PVRs started.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I can see the banter in here is sharp, so I'm ready for a broadside for having the temerity to ask:
Does anyone know of airlines out there who appreciate (2000hrs+, QFI, ME) ex-mil pilots, are recruiting currently, and do not require a type-rating up front?
I'm currently at Bristol Ground School doing my ATPL exams, along with about 40 other RAF/RN pilots - which gives a good indication of the level of 'push' currently being felt!
The question remains, where is the biggest 'pull' coming from....?
TH
Does anyone know of airlines out there who appreciate (2000hrs+, QFI, ME) ex-mil pilots, are recruiting currently, and do not require a type-rating up front?
I'm currently at Bristol Ground School doing my ATPL exams, along with about 40 other RAF/RN pilots - which gives a good indication of the level of 'push' currently being felt!
The question remains, where is the biggest 'pull' coming from....?
TH
LJ,
A nice line but how on earth can anyone be fooled by your story when Manning have assured us that it all lies and rumour that any aircrew are PVR'ing.
Having said that, I know of 2 Nimrod pilots who have recently applied but they have probably been discounted as the Nimrod no longer exists!
A nice line but how on earth can anyone be fooled by your story when Manning have assured us that it all lies and rumour that any aircrew are PVR'ing.
Having said that, I know of 2 Nimrod pilots who have recently applied but they have probably been discounted as the Nimrod no longer exists!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in a state of flux
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misery is us
Had a wonderful chat with a lovely Wg Cdr today. She informed me that she has approx 45 chaps working for her who all do (without semantics) the same job. Fifteen applied for redundancy. Not one of them got it. 17 of her chaps, though, were made redundant - and she told them last week. She was absolutely incensed and clearly cared very much for 'her guys'. In a nutshell, she said 'I had guys who wanted it, and not one got it. I had guys who absolutely did not want it, and 17 of them are off - and all my guys do exactly the same job, or near as makes no difference.' She was absolutely gutted and said she felt sick at the RAF's actions.
She believes the system has deliberately penalised those who applied (by not granting it), and crucified others to show 'the RAF can be ruthless'. The facts seem pretty obvious.
If we were to sack every single officer in the RAF of Gp Capt and above and replace them with officers who have served less than 12 years, I am firmly convinced the RAF would be more efficient, more operational, more angry in War, more benevolent in peace, and more sanguine when ruminating over decisions between the two.
War is a battle between people, beliefs and values. At a base level. soldiers are motivated by the basest of instincts, so are governments. The courses at JSCSC are too high brow and whilst they are correct, and true, they are absolutely irrelevant.
We are lost. We have the power to find our way, and perhaps the will. But it is to our junior brethren we should look. The old guard have failed, despite their best efforts.
The RAF has the potential to realise it's ability. The ability to show to others that the UK still represents excellence, power, and a quiet but resolute determination to promote fairness. But sadly not under it's current leadership. We should make it clear, en masse, that enough is enough and we will not be led, blindly, into an abyss so a senior officer can get his pension. One day we will all be dead, and answer to our God. What will he say to you?
She believes the system has deliberately penalised those who applied (by not granting it), and crucified others to show 'the RAF can be ruthless'. The facts seem pretty obvious.
If we were to sack every single officer in the RAF of Gp Capt and above and replace them with officers who have served less than 12 years, I am firmly convinced the RAF would be more efficient, more operational, more angry in War, more benevolent in peace, and more sanguine when ruminating over decisions between the two.
War is a battle between people, beliefs and values. At a base level. soldiers are motivated by the basest of instincts, so are governments. The courses at JSCSC are too high brow and whilst they are correct, and true, they are absolutely irrelevant.
We are lost. We have the power to find our way, and perhaps the will. But it is to our junior brethren we should look. The old guard have failed, despite their best efforts.
The RAF has the potential to realise it's ability. The ability to show to others that the UK still represents excellence, power, and a quiet but resolute determination to promote fairness. But sadly not under it's current leadership. We should make it clear, en masse, that enough is enough and we will not be led, blindly, into an abyss so a senior officer can get his pension. One day we will all be dead, and answer to our God. What will he say to you?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrs SFFP took voluntary redundancy from the County Council earlier this year, does not regret it at all and is enjoying the life of the lady who does lunch. She received an email from an old colleague yesterday saying the CEO has just been given his marching orders as part of the cost saving measures, perhaps we could learn from this 
Chopabeefer
Spot on me old apart from "Gp Capt above" would not stop the rot- there are too many already indoctrinated at Wg Cdr/Sqn Ldr level who have done the "college of knowledge" at Shriv.
We've been at war for many years now but we continue to promote, encourage and produce "managers" instead of "war leaders". Which is one of the reasons why I'm off. I'm a dinosaur for the Nu-RAF and I'm leaving on my terms rather than become increasingly bitter as I see more political back-biters go into Gp Capt+ go above me.
There are still a few good people but they are becoming more and more a rarer breed...
