckets stored all over the place without the manning to operate and maintain them which negates the point in ordering them in the first place.

We also need to address the haste in which we rush to scrap aircraft with perfectly good hours remaining on them to give the taxpayer a good return on their monies.

Far better would be to mothball the fleets as war reserves. Heck stick them out in the US desert if needed. Flogging off fleets like the Harrier was nonsensical when they could have been stored as a cost saving measure.

I would also bring back an RAF Reserve similar to the US National Guard where retired military pilots flying airlines etc would / could be kept current on service types in case of a national emergency.


​​​​​​…

[finestkind]

A never-ending vicious cycle. As already stated, feast, famine, feats, famine. Many well put forward ideas and reason why for. Unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast without any easy solution. Retention has a multitude of problems when successful, significantly stagnation of promotion, gaining experience etc. Mind you the lack of retaining experience brings its own issues. My first posting, one Flight had a FLGOFF as the most experienced driver. Nothing wrong there but he was on the way out after a bit over two years at the SQN.


Why did we join. Well, you get some very first-class training, fly some nice pieces of kit, are with likeminded people (with some questions with some fellow winged wonders being perhaps the selection system had some hiccups, yes, I was likely one of them) and get paid to do it. So, the question is why did you leave? and there is a number of reasons. Interestingly first time I departed was interviewed on why by a budding WGCDR writing a thesis on aircrew departures. Gave a number of reasons, hopefully he got an A. Had another interview on retaining pilots when the Army (2007 I believe) lost 7 odd QHI in one week. This was when civvy contractors where all the rage. These seven chaps departed on a Friday, returned to work in civvy clothes on a Monday with a 30% pay increase, with hours Monday to Friday with none of the extra gaff (mind you the extra gaff is fine if you are after that first or second or third star).

I am afraid it is the nature of the beast. A bit like a Stando. For those of us that have been in one Squadron for some time we get to see the amendments put in by the new Stando, and the next one and the next one until SOP'S etc are back to if not the original form close to it (a good reason to have experience in the Squadron to say, "we did that three amendments ago, let's not waste the paper"). The nature of the beast with the thrusting young Officer making his mark.

I believe the book Sky Guardians, Britian's Air Defence 1918-1983 published 1993, addressed the retention issue in one of the chapters.

There is no easy nor hard answer I believe.

[tucumseh]

But I agree, Mission Aircrew (WSO/WSOp) are just as important as the Pilots. Also, Engineers more than any other Branch/Profession/Trade are needed in support of the Aircrew and their aircraft. If those 2 fall over then you aren’t going anywhere!

I agree, and reminds me of when we were given Direct and Indirect Labour criteria to meet. ('Direct' being those who contributed directly to whatever your output was). It would be different in each domain, but the first time I came across it, in a workshop, it was generally 60/40. Just before I retired nearly two decades ago, in DPA we reckoned it was more like 10/90. If that. With the advent of consultants, it probably became 1/99! If that 1% goes sick, or ships out, you're snookered; because it takes 10 years to train a replacement. MoD has been 'fouling' for all those years trying to escape.

I recall in 2002 a Brigadier toppling at a programme's System Integration Plan, which simply called up the mandated Def Stan and applied it to that requirement. He let a 6-month contract on a consultant to find out what System Integration was in the first place. The Brigadier and consultant weren't even indirect labour, making no contribution whatsoever.

[Flying Hi]

Total tripe woven into a MSM story again. The Boston Consulting Group contract is for RAF Digital and is not ‘advising’ on how to recruit, train and career manage Aircrew. They might help provide digital tools and suggest tweaks to management processes, but they certainly aren’t doing what iNews infers.

You’ll find the contract here: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2022/W45/786301120 - linked within it is the SUR document: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/9458d6be-3d5a-4076-982f-ee61d917f267

It clearly states this is to deliver a modelling tool to help the RAF personnel better understand the problems and to be able to model various scenarios in advance - like a forecasting model. Here is a snippet from the above link:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

So, yet again, this is more slack research by an editorial team who couldn’t even be bothered to do a 2 minute search on Google and read the links. More wrapping for next Friday’s fish and chips, I guess…:ugh:
!ooks like they dipped into the BS Generator. https://www.atrixnet.com/bs-generator.html

[mahogany bob]

PILOT TRAINING/CAREERS EASY SOLUTION

Have an RAF/British Airways agreement something like this:

Train RAF pilots and give them say a 9 year contract.

Give qualified plots a free ATPL whilst in the RAF.

Allow pilots to leave easily after their 9 years and progress seamlessly to BA who would give them priority.

Keep them ‘on war reserve’ in case of need .

If the RAF had a surplus they could release pilots to BA early.

This would be a win /win solution - BA would gain as they always suffer from boom or bust requirements.

The RAF could train more pilots in the knowledge that they could shift them on to BA if not required.

RAF pilots would be happy because those who wish to keep flying could have a natural ‘career in flying ‘structure . Recruitment would improve.

Those pilots with career aspirations could stay in the RAF.

I believe that this system works well in other countries??



I think that this system was offered to the RAF many years ago but was turned down because of retention fears??

[Timelord]

S of S for Defence: “CAS, I gave you one job - sort out the pilot training pipeline”
CAS : “ Well sir, we’ve been thinking about it for 18 months and the answer is to commission a new IT system”

Sorry LJ, not convinced.

[Asturias56]

But BA isn't a British Airline..................... its run by the Spanish

[falcon900]

Mate, you need to check your maths…

The annual capitation rate for a junior aircrew mate is in excess of £100k. So you would pay off £480k if it saved buying over 4 of your so-called “extra pilots” in a single year. That doesn’t even account for the training cost of a single Pilot either, which is well in excess of £480k for just one!

PS. We are in a recession! The Nov 22 figures confirmed that. :ugh:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1769x1185/14078b5e_d618_4371_8e6a_64eae70b98cb_cf3820d5635e56c0cc1fc2e d4b51b3e4142ed464.jpeg
PPS. This system won’t predict anything, it will allow the folks that manage this to throw in scenarios and “what ifs” to see what effect they may have. Also, if there is a big change like an SDSR or IR, then it will allow them to understand its effects and then model some outcomes to try and mitigate things. It isn’t some sort of Gypsy with a crystal ball, it’s a management tool, but a complicated one with many variables.

I stand by my maths. If you think Boston Consulting will only get paid £480k, dream on. And once they have “helped” to identify the causes of the problem and the solution, someone will need to be tasked and paid to come up with the inevitable “integrated” IT system, and history is not kind to those projects. Think years late and millions over budget.
As for the cost of training “surplus” pilots, the marginal per capita cost is nothing near £100k. In the early stages it would be little more than salary, albeit the fact we have outsourced much of the training, I accept the cost would be higher. It is of course only an incremental cost of it turns out you don’t need the pilots, and takes no account of the cost ( financial and other) of having too few.
Think about what the new system is being asked to do, and ask how it can be any more accurate than the present. The variables are many and, er, variable. The reason it is so hard is that we can’t predict the future, and if we chose to eliminate all margin for contingency, then we can quickly and easily find ourselves in the sort of situation we are in now.
let me try putting it another way: do you believe that a cheque to Boston Consulting for £480k is going to be the cost of fixing this?

