FJ pilots 17.5 down to 16.5 hrs/month
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJ pilots 17.5 down to 16.5 hrs/month
Ref : http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...10293#g7889.q0
I feel sorry for the FJ guys flying hours being cut by an hour/month. Yet another stupid Noo Labour defence cut who reckon it saves £20 million/year.
Perhaps if they did not waste £40 million to help the Russians dismantle two nuclear subs the FJ guys would not have to cut their vital flying hours.
TG
I feel sorry for the FJ guys flying hours being cut by an hour/month. Yet another stupid Noo Labour defence cut who reckon it saves £20 million/year.
Perhaps if they did not waste £40 million to help the Russians dismantle two nuclear subs the FJ guys would not have to cut their vital flying hours.
TG
To save time, the link is to a written answer to an MP's question:
[q]"Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of effects on cost of the temporary reduction in the monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 hours to 16.5 hours during 2005–06.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
About £20 million will be saved as a result of the temporary reduction of average monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 to 16.5 hours a month in 2005–06."[/q]
Is helping to decommission two Russian subs really a 'waste of money'?
Perhaps if the MoD stopped its frantic short-termism, perhaps if value for money was embraced in procurement, perhaps if people accepted the need to pay a little more tax, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary.
[q]"Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of effects on cost of the temporary reduction in the monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 hours to 16.5 hours during 2005–06.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
About £20 million will be saved as a result of the temporary reduction of average monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 to 16.5 hours a month in 2005–06."[/q]
Is helping to decommission two Russian subs really a 'waste of money'?
Perhaps if the MoD stopped its frantic short-termism, perhaps if value for money was embraced in procurement, perhaps if people accepted the need to pay a little more tax, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waste of money
Jackonicko
Why should such huge sums of UK taxpayers money be used to help the old enemy dismantle the very subs that could have blown us to hell? If they want to dismantle them, then it's their problem.
I consider charity begins at home - funding OAP's and ex-navy men who sailed on the Artic convoys to the tune of £40 million would have made me far happier.
TG
Why should such huge sums of UK taxpayers money be used to help the old enemy dismantle the very subs that could have blown us to hell? If they want to dismantle them, then it's their problem.
I consider charity begins at home - funding OAP's and ex-navy men who sailed on the Artic convoys to the tune of £40 million would have made me far happier.
TG
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another side to this. With FJ aircrew being forced to spend less time in the air, it may just be that there is more time dedicated to doing the non-flying 'stuff' that makes the remaining 16.5 hours more valuable than 17.5
How often does a ground training program ever get fully supported? How many times have aircrew turned up just for the brief because they've been doing other things? How many times have debriefs been cut short because one of the aircrew is required for another flight or to take the desk or a plethora of other things? What kind of quality do we hand-on-heart get from each flying hour?
Maybe, if we actually focused on making the (ever reducing) hours count as opposed to chasing the next 500 hour patch, we would be better at our jobs than simply looking at flying hours as a measure of success.
There is of course a limit. There is no suggestion that reducing flying hours is palatable, just that it isn't necessarily a cup half empty scenario.
How about senior aircrew flying less than junior aircrew? (I'm talking about an hour or two, not 25 hours for the JP and 10 for the senior fliers).
Anyway, the answer is that we just take the hours allocated to OC Ops and the Station Commander and divide them out amongst the aircrew that actually need them.
How often does a ground training program ever get fully supported? How many times have aircrew turned up just for the brief because they've been doing other things? How many times have debriefs been cut short because one of the aircrew is required for another flight or to take the desk or a plethora of other things? What kind of quality do we hand-on-heart get from each flying hour?
Maybe, if we actually focused on making the (ever reducing) hours count as opposed to chasing the next 500 hour patch, we would be better at our jobs than simply looking at flying hours as a measure of success.
There is of course a limit. There is no suggestion that reducing flying hours is palatable, just that it isn't necessarily a cup half empty scenario.
How about senior aircrew flying less than junior aircrew? (I'm talking about an hour or two, not 25 hours for the JP and 10 for the senior fliers).
Anyway, the answer is that we just take the hours allocated to OC Ops and the Station Commander and divide them out amongst the aircrew that actually need them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
And you reckon that if the public paid a little bit more tax it would somehow end its way into the hands of MOD? I reckon a more likely scenario given that the government has been raising tax now for the last few years is that any further tax rises would be used to pay for a different kind of "army" - one that works in admin in the civil service or NHS........
