letter that RAFNEWS would not print
I remember back in 71 there being a glut of Fl Lts, or men without portfolio, so they invented a new job titled Divisional Officer. Each surplus officer had about 10-20 airmen allocated to him and he had to bond with them and become a father figure and mentor them, it lasted about three months. It was hilarious going for your chat with 'Dad' 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Exrigger, and I well remember one of my 'division' - an ageing Chief Tech Armourer, coming to see me for the first time.
"Excuse me Sir, but I believe you're my Dad".
What a silly system.
"Excuse me Sir, but I believe you're my Dad".
What a silly system.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
No denying that this was a well thought out letter making some very valid points, but sadly the establishment doesn't work like that. When a very smart SNCO writes a letter questioning the roles and validity of Senior Officers and their appointments, the reaction is not, "Oh my God, the man's on to something, let's immediately investigate our worth to the Armed Forces". It is more likely to be a controlled and focused Witch-Hunt to establish which Commander isn't keeping Johnny-Rebel in check.
If you really are wondering by what means enlisted men get to criticise and question the leadership, role and command displayed by their Officers, you have surely missed some key briefings along your career path.
If you really are wondering by what means enlisted men get to criticise and question the leadership, role and command displayed by their Officers, you have surely missed some key briefings along your career path.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
What a silly system.
Unquote
Interesting that the Divisional System has worked in the RN for 150+ years, with a similar function via the platoon system in the Army. I suspect the difference is that in the RN and Army the leaders of these men are their DOs whereas in the RAF aircrew couldn't possibly look after their men/women from a Divisional point of view.
What a silly system.
Unquote
Interesting that the Divisional System has worked in the RN for 150+ years, with a similar function via the platoon system in the Army. I suspect the difference is that in the RN and Army the leaders of these men are their DOs whereas in the RAF aircrew couldn't possibly look after their men/women from a Divisional point of view.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....
Let's go back to the old days and 'lean' properly - cut the air ranks drastically and have a pyramidal career structure where each squadron is commanded by a sqn ldr, each wing by a Wg Cdr and each stn by a Gp Capt. I believe the Israelis still have something similar in place and manage to run their equally capable air force with a fraction of the 'air-rankage'. The savings made on cutting 10 AMs (£1.5M), 20 AVMs (£2.7M), 100 Air Cdres (£10M), 400 Gp Capts (£35M), 1000 Wg Cdrs (£75M) & 2000 Sqn Ldrs (£125M) would EASILY pay to 'un-civilianise' the RAF (savings of around £275M). Maybe then there would be more people to deploy!!
Using ukmil's quoted figures of 414 Gp Capts ... WHO, HIGHER UP, CAN TELL THE TAX PAYER WHY WE HAVE MORE GROUP CAPTAINS THAN AIRCRAFT?
Let's go back to the old days and 'lean' properly - cut the air ranks drastically and have a pyramidal career structure where each squadron is commanded by a sqn ldr, each wing by a Wg Cdr and each stn by a Gp Capt. I believe the Israelis still have something similar in place and manage to run their equally capable air force with a fraction of the 'air-rankage'. The savings made on cutting 10 AMs (£1.5M), 20 AVMs (£2.7M), 100 Air Cdres (£10M), 400 Gp Capts (£35M), 1000 Wg Cdrs (£75M) & 2000 Sqn Ldrs (£125M) would EASILY pay to 'un-civilianise' the RAF (savings of around £275M). Maybe then there would be more people to deploy!!
Using ukmil's quoted figures of 414 Gp Capts ... WHO, HIGHER UP, CAN TELL THE TAX PAYER WHY WE HAVE MORE GROUP CAPTAINS THAN AIRCRAFT?
Is it not possible that it's not that the management is too large, but that the infrastructure underneath it is far too small?
This would be symptomatic of running a large and complex organisation in difficult circumstances - without the right level of funding to do the job.
Ring any bells?
Hi Soddim, I remember similar things, mine asked me to consider SNCO Aircrew, I responded with something along the lines of 'I am not cut out for aicrew'. I'll give him his due he started me off on the trail, I only gave it up due to my dipstick new Jengo. Though I have to say that the point I was making was the fact that a surplus of officers is not a new modern thing.
I still think the saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth' sums it up. I also have been party to the wrong end of a talking to from speaking out about the faults in numerous levels of management within the airforce (while I was still in, I might add), this was mentioned in another thread. I have also done the same to other officers and gained a modicum of success in getting the point through and learnt that there are other ways to make changes. Some good officers have also walked as their principles and the new RAF did not sit well with with their conscience or the higher managements 'new order'.