[falcon900]

As for the question of whether we are in a recession, the economy GREW in the last figures published, which was not at all what was predicted. Blamed on us all enjoying the World Cup and spending to do so. Admittedly, the ONS usually adjust their figures at least once so we will need to wait for the final outcome, in so far as one can ever be determined. The fact that we seem to be dealing in decimals of 1% would also suggest that this is all rather faux science. A trip to TESCO is enough for most of us to understand what is going on and what to do about it.

[mahogany bob]

Asturias

No reason why this agreement couldn’t work well even if BA is owned by a Spanish consortium?

[Dan Gerous]

As for the question of whether we are in a recession, the economy GREW in the last figures published, which was not at all what was predicted. Blamed on us all enjoying the World Cup and spending to do so.

I saw this on the news last night and my first thought was, the World Cup is usually held in the summer and you would normally have seen the same thing in July.

[biscuit74]

There is a lot to be said for mahogany bob's suggestion ; if it is to be done outside, let it be done by people who routinely train large numbers of staff, fairly efficiently, and also could provide some useful incentives.

I found Lima Juliet's response / explanation to Timelord fascinating, hilarious and depressing - with all the 'creamies' and 'skimmies', 'swim lanes' etc. Thank you LJ. Reading that makes it depressingly clear why the system is having trouble. It is far too complicated - possibly because it has grown orgaincally over mnay years, perhaps for some it is 'hallowed' by tradition and of course has been messed up by efforts like the DSDRs. It needs simplifying and a complete reset. BA, whoever owns them, could do a darn fine job at it; their safety and their airworthiness record is fairly good...

It is not that complex. You are training people to fly, operate and maintain aircraft - OK 'air systems' to allow for the drones - and their various supporting services and processes. That's it. That's all. Most really large companies do this sort of thing routinely, some in-house, some contracted out. If they beahved like the RAF, they'd be long gone.
And no, 'security' considerations are not an excuse. Large multi nationals deal with both their own and others' commercial security matters as well as nations' security issues as necessary - routinely and generally well So forget that one. None of what the RAF does in terms of trainiing is particularly difficult of itself; it has just been allowed to grow admin and business BS for too long - mimicking so much the MoD appears to damage!

[Lima Juliet]

There lay another complication. You aren’t just training people to fly - that’s a bit like comparing private drivers, F1 drivers, rally drivers, bus drivers and HGV drivers as just ‘drivers’. For military aircrew you have to train them to fly, to fight and to win in really complicated and disparate disciplines and with very different aircraft types - compared to Boeing’s and Airbus’s latest offerings for a very limited set of mission sets (freight hauling or passenger hauling). Layered on top of that you need them to become your commanders and so you have to train them to be Sqn Ldrs and above, or FS and MAcr, therefore they need to acquire management skills and for the Sqn Ldrs and above some ‘staff skills’ too.

As for Pilots wanting to go to BA or Virgin, that dynamic has also changed. The wise folks go into defence, which is where the serious money is, or as someone else already eluded, into some of the various contracts supporting defence with their aircrew (Draken, Ascent, Inspire, BAe, etc…). The terms and conditions of airline flying is certainly less attractive these days! I certainly would not consider going near the airlines, but I did in the late ‘90s when the terms and conditions were way more favourable.

Further, if you go back to 1918 then Trenchard insisted that all officers train as aircrew regardless of what job they go on to do. That was a wise move as not only would many only do a year or so of flying training, and then rarely touch a throttle or stick, they would learn the basics of the RAF’s business and more importantly the Service would have a large bucket of partially trained Pilots to pull from. Fast forward 100+ years and less than 10% have any experience of actual flying across the Regular and Reserve cadre. So you can see how trimming down the number that gain that valuable 2-3 years of flying training has also painted an air force of 31,750 into a corner.

Finally, Reserve Aircrew are fine but it takes money and people to do it; and lots of it if you want to replicate ANG levels of effort. The thing is, if you have to create a set of Reserve flying Sqns then you need to develop the same amount of effort and pay the same amount of time as developing a Regular sqn. That was the conclusion that was rightly realised in the 1950s when the flying RAuxAF Sqns were stood down. If you embed the Reserves on FL units then you create further management problems against taught flying programmes where the Reserve has to take priority over the Regular as they are only turning up that particular day of the week - meaning that the Regular gets booted off of the flying programme when the jet situation crumps. So really Reserve Aircrew can only make up a very small proportion of your effort otherwise they become significant disrupters and difficult to keep safe and competent.

PS. I could probably teach someone to “fly” a Typhoon safely in a couple of months. If I want to teach them to “fight” the Typhoon, effectively as part of a large multi-national COMAO, then it will take me the best part of 5 years! Even to fight as a singleton it will take me at least 3 years in all likelihood if you want them to be victorious over their adversary.

[BEagle]

finestkind wrote:Why did we join. Well, you get some very first-class training, fly some nice pieces of kit, are with likeminded people (with some questions with some fellow winged wonders being perhaps the selection system had some hiccups, yes, I was likely one of them) and get paid to do it. So, the question is why did you leave? and there is a number of reasons.

I've just been watching the old Look At Life film 'School for Skymen', made not long after I'd won an RAF Scholarship. Some quotes:

"...Cranwell's 70-odd Jet Provosts"

"Pilot cadets will get 170 hours of training..."

"The old propeller powered aircraft beloved of past generations have no place here!"

How lucky we were back then. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned from that era?

[SASless]

LJ,

Layered on top of that you need them to become your commanders and so you have to train them to be Sqn Ldrs and above, or FS and MAcr, therefore they need to acquire management skills and for the Sqn Ldrs and above some ‘staff skills’ too.
.

Nail on Head.....NOT.

You hit the buzz words used today....and absolutely no mention of "Leadership" and all that includes.

You have just described in British Military Speak the same failure we see in some branches our American Military.

The Military is not a corporate firm and must have Leaders....who have a Warrior Ethos that can lead people into combat and creating a system that rewards "Yes Men" and the mindset that numbers, data, equipment, facilities, and people are all just so many "items" to be managed is the Achilles Heel of current thinking on both sides of the Atlantic.

Our military is focused upon learning how to honor Pronouns and Trans People in shower rooms rather than being focused upon War Fighting Skills much as your own are having to suffer through as has been mentioned by others here.

We had McNamara during my time in the Army and we saw what a disaster that kind of thinking was back in the 1960's....and what you just described is very much akin to that kind of thinking.

Good Leaders make good Commanders.....and not the other way around.....anyone can be a Commander...all it takes is the Rank and the Brown Nose......Leaders are held back in Rank because they are more likely to have bloody noses rather than one with brown on it,

A good Leader will fight for his Troops and see to it they are properly trained, equipped, and their needs provided for so they are ready for battle when called.

Commanders on the other hand will see to it they do not exceed their budgets and always do exactly as told to do so by their next senior commander in order to gain a favorable report card that will lead to promotion and never mind the Troops.

That is how most militaries work unfortunately.f

[Big Pistons Forever]

This is not a new problem. The pre WW2 RAF had essentially the same problem and it is a reflection of all Military Forces in peacetime. Leaders are not wanted in peacetime, managers are. Managers will compliantly go along with what the politicians want which will have everything to do with buying off the constituent of the day and nothing to do with actual operational readiness.

This mess is just a symptom of the larger problem. The RAF has not had an “enemy” since the end of the Soviet Union. That means the senior leadership is now almost entirely composed of managers, not leaders and they ensure any new promotions are like them.