And you reckon that if the public paid a little bit more tax it would somehow end its way into the hands of MOD? I reckon a more likely scenario given that the government has been raising tax now for the last few years is that any further tax rises would be used to pay for a different kind of "army" - one that works in admin in the civil service or NHS........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about stopping ALL pensions, retired pay and gratuities until at least age 55 and putting the savings into current service support? This could be applied to Navy, Army, RAF, Police, MPs etc. What a saving for the poor taxpayer.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't realise that things were so bad at the sharp end nowadays and I am appalled. That's bordering on part-time employment. In my day we reckoned that JPs/JNs should get 25 hours per month or so and the rest at least over 20 hours, plus a few in the sim of course. Anything less than 20 hours was deemed to be dangerous, no matter how talented the operator was. Even if modern jets are easier to fly than past ones, I doubt if the job has got any easier; it is likely to be more difficult.
Umm, haven't we been here before though? Seem to remember 15 - 20 hours a month was the norm a long time back (early 80's FJ, fuel problems, budjet problems), squadrons being stood down at the end of the month for lack of fuel .....or is my aging memory playing tricks?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Just Fast Jets
Please do not be parochial - it is not just the fast jet boys. The wobble heads are also suffering with well under 15 hours per month on a regular basis.
Don't worry - all taken on risk and mitigated for - yeah right, tell that to the family of the pilot who stoofs in because his/her skills aren't up to scratch!
Its all going to bite one day - maybe not now, but it will happen, then watch the pack of cards come tumbling down!
Don't worry - all taken on risk and mitigated for - yeah right, tell that to the family of the pilot who stoofs in because his/her skills aren't up to scratch!
Its all going to bite one day - maybe not now, but it will happen, then watch the pack of cards come tumbling down!
TG,
Why?
1) Building and improving relations with Russia is in our national economic self interest.
2) Because proper decomissioning will prevent environmental catastrophe - and as a major maritime nation with fishing interests, that's in our national interest.
3) Because UK participation will reduce the risk of certain materials and technologies going where they might do us harm.
4) Because that's what you do, after winning a war, if you want to avoid another one. Not helping Germany out in 1918 soon proved counter-productive.
5) If you want to harp back to the Arctic Convoys and WWII, you might feel better that the nation we're spending £40 m to help now shed huge amounts of blood to defeat our common enemy in 1941-1945.
My Dad is a veteran of the war in the North Sea and Arctic in WW II (albeit as a flier). He then served in the RAF until 1978, so has been moulded and shaped by the Cold War. He's recently been awarded two medals by Russia in recognition of the part he played in 'defeating the Fascist aggressor' because of the Arctic Convoy protection missions he flew, and he's pretty enthusiastic about bringing the former enemy 'on side'.
Why?
1) Building and improving relations with Russia is in our national economic self interest.
2) Because proper decomissioning will prevent environmental catastrophe - and as a major maritime nation with fishing interests, that's in our national interest.
3) Because UK participation will reduce the risk of certain materials and technologies going where they might do us harm.
4) Because that's what you do, after winning a war, if you want to avoid another one. Not helping Germany out in 1918 soon proved counter-productive.
5) If you want to harp back to the Arctic Convoys and WWII, you might feel better that the nation we're spending £40 m to help now shed huge amounts of blood to defeat our common enemy in 1941-1945.
My Dad is a veteran of the war in the North Sea and Arctic in WW II (albeit as a flier). He then served in the RAF until 1978, so has been moulded and shaped by the Cold War. He's recently been awarded two medals by Russia in recognition of the part he played in 'defeating the Fascist aggressor' because of the Arctic Convoy protection missions he flew, and he's pretty enthusiastic about bringing the former enemy 'on side'.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst a lot of people may skoff at the one hour reduction it still doesn't paint the full story.
How many units have a compulsory Flying hours:Fuel ratio that must be stringently applied. Result- you must get x many flying hours per x weight of fuel used resulting in poor training.
How many units have a compulsory Flying hours:Fuel ratio that must be stringently applied. Result- you must get x many flying hours per x weight of fuel used resulting in poor training.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: topspot
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get what you pay for
You get what you pay for and you reap what you sow!
Going through the same bollocks at my SQN/TRG Area. As all of us know an efficient fighting force owes it roots to a robust TRG and currency programme. Unfortunately this short of shyte is the thin edge of the wedge. Put the bean counters in the front, send them up with some uncurrent scary folks straight back from all important desk jobs and then talk capability and recency.
Since when do we measure combat power with $$$$ anyway. Wake up beanies and stop F- -KING up the capability.