I still think the saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth' sums it up. I also have been party to the wrong end of a talking to from speaking out about the faults in numerous levels of management within the airforce (while I was still in, I might add), this was mentioned in another thread. I have also done the same to other officers and gained a modicum of success in getting the point through and learnt that there are other ways to make changes. Some good officers have also walked as their principles and the new RAF did not sit well with with their conscience or the higher managements 'new order'.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best thing about experience, Exrigger, is that we all learn from it. There is understandable confusion when there are so many officers without an officers job to do. I don't wish to go off thread by turning this into a officers versus NCO aircrew discussion but giving nearly all aircrew a commission is the root of the problem.
I have learned that to change anything you first have to find someone who can change it and then convince them to do it. In the RAF the first part of the problem is the most difficult.
I have learned that to change anything you first have to find someone who can change it and then convince them to do it. In the RAF the first part of the problem is the most difficult.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps they didn't publish it because it is nothing more than a 'us and them' whine about officers. The author makes a number of unsubstantiated assertions about the worth (or not) of senior officers in the RAF that doesn't appear to have anything to back it up other than some sort of gut feeling that we have too many officers and we should get rid of some. Clearly if we did this it would fix all of the RAF's current problems overnight. If I was the RAF news I wouldn't publish. If I was PMA or MOD and asked to comment of this letter I would ask the author how many of these officers he considered to be worthless and where he got his facts from.
In my not insignificant time in the RAF (I am some way below the rank of Gp Capt), I have heard all this stuff peddled by the barrack room lawyers many times - it just doesn't wash with me that the RAF is just a 'jobs for the boys outfit'. It may come as a surprise to some of the SNCO's cheering this letter on but there are just as many officers working extremely hard as there are SNCOs. We should be a team, working together, leading the youngsters of the officer and OR corps and not squabbling amongst ourselves. The problem of poor morale is not the fault of the officers (most of whom are doing their best) or SNCOs (likewise) or the MOD machine, or even the MOD civil servants that so many in unifornm continually b!tch about - the problem lies with the fact that we are fighting 2 wars and the armed forces are chronically underfunded by our political masters. You want to see this in action you only have to visit Whitehall and see the frustration of the officers who are desperately fighting to do the best for the frontline and are blocked at every turn by Gordons' little pixies. Get off your high horse and write a letter about that to the RAF news.
In my not insignificant time in the RAF (I am some way below the rank of Gp Capt), I have heard all this stuff peddled by the barrack room lawyers many times - it just doesn't wash with me that the RAF is just a 'jobs for the boys outfit'. It may come as a surprise to some of the SNCO's cheering this letter on but there are just as many officers working extremely hard as there are SNCOs. We should be a team, working together, leading the youngsters of the officer and OR corps and not squabbling amongst ourselves. The problem of poor morale is not the fault of the officers (most of whom are doing their best) or SNCOs (likewise) or the MOD machine, or even the MOD civil servants that so many in unifornm continually b!tch about - the problem lies with the fact that we are fighting 2 wars and the armed forces are chronically underfunded by our political masters. You want to see this in action you only have to visit Whitehall and see the frustration of the officers who are desperately fighting to do the best for the frontline and are blocked at every turn by Gordons' little pixies. Get off your high horse and write a letter about that to the RAF news.
I concur Soddim, I also do not want to get of topic, but you are right the hardest thing is finding someone who did want to back up/support his subordinates, with all the officers at the top level it becomes harder to move up the ladder (and rocking the boat does not help this cause), but basically I think the letter just asks the question of with the short falls at the front line can we both justify the cost and sustain this level of management, they must be tripping over themselves in the teabar. I also have tried not to enter into the us and them arena, allthough no doubt some might feel my comments lean in that direction.
Hi Desparado:
I keep reading the original letter at the start of this thread and your response, I must be getting old as I do not see it as an us and them whine neither can I see any comment about 'worthless' officers or 'jobs for the boys' comments. All I see in lot of words is a question of balance, as I said in my previous post, it seems all that is being asked is with all the leaning and manpower reductions within the lower ranks can we justify the high level of manpower in each of the upper rank structures at the command level. To many engines and not enough trailers is not an efficient or cost effective way to do business, especially as you point out that it is the government bean/vote counters that cause most of the problems within the services.
I keep reading the original letter at the start of this thread and your response, I must be getting old as I do not see it as an us and them whine neither can I see any comment about 'worthless' officers or 'jobs for the boys' comments. All I see in lot of words is a question of balance, as I said in my previous post, it seems all that is being asked is with all the leaning and manpower reductions within the lower ranks can we justify the high level of manpower in each of the upper rank structures at the command level. To many engines and not enough trailers is not an efficient or cost effective way to do business, especially as you point out that it is the government bean/vote counters that cause most of the problems within the services.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the imbalance not simply a product of our pay system? In order to keep the right people in the RAF, we need to pay them commensurate with civvy street. The only way of doing this is by promoting them, such that their rank confers them a salery equivalent to their peers on the outside. Let's face it, some of these Officers are making decisions on future fleets, and multi-million pound contracts.