I think all middle powers with the possible exception of Australia, have this issue; Canada certainly does.

The sad reality is the recent events in Ukraine have now amply demonstrated what a hollow force our Militaries really are, yet all I see is the deck chairs on the Titanic getting rearranged in bureaucratic MBA speak “process review” exercises

For me the height of irony is the Japanese with its history of constitutionally endorsed pacifism, is starting a huge ramp up in military capability with an emphasis on attaining deterrence through offensive capability. Go figure…..

[Professor Plum]

The RAF has not had an “enemy” since the end of the Soviet Union

Have I imagined my numerous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Have I imagined my numerous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?

Defense against the Soviet Union was an everyone, all the time mission. It directly affected every aspect of defense planning and operations. I do not mean to trivialize the Iraq and Afghanistan actions but they were deployments of the RAF not THE mission of the RAF.

[finestkind]

PILOT TRAINING/CAREERS EASY SOLUTION

Have an RAF/British Airways agreement something like this:

Train RAF pilots and give them say a 9 year contract.

Give qualified plots a free ATPL whilst in the RAF.

Allow pilots to leave easily after their 9 years and progress seamlessly to BA who would give them priority.

Keep them ‘on war reserve’ in case of need .

If the RAF had a surplus they could release pilots to BA early.

This would be a win /win solution - BA would gain as they always suffer from boom or bust requirements.

The RAF could train more pilots in the knowledge that they could shift them on to BA if not required.

RAF pilots would be happy because those who wish to keep flying could have a natural ‘career in flying ‘structure . Recruitment would improve.

Those pilots with career aspirations could stay in the RAF.

I believe that this system works well in other countries??



I think that this system was offered to the RAF many years ago but was turned down because of retention fears??

Isn't that what the US do with their Reserve Squadrons, apart from an agreement with an airline of stepping out of the military into a commercial cockpit. I believe, once was don't know about now, that is how it works with the RSAF and Singapore Airlines.

[finestkind]

It is not that complex. You are training people to fly, operate and maintain aircraft - OK 'air systems' to allow for the drones - and their various supporting services and processes. That's it. That's all. Most really large companies do this sort of thing routinely, some in-house, some contracted out. If they beahved like the RAF, they'd be long gone.
And no, 'security' considerations are not an excuse. Large multi nationals deal with both their own and others' commercial security matters as well as nations' security issues as necessary - routinely and generally well So forget that one. None of what the RAF does in terms of trainiing is particularly difficult of itself; it has just been allowed to grow admin and business BS for too long - mimicking so much the MoD appears to damage!

Tend to disagree. It is that complex. It is not just training people. It's maintaining standards whilst having the number to do the job if required, whilst allowing a wastage rate (the correct one) from resignations, retirement, moving up the ladder (off front-line op's), at exactly the correct amount, to train the right amount at the right time, to fill these holes whilst allowing them time to gain experience to.........If it was just training there would not be an issue.............apart from numbers, such as how many do we train. Well let's look at our expected wastage rate which will have to include the economic situation as the (once upon a time) attractive package offered by the airlines will entice our lad's and laddet's to depart. Well, have I got a job for you if you can accurately forecast the economic situation. I mean it cannot be that complex as all investment brokers are millionaires and we never have a recession or market crash. Sorry got carried away and my tongue in cheek was a bit too cheeky.

Having seen the boom and bust over a number of decades with the knee jerk reaction whereby we end up with more aircraft than aircrew or that many aircrew we need to invent new ground jobs to allow the ROSO to be paid back or allow early (which has happened) departure ignoring ROSO. Yes, one of the biggest issues is "admin and business BS for too long - mimicking so much the MoD appears to damage" but that also can be attributed to the nature of the beast, which is the posting cycle. We post SQNLDR/WGCDR/GRPCPT to this post, with no or minimal experience in this area. By the time they become an effective functioning body they are posted out. So, the complexity is compounded by the "time to train" that body in that position whereby they may have a positive impact.

Simply put the complexity or lack of it is probably mirrored by our economic situation.

[Lima Juliet]

SASless - agreed, which is why we have CLM - Command, Leadership and Management. Three separate things that need developing as you progress. It’s important to know the difference between the 3. Command is an appointment, a position of responsibility with legal liabilities for those that sit under them. Leadership is the ability to project your personality to inspire others into doing things - popular and unpopular. Management is a sub-set of command and sees to the planning, organisation and execution of defence. If you don’t have all 3, then you will likely fail. They also don’t grow on trees!

[NutLoose]

Management is a sub-set of command and sees to the planning, organisation and execution of defence.

execution of defence…….. destruction of defence….. killing of defence

Yup you got that right.. all equals reduction off.

[FantomZorbin]

Command, Leadership and Management
How can you have any of the above when everything has to be 'inclusive'. Orders are queried and are to be explained similar to how a primary school student would be instructed. Management decisions are not taken for fear of upsetting people and having to deal with the onslaught of legal challenges so they are best avoided. Leadership relies on there being a direction in which to travel, that bus went years ago.

[Davef68]

Which by its very means will increase pilot availability by having service instructor's over civilian, I could never understand how farming it all out was cheaper. I.

Not necessarily cheaper, just more predictable costing on a year to year basis.

[Uplinker]

I missed this the first time:

............The Boston Consulting Group contract is for RAF Digital and is not ‘advising’ on how to recruit, train and career manage Aircrew. They might help provide.........

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x341/0d068a6f_7049_4511_8f2f_2d13b588db4f_0860a717badd6c8e6e61f97 cded0aa403e30295e.jpeg

What does any of that; (points 1,2,3 in bold), actually mean?

Perhaps:

1. = being a training manager and understanding the training management task ?
2. = a spreadsheet ?
3. = a management plan ?

These sort of statements always seem to me to be the sort of thing that bosses, CEOs and managers should have demonstrated that they know and understand BEFORE they are awarded the jobs and positions they are in ?

What is the point of having university and management degrees, when at signs of trouble or problems, the people supposedly in charge run away and pay vast sums to someone else to come and explain how to do the managements' jobs - that they are already supposed to know how to do ??

Doesn't that result in paying twice for management ?

[_Agrajag_]

Why aren't these requirements written in plain English?

My best guess is that what they are REALLY asking for is:

A proper understanding of the existing aircrew recruitment, training and deployment problems.
How and why it keeps getting f**ked up.
How to fix it.

[tucumseh]

I missed this the first time:


What is the point of having university and management degrees, when at signs of trouble or problems, the people supposedly in charge run away and pay vast sums to someone else to come and explain how to do the managements' jobs - that they are already supposed to know how to do ??

Doesn't that result in paying twice for management ?

One problem is that MoD's 'procurement' side has 'Team Leaders', and under them 'Programme Managers'. When, in practice, they are Team Managers and Programme Leaders; and the latter deliver, often despite the former.

I've seldom come across a Team Leader who has the slightest idea what is required to deliver the requirement. Whereas a Programme (or even project) Manager is required to be able to do every job in the team. Sort that out and you're a long way to getting it right.

[EESDL]

....and let's sub out those flying roles which might have provided some respite for hard-pressed crews whom are/were remaining.

[Phil_R]

I am aware of one young person who spent most of her youth hankering after a career flying for the RAF and as far as I am aware had got through the first stage of doing that.

