Quarter of RAF trainee pilots to be sacked
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Around and About
Age: 39
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, if you are a non applicant then leave NLT Sep 2012, with tranche 1.
Special paid leave for all from FT if they can show that it's viable for a future career.
One rule for one?
Apparently this is cost saving?
Was an expensive room at Cranwell earlier.
Special paid leave for all from FT if they can show that it's viable for a future career.
One rule for one?
Apparently this is cost saving?
Was an expensive room at Cranwell earlier.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting question was asked in the House today:
Hopefully it will get answered:
Mr Murphy:
As for the sacking of RAF trainee pilots, the Secretary of State said—quite fairly, I thought—
“It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible.”—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 820.]
How much common sense has prevailed? How many trainee pilots have been sacked within just 10 hours of earning their RAF wings?
As for the sacking of RAF trainee pilots, the Secretary of State said—quite fairly, I thought—
“It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible.”—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 820.]
How much common sense has prevailed? How many trainee pilots have been sacked within just 10 hours of earning their RAF wings?
Mr Robathan:
.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies of RAF pilots who had only had 10 hours of training to go. I am afraid I cannot comment on that, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the answer.
.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies of RAF pilots who had only had 10 hours of training to go. I am afraid I cannot comment on that, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the answer.
That question fails to recognise that getting your wings doesn't equate to anything particularly special with regard to combat readiness; there were plenty chopped who already had their wings!
If he means how many were chopped with just 10 hours until they were CR and deployable, then the answer's "none," as no-one on an OCU was let go.
If he means how many were chopped with just 10 hours until they were CR and deployable, then the answer's "none," as no-one on an OCU was let go.
This line of argument misses the point entirely. The training pipeline was shrunk because the number of cockpits they were feeding had reduced. It couldn't have been reduced before the (relatively) sudden announcement of the loss/reduction in Harrier, Nimrod and GR4 numbers, because if those cuts had not been taken, then we would have been short of pilots. Earlier reductions would have presumed the SofS's decision (a big no-no).
To graduate all of those in the pipeline would have resulted in 170 extra pilots kicking around with nothing to do, but all needing to be paid, costing around £6M per year. Alternatively, we would have had to sack 170 more senior aircrew who already have their wings. This would have been far more expensive, and could be viewed as unfair on people who had already given valuable service.
In other words, it has sweet FA to do with how many extra hours were required to get each trainee to wings standard!
To graduate all of those in the pipeline would have resulted in 170 extra pilots kicking around with nothing to do, but all needing to be paid, costing around £6M per year. Alternatively, we would have had to sack 170 more senior aircrew who already have their wings. This would have been far more expensive, and could be viewed as unfair on people who had already given valuable service.
In other words, it has sweet FA to do with how many extra hours were required to get each trainee to wings standard!
Earlier reductions would have presumed the SofS's decision (a big no-no).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: around
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry -- would you rather get rid of 170 chaps, some of whom were ten hours away from OCU, and thus write off the nearly £350-400m of training; or hold them for a few years and drip feed them back into the system at a cost of a few £m?
Certainly, the IPS or GTS or whatever it's called this week has reduced; but that notwithstanding, the RAF is shedding chaps who've already passed wedges of flying training in favour of unknown future recruits to 'balance the pipeline'.
Certainly, the IPS or GTS or whatever it's called this week has reduced; but that notwithstanding, the RAF is shedding chaps who've already passed wedges of flying training in favour of unknown future recruits to 'balance the pipeline'.
Torque/Anonystude,
Both of you raise good points. I was making the point that a reduction HAD to be made. Whether it should have been forecast far earlier (ie before SDSR) is a good question. I have argued elsewhere that the inability of our senior commanders to identify and address the £38Bn gap in Defence procurement was a major failing, so it's hardly surprising that this nettle wasn't grasped earlier (the famed 'Conspiracy of Optimism' perhaps?).
As to how the individuals involved could have been managed, I cannot comment from any knowledge or experience (not that that is a bar on pprune!) Personally, I would have been tempted to give them a free pass to re-enter the mob in 3 years and suggest they go globe trotting or get a degree in the meantime!
Both of you raise good points. I was making the point that a reduction HAD to be made. Whether it should have been forecast far earlier (ie before SDSR) is a good question. I have argued elsewhere that the inability of our senior commanders to identify and address the £38Bn gap in Defence procurement was a major failing, so it's hardly surprising that this nettle wasn't grasped earlier (the famed 'Conspiracy of Optimism' perhaps?).
As to how the individuals involved could have been managed, I cannot comment from any knowledge or experience (not that that is a bar on pprune!) Personally, I would have been tempted to give them a free pass to re-enter the mob in 3 years and suggest they go globe trotting or get a degree in the meantime!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Behind you...