Whether they get them right or wrong is another discussion, but the fact is, they are making those decisions, and signing the paperwork to place the contracts and spend the money.
Perhaps we should alter the pay system, so the ones doing these jobs are not holding high ranks, but are being paid an allowance much like the PA chaps? Train them in contract law etc, and keep training them - much as we do our aircrew.
Whether they get them right or wrong is another discussion, but the fact is, they are making those decisions, and signing the paperwork to place the contracts and spend the money.
Perhaps we should alter the pay system, so the ones doing these jobs are not holding high ranks, but are being paid an allowance much like the PA chaps? Train them in contract law etc, and keep training them - much as we do our aircrew.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperado,
Quite simply, no civilian company would sustain the level of management we have in the RAF.
Can you justify why we have one officer to every two airmen, or why we have more Group Captains than aircraft? Thought not.
There have been a lot of good arguments put forward as to some of the problems with the Officer career structure, the main one being that the RAF are more interested in the careers of Officers rather than actually allowing them to do a good job. The short (2 year) postings that JO's have does not allow them time to make a mark for the good and actually achieve something useful, all it does allow them to do is to screw up, usually for the next incumbent to have to sort out or deal with.
It is also true that the more incompetent (but not stupid) JO's will stay deep and silent, allowing their SNCO's to look after him for the two years, thereby ensuring his career remains on track.
Y_G
Quite simply, no civilian company would sustain the level of management we have in the RAF.
Can you justify why we have one officer to every two airmen, or why we have more Group Captains than aircraft? Thought not.
There have been a lot of good arguments put forward as to some of the problems with the Officer career structure, the main one being that the RAF are more interested in the careers of Officers rather than actually allowing them to do a good job. The short (2 year) postings that JO's have does not allow them time to make a mark for the good and actually achieve something useful, all it does allow them to do is to screw up, usually for the next incumbent to have to sort out or deal with.
It is also true that the more incompetent (but not stupid) JO's will stay deep and silent, allowing their SNCO's to look after him for the two years, thereby ensuring his career remains on track.
Y_G
My twopenneth worth.
I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.
I spent 25 years in the RAF and benefitted from some outstanding SNCO's. I also had to clear up after a lot of below par individuals. The Divisional system was a good idea because so many of our troops were being 'stuffed' by lazy, incompetent SNCO's who would not/could not manage them and, most importantly, put the required effort into the report writing. The Div Off helped to fill a gap and at least make sure that the balance was redressed as best as possible. Also, it proved a valuable 'wake up' to the JO's to the problems of man management.
The letter in question was not published, IMHO, because of the one or two digs at the heirarchy. Not because it is an officers rag but because anything printed by the RAF News is open to scrutiny. They cannot be seen to be party to unsubstantiated rants. I wrote a scathing letter regarding the 'perk' for Wg Cdrs and above being able to forego the RAFT and CCS. That was based on fact and was published.
Slightly off topic but I think we should introduce not just responsibility to a post but also accountability. By that I mean if you are promoted you should also be able to lose the rank. So, if you are in a management job, either Officer or SNCO, you will be assessed not only on the job you have done but also on whether or not you justify staying in the rank. I would also allow previous units to recall individuals to justify actions taken in the past. This might help focus the mind, as too many people hide behind the current system with no fear of any real consequences.
I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.
I spent 25 years in the RAF and benefitted from some outstanding SNCO's. I also had to clear up after a lot of below par individuals. The Divisional system was a good idea because so many of our troops were being 'stuffed' by lazy, incompetent SNCO's who would not/could not manage them and, most importantly, put the required effort into the report writing. The Div Off helped to fill a gap and at least make sure that the balance was redressed as best as possible. Also, it proved a valuable 'wake up' to the JO's to the problems of man management.
The letter in question was not published, IMHO, because of the one or two digs at the heirarchy. Not because it is an officers rag but because anything printed by the RAF News is open to scrutiny. They cannot be seen to be party to unsubstantiated rants. I wrote a scathing letter regarding the 'perk' for Wg Cdrs and above being able to forego the RAFT and CCS. That was based on fact and was published.
Slightly off topic but I think we should introduce not just responsibility to a post but also accountability. By that I mean if you are promoted you should also be able to lose the rank. So, if you are in a management job, either Officer or SNCO, you will be assessed not only on the job you have done but also on whether or not you justify staying in the rank. I would also allow previous units to recall individuals to justify actions taken in the past. This might help focus the mind, as too many people hide behind the current system with no fear of any real consequences.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My twopenneth worth.
I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.....