LJ
Spot on me old apart from "Gp Capt above" would not stop the rot- there are too many already indoctrinated at Wg Cdr/Sqn Ldr level who have done the "college of knowledge" at Shriv.
We've been at war for many years now but we continue to promote, encourage and produce "managers" instead of "war leaders". Which is one of the reasons why I'm off. I'm a dinosaur for the Nu-RAF and I'm leaving on my terms rather than become increasingly bitter as I see more political back-biters go into Gp Capt+ go above me.
There are still a few good people but they are becoming more and more a rarer breed...
LJ
"There are still a few good people but they are becoming more and more a rarer breed..."
Now that's a quote I remember from the mid 70's, at least.
It seems that whatever the "Era" we're ending, there appears to be another one just around the corner.
Now that's a quote I remember from the mid 70's, at least.
It seems that whatever the "Era" we're ending, there appears to be another one just around the corner.
chopabeefer,
One would like to think that, as a senior officer, the Wg Cdr in question would know how the redundancy process was run - after all, it wasn't exactly a secret, full details were published in a IBN.
At the end of the day, it was a points based system, where (no doubt to make it easier for the board) they ended up with a situation whereby the more points you scored the less likely you were to be made redundant.
Points were awarded for a variety of things (I can't remember them all, and I haven't got a copy of the IBN to hand), including volunteer or not, medical cat, disciplinary record, qualifications/skill sets and performance.
For most of these you got a score of between 0 and 5, with two notably exceptions I will expand on. The performance figure was arrived at by a board of 3 (hence the redundancy selection was referred to by some as a reverse promotion board!) who scored 1-9 each, giving a possible performance score for an individual of between 3 and 27. Hence you can see that the performance score dwarfs all the other scores.
If you were a volunteer you scored 0, a non volunteer scored 7.
So, a volunteer (0 points) who was doing a good job and got a performance score of 22 would have more points than a non volunteer (7 points) who wasn't doing as well and got a performance score of 14 (don't forget, more points equals retention, less equals redundancy!). Throw in a few differences in skill sets, med cat, etc, and volunteers/non volunteers with more similar performance scores than the example I quoted might find that it is the non volunteer who actually ends up with the lower points, and is made redundant.
It is the performance score that makes the biggest decision on who went and who stayed, and what did the board use to come up with their score, previous appraisal reports.!!
Your Wg Cdr said she had 45 guys doing the same job, but I bet they had a range of appraisal reports, some were inevitably doing the "same job" better than others - that is a simple fact of life. At the end of the day it was that Wg Cdrs actions, as an RO, in helping produce appraisal reports, that probably ultimatey decided who went and who stayed in her section!!!
Now one could argue that the volunteer/non volunteer point differential, 7 out of an average score of 30+ (i.e approx. 20%) wasn't high enough. Alternatively one could argue that the RAF should let all the volunteers go first, and only then board non volunteers. However, from the "company's" point of view, why shouldn't it retain fit well performing individuals in preference to unfit individuals who aren't performing as well? (Balance the needs of the team (RAF), task and individual?)
A tough call, especially if volunteers aren't made redundant and are kept in but become disgruntled. But how many times do people say it is a good chance to clear out the dead wood, sickies, etc? I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall (hence I used the phrase "one could") in terms of whether the policy used was the best/right one. Whatever system is adopted someone will inevitably consider it "unfair".
You could argue that the system adopted was imperfect or imbalanced - but the idea that you say this Wg Cdr has that the RAF DELIBERATELY PENALISED THOSE THAT APPLIED????? Especially when one considers that statistically (ignoring whether or not certain trades were under or over subscribed - which I don't know - for example, 10 redundancy slots for chefs and 15 apply, 10 get it but it looks statistically as though some applicants didn't get redundancy, similarly if there are 10 slots for MT drivers but none apply, they all become compulsaries. All such nuances confuse the overall picture.) that two thirds of those that applied for redundancy got it - her argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever! In fact it sounds highly emotive rather than rational.
Edited to add - In the RAF there were 620 applications, 440 were approved - approx. 71%, hardly indicative of a policy of penalisation??
One would like to think that, as a senior officer, the Wg Cdr in question would know how the redundancy process was run - after all, it wasn't exactly a secret, full details were published in a IBN.
At the end of the day, it was a points based system, where (no doubt to make it easier for the board) they ended up with a situation whereby the more points you scored the less likely you were to be made redundant.
Points were awarded for a variety of things (I can't remember them all, and I haven't got a copy of the IBN to hand), including volunteer or not, medical cat, disciplinary record, qualifications/skill sets and performance.
For most of these you got a score of between 0 and 5, with two notably exceptions I will expand on. The performance figure was arrived at by a board of 3 (hence the redundancy selection was referred to by some as a reverse promotion board!) who scored 1-9 each, giving a possible performance score for an individual of between 3 and 27. Hence you can see that the performance score dwarfs all the other scores.