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'no-one on an OCU was let go'
Incorrect.
And I think the question relating to those getting their wings relates to those in the ME pipeline who are relatively close to an OCU and CR in comparison to someone who gets their wings at Linton.
Incorrect.
And I think the question relating to those getting their wings relates to those in the ME pipeline who are relatively close to an OCU and CR in comparison to someone who gets their wings at Linton.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming from someone who's been in the redundancy briefs and gone through it all, there was not one mention of any planned cuts of people on OCUs. It's possible some on OCUs might have taken voluntary redundancy though.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anonystude - you said:
'Red Line Entry -- would you rather get rid of 170 chaps, some of whom were ten hours away from OCU, and thus write off the nearly £350-400m of training; or hold them for a few years and drip feed them back into the system at a cost of a few £m?'
I know that it's hard times for those involved, but we tried this after the 1st Gulf War cut-backs. We kept people for 3-4 year holds in all sorts of random places, but then found that they ended up being too old for a full career, never had a chance to get promoted and were generally hacked off at being 'the lost generation'. I absolutely accept that these folks just joined to fly and many/some won't be interested in full careers - but the RAF gets people who can do full careers and fly if they let these 170 go and find 100 to replace them in a few years time. Holding for a few years cost 170 x annual wage as well - so it isn't free.
Even ignoring the 'full career' aspects, do you think the RAF wants 22 year olds on their 1st tours or 26 years olds?
Of course, there's nothing to stop those who have been 'let go' from re-applying in a few years time when the trg pipe opens. Especially if the politicians wake up in the meantime and realise that dangerous times call for more aircrew, not fewer!
'Red Line Entry -- would you rather get rid of 170 chaps, some of whom were ten hours away from OCU, and thus write off the nearly £350-400m of training; or hold them for a few years and drip feed them back into the system at a cost of a few £m?'
I know that it's hard times for those involved, but we tried this after the 1st Gulf War cut-backs. We kept people for 3-4 year holds in all sorts of random places, but then found that they ended up being too old for a full career, never had a chance to get promoted and were generally hacked off at being 'the lost generation'. I absolutely accept that these folks just joined to fly and many/some won't be interested in full careers - but the RAF gets people who can do full careers and fly if they let these 170 go and find 100 to replace them in a few years time. Holding for a few years cost 170 x annual wage as well - so it isn't free.
Even ignoring the 'full career' aspects, do you think the RAF wants 22 year olds on their 1st tours or 26 years olds?
Of course, there's nothing to stop those who have been 'let go' from re-applying in a few years time when the trg pipe opens. Especially if the politicians wake up in the meantime and realise that dangerous times call for more aircrew, not fewer!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rector,
Or perhaps our career structure is flawed. Too many assumptions that everyone joins to be CAS or CDS and hence crap staff tours that no-one wants. Perhaps we should consider more PAS to keep experience levels up and get rid of staff non-job postings that simply create more e-mail traffic for no more value.....
Or perhaps our career structure is flawed. Too many assumptions that everyone joins to be CAS or CDS and hence crap staff tours that no-one wants. Perhaps we should consider more PAS to keep experience levels up and get rid of staff non-job postings that simply create more e-mail traffic for no more value.....
When did a 22 year old last arrive on a squadron at age 22? I don't know the answer BTW - I am just asking!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad state
I met two of these guys recently, finishing off a PPL exam at a location in Yorkshire. Were on the last stage of Tucanos, called in and told the end was nigh. Out the door next day.
Not sure how I felt, gutted for the kids (so near yet so far scenario), however, a cup half full scenario on reflection. Yes, bitterly disappointing, however, knocked down, get up, dust yourself off, and go and progress a commercial career, wih a good deal of excellent training under your belt, at the taxpayers expense
If we forget the politicians short sighted/far sighted view on the forces, some kids can utilise it as a bitter positive.
Not sure how I felt, gutted for the kids (so near yet so far scenario), however, a cup half full scenario on reflection. Yes, bitterly disappointing, however, knocked down, get up, dust yourself off, and go and progress a commercial career, wih a good deal of excellent training under your belt, at the taxpayers expense
If we forget the politicians short sighted/far sighted view on the forces, some kids can utilise it as a bitter positive.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, 6 years ago and and 42 years ago! I got to a squadron at age 22 in 1961, having spent 3 years at Cranditz! The speed of training used to be such that someone doing National Service could get officer and flying training and 6 months on a squadron. If they were selected for this path they had to agree to extent their NS by a year which I guess made it 3 years instead of 2. Standing by for correction of this timescale. One of my colleagues had a 3 month hold for his main OCU and was given a Meteor conversion and a target towing posting to Singapore to fill his time!