I see no reason why all our aircraft need to be flown by Officers only. Our one big event of the social calendar is the Battle of Britain celebration. A Battle that would not have been won without SNCO pilots. This is, however, a taboo that will not be broken because those that lead the RAF benefit directly from this arrangement. The result is you will have far too many Officers on the books and they will demand a career path in order to stay in.....
There's much sense in what you say otherwise. I guess the problem now would be the RAF is so small that it would reduce the gene pool from which to draw the (later) senior management. That would hardly seem likely to improve matters.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wyler
The bottom line is that it is some bloke or girl flying the aircraft and the rank that you wear is completely immaterial. The one important fact is that the rank structure on a sqn needs to be level and consistant; one sqn JP needs to be able to talk candidly to another sqn JP without a rank divide - therefore make them all Sgts or all Flt Lts; I couldn't care less.
The basic issue is that anyone with the right Qualifications, Med Cat and Aptitude can be a pilot - Officer, NCO or civilian; get down to OASC and pass the selection.
The bottom line is that it is some bloke or girl flying the aircraft and the rank that you wear is completely immaterial. The one important fact is that the rank structure on a sqn needs to be level and consistant; one sqn JP needs to be able to talk candidly to another sqn JP without a rank divide - therefore make them all Sgts or all Flt Lts; I couldn't care less.
The basic issue is that anyone with the right Qualifications, Med Cat and Aptitude can be a pilot - Officer, NCO or civilian; get down to OASC and pass the selection.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, for one, do not buy this 'rank divide' issue. It's akin to the old CRM issue where cross cockpit gradient needs to be overcome. In any profession there is a need to discuss candidly any issue that is relevant and rank does not become an issue. If it does it is simply not professional.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soddim, you have hit the nail on the head. Anyone who has worked on a multi-engine or helicopter unit, particularly SAR, would agree with your CRM comments.
Phochs3, I assume from your username that you come from a FJ background and have not worked with SNCO aircrew. Many have higher education qualifications and have not applied for commissioned service due to changes to terms of service and the withdrawal of branch commissions. If rank is an issue, how do the AAC manage to have a pilot chat in the crew room?
The comments made in the original post are largely accurate. With cuts made to the manning in non-commissioned posts and the magical and mythical pyramid structure that is supposed to exist in the Armed Forces, how can the MOD justify the current number of senior and air ranking officers?
Phochs3, I assume from your username that you come from a FJ background and have not worked with SNCO aircrew. Many have higher education qualifications and have not applied for commissioned service due to changes to terms of service and the withdrawal of branch commissions. If rank is an issue, how do the AAC manage to have a pilot chat in the crew room?
The comments made in the original post are largely accurate. With cuts made to the manning in non-commissioned posts and the magical and mythical pyramid structure that is supposed to exist in the Armed Forces, how can the MOD justify the current number of senior and air ranking officers?
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Like all examples of cross cockpit gradient or CRM, the AAC have both good and bad. Generally it falls into 2 very distinct domains - flying duties, and the other stuff. When conducting flying duties the Aircraft Commander is the Aircraft Commander; period. It is an appointment, not a rank, so be it a Sergeant, a Warrant Officer, a Major, or anything in between, those individuals conduct themselves as the crew of an aircraft would be expected to. There are many examples of SNCO's in command of Officers for Flying duties, particularly on the QHI stream, where they have the additionally responsibility of flying standardization within the unit. Back on the ground, the individual will assume secondary duties commensurate with their rank and expect the normal military courtesies to be observed between the ranks.
There will always be cases where some young SNCO gets a rush of blood to the head over the chance to be in "charge" of an officer while in the cockpit, just as there are some young officers who feel a tad resentful of being commanded by an old crusty SNCO, but it is very quickly recognized and resolved. Some well documented falling out in the cockpit (the Kegworth twins) have been entirely due to the unsuitability of the individual from a CRM viewpoint, which may have been exacerbated by the rank gradient, but was not because of it.
It is a well tried and tested opportunity to allow experience and command to embrace each other in a taxing, but mutually respectful environment. The AAC should be rightfully proud of the way they have executed this system, but it is also noteworthy, as an earlier poster mentioned, that the best of RAF history and reputation was founded on Officer and SNCO pilots working together.
There will always be cases where some young SNCO gets a rush of blood to the head over the chance to be in "charge" of an officer while in the cockpit, just as there are some young officers who feel a tad resentful of being commanded by an old crusty SNCO, but it is very quickly recognized and resolved. Some well documented falling out in the cockpit (the Kegworth twins) have been entirely due to the unsuitability of the individual from a CRM viewpoint, which may have been exacerbated by the rank gradient, but was not because of it.
It is a well tried and tested opportunity to allow experience and command to embrace each other in a taxing, but mutually respectful environment. The AAC should be rightfully proud of the way they have executed this system, but it is also noteworthy, as an earlier poster mentioned, that the best of RAF history and reputation was founded on Officer and SNCO pilots working together.