Catch words I have noticed slipping in over the last decade.
1. Worlds best practice
2. Centre of Excellence
3. Low residual risk
4. OHS legislation
5. Standing Instructions review
Mil Avaition has unfortunately succombed to fiscal review like all other areas of the public purse. Must be time to use the martin baker let down.
Happy Days.
GIS
Going through the same bollocks at my SQN/TRG Area. As all of us know an efficient fighting force owes it roots to a robust TRG and currency programme. Unfortunately this short of shyte is the thin edge of the wedge. Put the bean counters in the front, send them up with some uncurrent scary folks straight back from all important desk jobs and then talk capability and recency.
Since when do we measure combat power with $$$$ anyway. Wake up beanies and stop F- -KING up the capability.
Catch words I have noticed slipping in over the last decade.
1. Worlds best practice
2. Centre of Excellence
3. Low residual risk
4. OHS legislation
5. Standing Instructions review
Mil Avaition has unfortunately succombed to fiscal review like all other areas of the public purse. Must be time to use the martin baker let down.
Happy Days.
GIS
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
feel sorry for the fj guys but at least they have a min hours per month. multi fleet guys can, and are, bouncing off 31 day currencies which can mean as little as a day trip of less than say 6 hours or even just a 3 hour sim ride once every month. training is being reduced across all the types as we feel the pinch of being so heavily tasked on ops. there are a lot of problems out there, and though this is a serious one, unfortunately in mil aviation there are current issues that are perhaps even more serious than even training hours.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
I recall that in the 1980s NATO once declared the Belgian Air Force non-current/non-effective as they were only flying 14 hours/pilot per month.
Seems like some parts of the RAF are nearly on their uppers too.
WHERE IS ALL THE TAX MONEY GOING? Is it on someone's wife's shoes?
Seems like some parts of the RAF are nearly on their uppers too.
WHERE IS ALL THE TAX MONEY GOING? Is it on someone's wife's shoes?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hrs vs. Sorties
I am not sure why hours are the metric used to measure training. It seems to me that #s of BFM engagements and tac intercepts, (or even takeoffs and landings) are driven by the number of times you operate the jet.
For instance, a MiG 21 pilot receiving 'only' 14 hrs a month may be have the highest standard of training in that airframe, due to the short duration of his missions (i.e., he may be flying over 20 times a month) This, I believe, is a better measure of readiness than simply tracking the # of hrs flown. My opinion...
Chrz
For instance, a MiG 21 pilot receiving 'only' 14 hrs a month may be have the highest standard of training in that airframe, due to the short duration of his missions (i.e., he may be flying over 20 times a month) This, I believe, is a better measure of readiness than simply tracking the # of hrs flown. My opinion...
Chrz
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, my answer to the captain who has only 3 hrs in 3 months is simple. This person doesnt have a lack of hrs problem, he/she has a lack of sorties problem. This captain needs to fly more TIMES, not longer.
If you're operating an E-3 aircraft, your ASD (Avg sortie duration) is greater than 8 hrs. Fly 2 times a month and you get over 16 hrs. Is this good training? I suggest that '16 hrs is sufficient' is a poor measure of training.
Whaddya think?
If you're operating an E-3 aircraft, your ASD (Avg sortie duration) is greater than 8 hrs. Fly 2 times a month and you get over 16 hrs. Is this good training? I suggest that '16 hrs is sufficient' is a poor measure of training.
Whaddya think?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the floor of Parliament
More guff from Noo Labour about how they have thought the flying hours shambles through!
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...%3A10293#g13.5
TG
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate...%3A10293#g13.5
TG
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
From:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debat...r%3A10293#g13.5
"the Royal Air Force had recuperated sufficiently by the summer of 2004 to be able to undertake a further medium scale operation and plans to be ready to undertake a large scale operation, if required, by the end of 2006."
What is the large scale operation planned for end 2006, then? Someone must know!
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debat...r%3A10293#g13.5
"the Royal Air Force had recuperated sufficiently by the summer of 2004 to be able to undertake a further medium scale operation and plans to be ready to undertake a large scale operation, if required, by the end of 2006."
What is the large scale operation planned for end 2006, then? Someone must know!
It was just the same under the OLD Tories.......................
Hours and fuel allocations cut time and time again, the only difference? it was at the height of the Cold war.
So, where are you lot all off to at the end of next year then?
Hours and fuel allocations cut time and time again, the only difference? it was at the height of the Cold war.
So, where are you lot all off to at the end of next year then?