She's neither male nor white and the related political shenanigans which occurred recently was a big factor in her decision to change course for a career at an airline. She did not wish to be seen as a diversity hire.

It's a bit much when the air arm of the British military is being less fair than an Emirati airline. I mean, people of South Asian descent are routinely treated appallingly in the middle east. Not a great look, is it?

P

[Wig Wag]

See this:

Lockheed details low Hawk T2 availability rates that will push UK training overseas (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lockheed-details-low-hawk-t2-availability-rates-that-will-push-uk-training-overseas/151649.article)The UK is so short of operational jet trainer aircraft due to an engine issue afflicting the Royal Air Force’s (RAF’s) fleet of BAE Systems Hawk T2s that it is having to send pilots abroad for fast-jet training.

Revealed in written evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee as part of its investigation into aviation procurement, the admission shows the difficulties faced by the UK’s Military Flying Training System (MFTS).

. . . As of 31 October, the halfway point of the current 2022-2023 financial year, Ascent had been able to use just 1,711h, “generating only two fast-jet trainee graduates”.

. . . Data shows an average of 5,545 flying hours across the last four financial years, with an average of 23 fast-jet graduates.

How on earth did they let it get to this state?

[Double Hush]

RAF Valley going 'Black' everytime there's a frost doesn't help matters. This has been happening rather a lot lately with the cold snaps.

Putting all the (flying training units) eggs in one (airfield) basket was never going to be a recipe for success.

[tucumseh]

See this:

Lockheed details low Hawk T2 availability rates that will push UK training overseas (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/lockheed-details-low-hawk-t2-availability-rates-that-will-push-uk-training-overseas/151649.article)

How on earth did they let it get to this state?

The Ascent contract will have many MoD dependencies, which Ascent will understand and perhaps knew many were undeliverable due to conflicting MoD policies.

For example, it is common for MoD to have to provide Government Furnished Services/Equipment/Facilities (GFX). Most would think this reasonable, to avoid having to buy them all over again. And some are strategic UK assets, with no alternative permitted. But a few years before the T.2 was bought, the Chief of Defence Procurement banned all GFX in contracts. While at the same time pushing ‘incremental acquisition’ (another name for existing policy), which by definition requires GFX.

There is a direct correlation between successful projects of the time, and staff completely ignoring CDP and his Executive Board. But most didn’t ignore him, and even if the policy was eventually rescinded the immediate cuts in the necessary staff and resources meant the long-term effect is still felt. This entire function was controlled within Service HQs. As none of them retained the staff, it was now down to the project teams. If they didn't have someone who'd done the job in Service HQ.... For example, the RN had four people doing this on aircraft and equipment. The same four managed all the prerequisites to facilitate (e.g.) the pilot numbers calculation Lima Juliet mentioned earlier. The posts are long gone, and the last incumbents long retired. Instead of being a core central function, like many activities it's done by hundreds once in a while, with no training. A related problem was ‘training’ becoming part of ILS. It’s not. By definition it arrives too late.

My guess is the flying training people in MoD didn’t stand a chance. This is part of a much bigger problem, and MoD needs to get back to basics. It needs to understand what jobs are not volume-related.

[HEDP]

Is this a case of the system determining the size of the front line command pilot numbers/crews without taking into account training billets/OE posts/Staff or desk officers requiring that type rating. And then not taking into account the platform primes contractual obligation to provide instructional staff, particularly for overseas exports now as well as in UK. How many defence prime contractors train their own people to fly type's like Typhoon for example? Once you take into account the total size of the pilot cohort both serving and non-serving then you start to see the shortfall in the training pipeline. The pull through into industry will prevail and the contractors rarely train someone from scratch; perhaps there is a need for a contribution to the training pipeline funding required of the contractors where skills are to be capitalised on post mil aircrew requirement......

[biscuit74]

Tend to disagree. It is that complex. It is not just training people. It's maintaining standards whilst having the number to do the job if required, whilst allowing a wastage rate (the correct one) from resignations, retirement, moving up the ladder (off front-line op's), at exactly the correct amount, to train the right amount at the right time, to fill these holes whilst allowing them time to gain experience to.........If it was just training there would not be an issue.............apart from numbers, such as how many do we train. Well let's look at our expected wastage rate which will have to include the economic situation as the (once upon a time) attractive package offered by the airlines will entice our lad's and laddet's to depart. Well, have I got a job for you if you can accurately forecast the economic situation. I mean it cannot be that complex as all investment brokers are millionaires and we never have a recession or market crash. Sorry got carried away and my tongue in cheek was a bit too cheeky.

Having seen the boom and bust over a number of decades with the knee jerk reaction whereby we end up with more aircraft than aircrew or that many aircrew we need to invent new ground jobs to allow the ROSO to be paid back or allow early (which has happened) departure ignoring ROSO. Yes, one of the biggest issues is "admin and business BS for too long - mimicking so much the MoD appears to damage" but that also can be attributed to the nature of the beast, which is the posting cycle. We post SQNLDR/WGCDR/GRPCPT to this post, with no or minimal experience in this area. By the time they become an effective functioning body they are posted out. So, the complexity is compounded by the "time to train" that body in that position whereby they may have a positive impact.

Simply put the complexity or lack of it is probably mirrored by our economic situation.
Thanks finestkind. I was of course simplifying dreadfully, looking only at the training element, to keep it simple. Naturally standards need to be maintained and continuity assured in ops as well as in training; for that your existing leaders should be up to the job. Of course all predictions are best guesses; time was that the Services were able to aim for a slight overestimate on replacement numbers required. No doubt that isn't possible today, with our service people being run ragged trying to fulfil too many operational requirements with too small a group and insufficient resources all round.

I do think a major problem for the RAF in the modern world is the short duration of postings. Increasing those to,say, four year tours would make for a more efficient use of time and resources. Some nations post their people long term to a base rather than moved around constantly. Seems to work well. Is it time the existing system was changed, or at least possible changes thought about?

[langleybaston]

I do think a major problem for the RAF in the modern world is the short duration of postings. Increasing those to,say, four year tours would make for a more efficient use of time and resources. Some nations post their people long term to a base rather than moved around constantly. Seems to work well. Is it time the existing system was changed, or at least possible changes thought about?

Difficult subject. Longer in post, less broad experience, diminution of broad experience in most senior appointments.

Short post, varied experience versus domestic upheaval.

My best staff post began with advice received: "you have a couple of years or a bit longer. Identify one major problem that needs sorting, and sort it. Deal as well as you can with the unknown unknowns as they happen. Try to move during the school holidays".

It worked, sort of.

[finestkind]

Thanks finestkind. I was of course simplifying dreadfully, looking only at the training element, to keep it simple. Naturally standards need to be maintained and continuity assured in ops as well as in training; for that your existing leaders should be up to the job. Of course all predictions are best guesses; time was that the Services were able to aim for a slight overestimate on replacement numbers required. No doubt that isn't possible today, with our service people being run ragged trying to fulfil too many operational requirements with too small a group and insufficient resources all round.

I do think a major problem for the RAF in the modern world is the short duration of postings. Increasing those to, say four year tours would make for a more efficient use of time and resources. Some nations post their people long term to a base rather than moved around constantly. Seems to work well. Is it time the existing system was changed, or at least possible changes thought about?