If you were a volunteer you scored 0, a non volunteer scored 7.
So, a volunteer (0 points) who was doing a good job and got a performance score of 22 would have more points than a non volunteer (7 points) who wasn't doing as well and got a performance score of 14 (don't forget, more points equals retention, less equals redundancy!). Throw in a few differences in skill sets, med cat, etc, and volunteers/non volunteers with more similar performance scores than the example I quoted might find that it is the non volunteer who actually ends up with the lower points, and is made redundant.
It is the performance score that makes the biggest decision on who went and who stayed, and what did the board use to come up with their score, previous appraisal reports.!!
Your Wg Cdr said she had 45 guys doing the same job, but I bet they had a range of appraisal reports, some were inevitably doing the "same job" better than others - that is a simple fact of life. At the end of the day it was that Wg Cdrs actions, as an RO, in helping produce appraisal reports, that probably ultimatey decided who went and who stayed in her section!!!
Now one could argue that the volunteer/non volunteer point differential, 7 out of an average score of 30+ (i.e approx. 20%) wasn't high enough. Alternatively one could argue that the RAF should let all the volunteers go first, and only then board non volunteers. However, from the "company's" point of view, why shouldn't it retain fit well performing individuals in preference to unfit individuals who aren't performing as well? (Balance the needs of the team (RAF), task and individual?)
A tough call, especially if volunteers aren't made redundant and are kept in but become disgruntled. But how many times do people say it is a good chance to clear out the dead wood, sickies, etc? I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall (hence I used the phrase "one could") in terms of whether the policy used was the best/right one. Whatever system is adopted someone will inevitably consider it "unfair".
You could argue that the system adopted was imperfect or imbalanced - but the idea that you say this Wg Cdr has that the RAF DELIBERATELY PENALISED THOSE THAT APPLIED????? Especially when one considers that statistically (ignoring whether or not certain trades were under or over subscribed - which I don't know - for example, 10 redundancy slots for chefs and 15 apply, 10 get it but it looks statistically as though some applicants didn't get redundancy, similarly if there are 10 slots for MT drivers but none apply, they all become compulsaries. All such nuances confuse the overall picture.) that two thirds of those that applied for redundancy got it - her argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever! In fact it sounds highly emotive rather than rational.
Edited to add - In the RAF there were 620 applications, 440 were approved - approx. 71%, hardly indicative of a policy of penalisation??
Last edited by Biggus; 9th Sep 2011 at 10:19.
Choppabeef - you make some interesting points but I do draw you to the attention of Biggus's post about the process (qv IBNs, DINs, ad naseum).
I agree with your points about some very senior officers - and some aspirant VSOs (Wg Cdrs/Gp Capts) - who have been honing their chisels on Whetstones for years. JSCSC is one entry mechanism to this exclusive 'club' and some officers have made it to at least 1* without having done ACSC, but woe betide officers who have attened a foreign staff course - now that will be held against you.
Johnny Foreigners knowing about war? Utter tosh....
I agree with your points about some very senior officers - and some aspirant VSOs (Wg Cdrs/Gp Capts) - who have been honing their chisels on Whetstones for years. JSCSC is one entry mechanism to this exclusive 'club' and some officers have made it to at least 1* without having done ACSC, but woe betide officers who have attened a foreign staff course - now that will be held against you.
Johnny Foreigners knowing about war? Utter tosh....
The courses at JSCSC are too high brow and whilst they are correct, and true, they are absolutely irrelevant.
JSCSC is one entry mechanism to this exclusive 'club' and some officers have made it to at least 1* without having done ACSC, but woe betide officers who have attened a foreign staff course - now that will be held against you.
Johnny Foreigners knowing about war? Utter tosh....
Johnny Foreigners knowing about war? Utter tosh....
But, and it is a huge but, we have become so beholden to it to the extent that rather than being used as guidance, it is the ends ways and means not to operational success but a successful career for thrusting types, who either use it to make up for a lack of real-world operational understanding or the inability to get people to do things because they are the right thing to do at the time and not because it is written in some doctrine note. And that is the problem. Unfortunately in the current political and risk-adverse times, the doctrine-wallahs are very much in the ascendency. After all, follow doctrine and it all goes wrong you can blame it on the doctine.
As for Johnny Foreigner not knowing about war: I would have thought our rapid about turn on the COIN front having sat back on our Borneo / Malaya / NI laurels for too long demonstrated that we don't have all the answers. Subsequently watching the US military show us how modern COIN needed to be done should be a salutary lesson that we might not be as good as we like to think we are.
That said, I would still rather share a bird table on ops with a senior operator who is pragmatic and flexible enough to take / leave doctrine as required by the situation at the time than a full on doctrine-wallah.
An excellent post by Biggus, but I think it will fall on deaf ears. The information on how the redundancy is/was run is all available out there, but it's much easier to fall back on conspiracy theory and the mentality of, "we're great, you're OK, they're crap".