Totally agree. I do believe that the RAAF has looked at posting location stability to improve retention and also time in "slot" flying postings, particularly fast jet. Unfortunately, with every solution comes another problem. If memory serves one of the problems of extending a flying posting was adversely affecting the promotion ladder. Any change no matter how small appears to cause seismic tremors. Perhaps we are still in factory mode with human labour and need to sift to technical mode. The RAAF pilot training system has had a shift and it will be interesting to see the result. I remember when knuckleheads were getting min hours due bucket (financial costs) constraints (currency maintained through flight and sim hours) which of course made the departure door look more inviting to times when we had/have more aircraft than pilots to fly.

[fdr]

Have they considered an add in the SCMP?

[ex-fast-jets]

langley

Please forgive my interruption - I have generally given up on this forum, but your post has made me feel the need to comment.

You were a weather person, I think - so what do you actually know about pilot recruitment/retention that makes you feel that you can add worthy comment on this subject?

If I am wrong, and you have something useful to contribute, then please accept my apologies.

If your area of expertise is trying to inform us all of what the weather will do, then please limit yourself to that.

I have my own views of pilot retention issues - but I am many years out of date with such issues, so I do not feel qualified to offer meaningful comment that would help the current situation.

[Geriaviator]

I know nothing about the pilot recruitment and retention issues, but I can recognise consultancy/management gobbledegook when I see it. Consultants perfectly complement the public sector. If the project for which they have been engaged is successful, Sir Humphrey can glow in his skilful management of that project. If it doesn't, Sir Humphrey can form a committee to conclude that the consultants' poor advice was the cause of said disaster.

Or am I being too cynical?

[downsizer]

langley

Please forgive my interruption - I have generally given up on this forum, but your post has made me feel the need to comment.

You were a weather person, I think - so what do you actually know about pilot recruitment/retention that makes you feel that you can add worthy comment on this subject?

If I am wrong, and you have something useful to contribute, then please accept my apologies.

If your area of expertise is trying to inform us all of what the weather will do, then please limit yourself to that.

I have my own views of pilot retention issues - but I am many years out of date with such issues, so I do not feel qualified to offer meaningful comment that would help the current situation.

Go for the kill!!!!! :)

[Flying Binghi]

I am aware of one young person who spent most of her youth hankering after a career flying for the RAF and as far as I am aware had got through the first stage of doing that.

She's neither male nor white and the related political shenanigans which occurred recently was a big factor in her decision to change course for a career at an airline. She did not wish to be seen as a diversity hire.

It's a bit much when the air arm of the British military is being less fair than an Emirati airline. I mean, people of South Asian descent are routinely treated appallingly in the middle east. Not a great look, is it?

P

Apparently, no-body shoots at ya when yer an Emirats driver. Perhaps she should have applied to join the Gurkhas..

..And, why is it there are no female Isle of Man motorbike racers……………

[Darkmouse]

Apparently, no-body shoots at ya when yer an Emirats driver. Perhaps she should have applied to join the Gurkhas..

..And, why is it there are no female Isle of Man motorbike racers……………
There are. Google Jenny Tinmouth if you don't believe me.

Was your point that she should have stuck to her guns if she a. wanted to do it, and b. Wanted to prove her worth beyong being a diversity hire and provide a role model for others like her to follow? If so I agree, but easier said than done. If that wasn't your point, then what was?

This is not the thread for it, but I have often wondered why in an RAF where we've had female fast jet, bomber and fighter, pilots for decades, we don't have more.

But then, rally had Michelle Mouton, an awesome group B driver, and a personal hero, but very few since.

I can't remember what my point was now, other than to say that your contribution to this thread was stupid.

[Flying Binghi]

There are. Google Jenny Tinmouth if you don't believe me.



Thankyou for that..:)

Best I can see is her best lap time is about three and a half minutes behind the male best times. That is an off scale difference. She’s not even in the same race as the males. If we convert that to who will be the best in a dog fight, well…




Was your point that she should have stuck to her guns if she a. wanted to do it, and b. Wanted to prove her worth beyong being a diversity hire and provide a role model for others like her to follow? If so I agree, but easier said than done. If that wasn't your point, then what was?

This is not the thread for it, but I have often wondered why in an RAF where we've had female fast jet, bomber and fighter, pilots for decades, we don't have more.

But then, rally had Michelle Mouton, an awesome group B driver, and a personal hero, but very few since.

I can't remember what my point was now, other than to say that your contribution to this thread was stupid.


Hmmm… now that you have covered your eyes and ears and are yelling insults I guess we will see no more of you..:hmm:

[finestkind]

langley

Please forgive my interruption - I have generally given up on this forum, but your post has made me feel the need to comment.

You were a weather person, I think - so what do you actually know about pilot recruitment/retention that makes you feel that you can add worthy comment on this subject?

If I am wrong, and you have something useful to contribute, then please accept my apologies.

If your area of expertise is trying to inform us all of what the weather will do, then please limit yourself to that.

I have my own views of pilot retention issues - but I am many years out of date with such issues, so I do not feel qualified to offer meaningful comment that would help the current situation.


Interesting comment and seems to be more of a personal attack than a contribution to the thread. Suffice to say that if you need to be in recruiting and retention to make a comment, I would be inclined to ask that your contribution not be considered, considering even with experience it appears that recruiting/retention are failing. Tongue out of cheek, many good ideas come from those with no experience in a specific field as they are not blinded by said experience.

[Darkmouse]

Thankyou for that..:)

Best I can see is her best lap time is about three and a half minutes behind the male best times. That is an off scale difference. She’s not even in the same race as the males. If we convert that to who will be the best in a dog fight, well…





Hmmm… now that you have covered your eyes and ears and are yelling insults I guess we will see no more of you..:hmm:

That wasn't an insult, just a fact. But yes, I'm out, I've said my piece.

[minigundiplomat]

Do we think the recent policy of making 29.5% of the population, the segment from which the RAF traditionally recruited, feel unwelcome and unvalued may have contributed to this issue? Or is it a retention issue caused by exceptionally poor leadership, a focus on social engineering, broken flight training system, and the repeated misuse of the military to cover skills gaps and strikes?

Jeez - tough one.

[Bob Viking]

Sadly and predictably I think you are correct on all counts.

BV

[alfred_the_great]

Well, given a member of my team has been selected for FJ training, with a total anticipated hold of less than 12 months - at least until OCU - I imagine facts are thin on the ground in this thread.

[NutLoose]

Why not open it up to NCO ranks, its not as if we are tossing nukes about anymore, and Teeny Weeny Airways ( AAC) seem to manage with NCO pilots.

They could also recruit Engineers, after all if it was difficult they would get them to do it anyway. ;)

[Asturias56]

"Why not open it up to NCO ranks," :eek::eek::eek:

My God man!!!

[_Agrajag_]

Why not open it up to NCO ranks, its not as if we are tossing nukes about anymore, and Teeny Weeny Airways ( AAC) seem to manage with NCO pilots.

They could also recruit Engineers, after all if it was difficult they would get them to do it anyway. ;)

Worms

Can

Tin opener

(in that sequence).

My uncle was an RAF NCO pilot. got caught in the "all pilots will be commissioned officers" thing, some years after completing SFTS at Heany. He had some robust views about it. Suffice to say he was supportive of the AACs stance.

[downsizer]

Well, given a member of my team has been selected for FJ training, with a total anticipated hold of less than 12 months - at least until OCU - I imagine facts are thin on the ground in this thread.

You meant to say forum right? Not thread...?

[trim it out]

Why not open it up to NCO ranks, its not as if we are tossing nukes about anymore, and Teeny Weeny Airways ( AAC) seem to manage with NCO pilots.

They could also recruit Engineers, after all if it was difficult they would get them to do it anyway. ;)
It is amusing, that the RAF is content to eat itself alive in order to appear inclusive and diverse, yet won't allow perfectly capable and suitable people to fly an aircraft because of a badge they wear :E

[Flying Binghi]

That wasn't an insult, just a fact. But yes, I'm out, I've said my piece.


Yer guns are frozen, roll over and dive away…


:cool:

[Stratnumberone]

Well, given a member of my team has been selected for FJ training, with a total anticipated hold of less than 12 months - at least until OCU - I imagine facts are thin on the ground in this thread.

They’re very lucky then: is not uncommon for there to be years between end of IOT and start of EFT

[Countdown begins]

You meant to say forum right? Not thread...?
Not the first time Alfred has come across all confused and irrelevant,🤭

[Richard W]

Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, has revealed that at one point last year that the UK had more F35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets than it had pilots to fly them...
In war, wouldn't one expect the proportional loss of jets to be greater than the proportional loss of pilots?

[Asturias56]

depends where they're shot down

[Baldeep Inminj]

I joined the RAF just over 30 years ago and I have seen recruting ebb and flow since that time - the pipeline has been turned on and off more times than I care to remember due to various reviews, budget cuts, fleet cuts (Seaking, Wessex, Andover, VC10, Tristar, HS125, BA146, Nimrod, Jaguar, Buccaneer, Phantom, Harrier, Tornado all met their demise during my time, and Hercules, Puma, B412, B212 and A109 (army) are all about to suffer imminent retirement. I can see why forecasting numbers might be an educated look into a crystal ball.

However, to fix the issue of retention, I have heard a consistent message from the 'higher up's' over those 30+ years...'money is not the answer'.

I disagree completely. Everything else that has been tried has not worked, so given that their airships clearly do not know what the answer is, how can they be so sure what it is not?
Let me be very clear - I left for money - I saw what guys were earning outside and got sick of being taken advantage of. Many of my colleagues left for money, indeed I have 3 good mates who all left because they got divorced, got cleaned out, and needed their gratuity to kickstart their life again. The pay in the RAF is absolutely derisory - it is frankly disgusting it is so low. I left to work for a major North American Defence Company and we hire new engineering and software grads straight out of Uni. on more than a 1st year Group Captain is paid, with unlimited flexible vacation, and yes, you read that right - there is no limit to how much vacation you can take - it is a big thing over here. My salary as a PA pilot tripled when I left and has climbed significantly since, and my life is my own - if you leave the RAF and also leave the cockpit, there is serious money to be made and a far better life to lead.

I have spoken to my friends back in the UK recently and most agreed that we would rejoin the RAF, and step back into the cockpit, if the pay was right. Money would get me back, and it would get 4 of the 5 guys I spoke to back - but I do mean money. My price would be 450k per year, and I would be able to give 7 years service until 60. Is this ever going to happen - of course not, but to just say 'money is not the answer' is a stupid, blinkered and ignorant viewpoint. If the RAF paid 500k per year, do you think they would have a retention issue? If not, then money IS the answer, the question is just how much.

[finestkind]

I have spoken to my friends back in the UK recently and most agreed that we would rejoin the RAF, and step back into the cockpit, if the pay was right. Money would get me back, and it would get 4 of the 5 guys I spoke to back - but I do mean money. My price would be 450k per year, and I would be able to give 7 years service until 60. Is this ever going to happen - of course not, but to just say 'money is not the answer' is a stupid, blinkered and ignorant viewpoint. If the RAF paid 500k per year, do you think they would have a retention issue? If not, then money IS the answer, the question is just how much.


Never work. You are looking at a common-sense logical approach to a question that has had the answer for years but ignored and when has that ever worked in the halls of Government? Sky Guardians Britain's Airforce 1918-1993 (book) looked at retention against the cost of training etc. In one of its chapters, it stated something along the lines that if you gave a million pounds retention bonus it would make a difference to those leaving for greener pastures. This would help the experience level to be retained, reducing accidents, reduce training numbers/requirements and costs to an extent that the money spent would actually end up on the credit side of the ledger. Although sounding like a significant amount of money it was a sign on for something like 10 years (may have been more) and then when the tax man took their piece it was more like 40K (?) a year. The RAAF had a retention bonus, back in the 90's, of 3 and 5 years, if memory serves, which also suffered from the tax man. Effectively speaking once, the tax man took their bite you still would be in front after joining a commercial airline after 12 odd months. All this did was allow the ones that were staying to buy a new car. As long as people are walking in the doors the ones walking out are not an issue until the tarmac is filled with aircraft without aircrew. The people holding the purse strings cannot see that by retaining people we do not need to recruit as many (saving money) do not need to train as many (saving money) retain a high level of experience at the squadrons (saving money on the number doing conversion, on accidents, on reinventing the wheel). Yes, the drawbacks are the promotional stagnation and limited new blood but if you are honestly talking about the end product of an effective and fully crewed operational squadron that is able to fulfill its task than the drawbacks are negligible.

[Warren Peace]

In addition to all the issues outlined above, the next week will see significant obstacles to progress, in the shape of negative Hawk T2 availability at Valley.

[Lima Juliet]

My price would be 450k per year :} keep smoking that weed man…

That would be one of the highest paid roles in the public sector. In the Services you would be on a higher salary than CDS! Who gets paid £270k-£290k per year, or his Chiefs on £190k-£213k per year. It would be nearly 4 times what we pay an AOC!

So, with your suggestion of £450k each Pilot and the best part of what must be 1,000 or so in front line flying jobs - you have just blown nearly 1% (£0.45Bn) of the UK Defence Budget (roughly £45Bn) on 1,000 of the 140,000 Services’ personnel. That’s before you add all of the extras, like pension, healthcare, subsidised accommodation, school allowances, travel allowances, etc… You can probably make that 1.5%-2% of the Defence Budget. Yeah, that’s going to happen isn’t it? :ugh:

Also, can you imagine the furore and demonisation of our people in the press and social media earning such a salary? Be prepared to become one of the most hated and envied professions in the land.

Personally, my pay and pension is relatively fair - it could be a little better, but hey, that’s life. I don’t do it to get rich, I live comfortably and I am proud to serve the way I do. I’ve had some phenomenal experiences that some will never get to witness. I’ve had 2 marriages and I don’t feel the need to prostitute myself for every last penny that I can get. I remember why I joined in the first place, many don’t.

[Bob Viking]

LJ, haven’t you previously, proudly, told us that your wife earns more than you? Does that have anything to do with why you’re not so bothered about how much the RAF pays you?

Sorry to be blunt but the question of whether or not money is the answer needs to be asked of the young people that are forced to live in parts of the country where their partners struggle to get well paid employment or are at home with the children in dilapidated married quarters. Let’s not forget that most of them will complete two flying tours before they see any flying pay nowadays as well. Can you honestly imagine how it must feel to rock up at a Typhoon Squadron as a newly minted QWI knowing that you’re earning the same as OC catering (if such a role still exists but you get the point)?

There is no point asking people who are late in their careers, who don’t have kids living at home and who have probably already paid off their mortgages. As far as the RAF is concerned those are the success stories but they are becoming increasingly rare.

What makes it very stark to me is the age of people I see taking up jobs in Defense companies in the Middle East and elsewhere. They used to be the preserve of people who already had their pensions. Increasingly now I’m seeing guys and girls with much fresher faces who didn’t bother waiting around due to the new scheme. When the QWIs/QFIs complete their second tour and then leave I’d say you’re in trouble.

BV

[minigundiplomat]

:} keep smoking that weed man…

That would be one of the highest paid roles in the public sector. In the Services you would be on a higher salary than CDS! Who gets paid £270k-£290k per year, or his Chiefs on £190k-£213k per year. It would be nearly 4 times what we pay an AOC!

So, with your suggestion of £450k each Pilot and the best part of what must be 1,000 or so in front line flying jobs - you have just blown nearly 1% (£0.45Bn) of the UK Defence Budget (roughly £45Bn) on 1,000 of the 140,000 Services’ personnel. That’s before you add all of the extras, like pension, healthcare, subsidised accommodation, school allowances, travel allowances, etc… You can probably make that 1.5%-2% of the Defence Budget. Yeah, that’s going to happen isn’t it? :ugh:

Also, can you imagine the furore and demonisation of our people in the press and social media earning such a salary? Be prepared to become one of the most hated and envied professions in the land.

Personally, my pay and pension is relatively fair - it could be a little better, but hey, that’s life. I don’t do it to get rich, I live comfortably and I am proud to serve the way I do. I’ve had some phenomenal experiences that some will never get to witness. I’ve had 2 marriages and I don’t feel the need to prostitute myself for every last penny that I can get. I remember why I joined in the first place, many don’t.

I take it the 450K is Drachma.........

[MG]

The pay in the RAF is absolutely derisory - it is frankly disgusting it is so low
Baldeep, as PA you were probably on about £80k, which is pretty good so don’t try to kid anyone here. You’ve clearly moved into a damn good job and that’s great for you but don’t try to tell us that what you’re on, or that of your new software guys, is normal. It’s way off normal, both in the UK and the US.

[NutLoose]

Here's an Idea, let all pilots wear leather flying jackets to instil a nostaglia for the RAF of old, (at their own cost of course) to aid retention.... Ohh wait they already tried that one..

If anyone is on piss poor pay it is the RAF Engineers, made worse I believe as the experience no longer counts towards licences, ( I might be wrong on the latter part )

[Countdown begins]

I joined the RAF just over 30 years ago and I have seen recruting ebb and flow since that time - the pipeline has been turned on and off more times than I care to remember due to various reviews, budget cuts, fleet cuts (Seaking, Wessex, Andover, VC10, Tristar, HS125, BA146, Nimrod, Jaguar, Buccaneer, Phantom, Harrier, Tornado all met their demise during my time, and Hercules, Puma, B412, B212 and A109 (army) are all about to suffer imminent retirement. I can see why forecasting numbers might be an educated look into a crystal ball.

However, to fix the issue of retention, I have heard a consistent message from the 'higher up's' over those 30+ years...'money is not the answer'.

I disagree completely. Everything else that has been tried has not worked, so given that their airships clearly do not know what the answer is, how can they be so sure what it is not?
Let me be very clear - I left for money - I saw what guys were earning outside and got sick of being taken advantage of. Many of my colleagues left for money, indeed I have 3 good mates who all left because they got divorced, got cleaned out, and needed their gratuity to kickstart their life again. The pay in the RAF is absolutely derisory - it is frankly disgusting it is so low. I left to work for a major North American Defence Company and we hire new engineering and software grads straight out of Uni. on more than a 1st year Group Captain is paid, with unlimited flexible vacation, and yes, you read that right - there is no limit to how much vacation you can take - it is a big thing over here. My salary as a PA pilot tripled when I left and has climbed significantly since, and my life is my own - if you leave the RAF and also leave the cockpit, there is serious money to be made and a far better life to lead.

I have spoken to my friends back in the UK recently and most agreed that we would rejoin the RAF, and step back into the cockpit, if the pay was right. Money would get me back, and it would get 4 of the 5 guys I spoke to back - but I do mean money. My price would be 450k per year, and I would be able to give 7 years service until 60. Is this ever going to happen - of course not, but to just say 'money is not the answer' is a stupid, blinkered and ignorant viewpoint. If the RAF paid 500k per year, do you think they would have a retention issue? If not, then money IS the answer, the question is just how much.
Ma'am, thank you for your service. God bless.

[Countdown begins]

LJ, haven’t you previously, proudly, told us that your wife earns more than you? Does that have anything to do with why you’re not so bothered about how much the RAF pays you?

Sorry to be blunt but the question of whether or not money is the answer needs to be asked of the young people that are forced to live in parts of the country where their partners struggle to get well paid employment or are at home with the children in dilapidated married quarters. Let’s not forget that most of them will complete two flying tours before they see any flying pay nowadays as well. Can you honestly imagine how it must feel to rock up at a Typhoon Squadron as a newly minted QWI knowing that you’re earning the same as OC catering (if such a role still exists but you get the point)?

There is no point asking people who are late in their careers, who don’t have kids living at home and who have probably already paid off their mortgages. As far as the RAF is concerned those are the success stories but they are becoming increasingly rare.

What makes it very stark to me is the age of people I see taking up jobs in Defense companies in the Middle East and elsewhere. They used to be the preserve of people who already had their pensions. Increasingly now I’m seeing guys and girls with much fresher faces who didn’t bother waiting around due to the new scheme. When the QWIs/QFIs complete their second tour and then leave I’d say you’re in trouble.

BV
Bob, do not get personal. Nobody will really care about how much a spouse/ partner/ whatever earns. If LJ is happy with his job and remuneration then that is what counts.

[Bob Viking]

I’m sorry if you, or LJ, deem my post as a personal sleight. However I, and many of my contemporaries, find it (past tense in my case) hard to listen to senior officers who are financially settled telling the minions how unimportant money is. And then they look down their noses at folks who leave for better paid jobs elsewhere. It just comes across a bit rich. Sorry if my honesty is unpalatable but it needs saying.

As for Baldeep, I’m very happy that you have found such well paid employment elsewhere but it is a little crass to discuss money so openly. Maybe the US habit of braggadocio has rubbed off on you.

BV

[Countdown begins]

I’m sorry if you, or LJ, deem my post as a personal sleight. However I, and many of my contemporaries, find it (past tense in my case) hard to listen to senior officers who are financially settled telling the minions how unimportant money is. And then they look down their noses at folks who leave for better paid jobs elsewhere. It just comes across a bit rich. Sorry if my honesty is unpalatable but it needs saying.

As for Baldeep, I’m very happy that you have found such well paid employment elsewhere but it is a little crass to discuss money so openly. Maybe the US habit of braggadocio has rubbed off on you.

BV
cant help but think it’s not greener on big money. Lol, let’s raise a glass to her tonight!]

[uxb99]

Conscription or National Service?

[langleybaston]

Conscription or National Service?

I had the last National Service airmen as Met Observers ........ most had deferred joining a little, all highly educated, brilliant at their jobs. The downside is that everyone had a Gozomey chart, or a row of 5 bar gate scratches, or a Chuff Factor [days to serve divided by days served].

Necessary until the early 1960s, but I just cannot envisage ever again, neither conscription nor National Service. Mass disobedience and an ungovernable country would ensue.

[downsizer]

As a recent PVR'eee money wasn't the only factor, it was one of many. The main driver for me was the amount of sh1t that had nothing to do with my actual job that I was spending time doing, or chasing my subordinates to do. You could have thrown more cash at me and it wouldn't have changed my mind, indeed I was offered promotion so I guess in a way they did.

So I left for a job with a decent defense company on more money than I was on (I actually asked for less, they came back with a bigger offer) with a much better quality of life.

[pax britanica]

Concerned civilian here, so what uyouare saying is the RAF is NHS mark2 . If you havent got enough pilots its no fit for purpose.. Isnt there any concern at your management levels that even without being deployed, involved in exercises but just keeping current youare responsible for some very very expensive kit and if youare unlucky it can still kill you oa bad day. Why not go join EZ ? Alarming to an outsider

[Countdown begins]

As a recent PVR'eee money wasn't the only factor, it was one of many. The main driver for me was the amount of sh1t that had nothing to do with my actual job that I was spending time doing, or chasing my subordinates to do. You could have thrown more cash at me and it wouldn't have changed my mind, indeed I was offered promotion so I guess in a way they did.

So I left for a job with a decent defense company on more money than I was on (I actually asked for less, they came back with a bigger offer) with a much better quality of life.
Good for you, we all have that limit, the balance between pride and need (salary). I faced blatant ageism, and went for less upfront money. I’ve made it work with pension stuff, but I had to stick to a plan.

[Timelord]

Alarming to an outsider

Unable to retain experience or train replacements and not enough resources to do anything well.

Pretty alarming to insiders as well. But not, apparently, to the management.

[Countdown begins]

BV, It’s actually even worse than that. Since the officer from a less demanding profession will not have spent 5 years in training post IOT they may well have been promoted by time the your newly minted QWI turns up without flying pay.
This was an own goal by Branch and Trade, but hey there’s a big pay out later, but for some a huge tax take…. then there is a pending Labour government.
Branch did not get this correct at all, jam will come tomorrow, but the Labour bear will most likely have taken over 50% in tax and NI.

[8674planes]

Hawk T2 fleet grounded

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-grounds-its-entire-fleet-of-fast-jet-training-aircraft-due-to-engine-problem-12795301

[MK 4A Tank]

Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last 33 yrs. They didn't learn then and they still haven't mastered it. I was commissioned from NCO aircrew back in 1990. Back in the day I had a 3 year plus hold waiting for a METS Jetstream course. I held all over the place doing numerous GD duties. I even worked in MOD sixth floor for a stint. Met the CAS at the time on numerous occasions who was oblivious to the fact that all these under training pilots were in the holding system. The JP was removed from service and each year we were eventually invited back to do some flying - Tucano groundschool in a couple of days then 10 hrs with a QFI cos we weren't qualified on type. Then a "bye bye' we'll see you next time!! If I'd have gone to Chivenor or valley on the 100hr mirror image course I'd have got back to the frontline probably in less than a year - who knows might even have made it fast jet!! During this time they sent out redundancy letters - all the same but they hadn't done their homework. It stated "As you have only been in the Air Force a short period of time".............. wrong I'd been in over 6 years at this point.
Then in 2003 came the pilot retention bonuses - not tax free but taxed at 40% all aimed at the wrong age group and time served - I say no more. Then Spec Aircrew demise and the PA spine - what a great system to receive pensionable flying pay.
To cap it all - at Waddington in 2007 when the CAS was in the tea bar preaching to the troops - he stated "And we are not going to pay any of our pilots any more retention bonuses, if they don't like it they can leave" well that was it, next day 12 mth PVR was in including boss OC 8 and we move on..............! 33 years on and still nothing has changed. In this generation they cannot recruit the school leavers like back in the 1980's times have changed and lessons have not been learnt!! Oh what fun we had in the RAF - best job ever back in the day!!
Could write a book about this - wonder if it would be a best seller?

[finestkind]

Certainly, SLJ are an influencing factor, particularly as these secondary duties become more than your primary duty. Being a little lax I allowied smarter more experienced people to advise me. It was quite interesting on how pay increases worked with promotion (maybe not nowadays). FLTLT pay, promoted = more tax and ohh, now the self-same house you are in is going to cost you more as you are now a SQNLDR and your wage has gone up. Same for WGCDR but as a CO of a Squadron with X number of aircraft, equipment, men under your control, staff car etc all great. Posted to a ground job, flying pay lost and now a paper pusher. For young chaps looking at this line of progression where you are often taking a step back it is little wonder that the commercial sector looked very good.

[Doctor Cruces]

And now the PM has offered to train Ukrainian pilots. How on earth can we do that when we don't even have the capacity to train our own?

[Just This Once...]

Maybe he intends to keep them here.

[SASless]

How on earth can we do that when we don't even have the capacity to train our own?

Perhaps the funding comes from different budgets?
​​​​​​​

[LateArmLive]

Perhaps the funding comes from different budgets?
​​​​​​​
It's not just a budget problem, it's more equipment, supply, trained instructors and capacity problem. That said, the right budget could fix most of that...

[Sleeve Wing]

Just my few penn'orth but, simply, how can you properly train an FJ pilot who spends more time holding and then revalidating to basic standards, than becoming Combat Ready ? And up to SEVEN years ?!
In the sixties, we went from EFTS to Hunter completion (which was a joy) in eighteen months........ and then frontline aircraft OCU (which was a bit of a jump) .... to complete in just over a total of TWO years....... and hardly a moment without FLYING.
This is what we joined to do.
Can someone explain why the training schedule cannot be the same ?
When I left the service, we could still train civilian pilots up to 250 flying hours, then Multi and Instrument Rating qualified, in EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
No wonder the RAF has such a problem with encouraging young lads to take up flying these days and no wonder that, presently, these young lads who want to FLY do so as airline pilots and mortgage themselves up to £110,000 just to achieve it.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1293x743/linton_60s_a81bedacbdb7e427816db6e56a4d91a73bf1c27a.jpg
Pan right for another 12 Vamp.T11s ! Where did we go wrong ?

[Blackfriar]

Plus ca change……..
The age old problem. If it is any consolation, the same situation applies in the civilian world. Even where the consultants aren’t employing your former staff, the first thing they usually do is interview your existing staff who almost invariably tell them the answer to whatever the problem is.
It is a hallmark of weak management that they can’t implement difficult choices without paying someone external to tell them to do it. It allows the option of scapegoating the consultants if it all goes wrong, but horribly undermines organisational self confidence, and introduces often fatal delay to remedial action being taken.
I can only imagine how it feels to serve in the RAF at the moment with insufficient aircraft and even then, insufficient pilots to fly them. I suppose we will be in to a new recruitment year shortly, so at least they will soon be able to recruit all shapes sizes and colours again….

No different in civvy street. In the late 80's BA got rid of a lot of pilots under its New Horizons plan. Crew planners told them how many they needed but were ignored by management who released too many. It's not a planning problem that needs a software tool, it's a change of senior management.