Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

If you PVR we'll ground you - allegedly!

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

If you PVR we'll ground you - allegedly!

Old 7th Jul 2011, 12:51
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here n there.
Posts: 905
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Thumbs down If you PVR we'll ground you - allegedly!

Notwithstanding the fact that this is a rumour network, the latest scuttlebutt on the strasse is that if you PVR at the Oxfordshire superbase they'll ground you! Priceless! PVR and you lose your Flying Pay and loose your 12 month currency (is the fact that you haven't flown for 12 months a biggy for the airlines?) Perfect recipe to keep people happy! What are they thinking?

edited for spooling induced by fatigue, not checked through laziness!

Last edited by Hueymeister; 7th Jul 2011 at 22:57.
Hueymeister is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 12:58
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That sounds like 2 different issues. Whether or not an individual is on the flypro is a chain of command issue; the removal of fg pay is policy.

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 13:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a hole with an owl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They did something very similar in the mid 80s when every man and his labrador were rushing for the exits with licences in hand.... Same employer, same cricket bat, same lack of grease. Not much changes, does it?
Ali Qadoo is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 13:43
  #4 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Ali Q, then of course they had ground slots to fill - OC Sim here or Ops O there. Now with the former civilianised and the latter - well we know don't we - what would they put them now?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 13:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is the difference between this rumour and the actions being suggested by some posters on the other PVR thread i.e no fly pay = no fly (or at least a "work to rule")?

Perhaps Manning read PPRuNe for ideas!!!
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 14:00
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the edge
Posts: 237
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
With 25% of captains PVRd off one BZN Sqn in the last 2 weeks, I'd like to see how this pans out. Airbridge? Flown by who?
I suppose you can always replace those individuals with keen 500 hr co-pilots who have only ever landed at 3 airfields. Hmm just remind me how seriously the RAF are taking passenger safety these days.
Enough to make you weep.
Arty Fufkin is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 14:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arty

On the other thread you said

All seems relatively simple to me,

No flying pay = no fly.
So what is the difference between you saying you won't fly if your flying pay is removed and the RAF CofC removing you from flying duties when you PVR? Granted you still won't have the pilots/captains but this way the RAF CofC can try to put in place alternative plans without being "held to ransom" by people picking and choosing when they are going to fly or answer their phone (as suggested by others, again on the other thread) or whatever.

Of course it may all be a rumour .....
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 15:24
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,442
Received 62 Likes on 29 Posts
This, if true, sounds like all the more reason to adopt the "...fail the fitness test..." approach to leaving.

Using this method:

1) Flying pay is retained until the day you leave

2) You stay flying until you leave

3) You're out in 12 months, which is the current PVR time anyway!


Simples....!!!
Biggus is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 15:34
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1) Flying pay is retained until the day you leave

2) You stay flying until you leave
Careful Biggus - you never know who is reading this board. Standby for a DIN entitled "Suspension of Annual Fitness Test" or "New Procedures for Failure To Attain Fitness Standard"
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:10
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,442
Received 62 Likes on 29 Posts
Wrathmonk....

I had anticipated such a possible reaction by the "powers that be".

But look on the bright side.... Presumably, if the fitness test was only susupended for pilots, any subsequent dismissal of non-pilots on fitness grounds could be legally challenged. So, if the powers that be do react as you suggest, at least we all get out of doing the fitness test for a while, for as long as we are short of pilots!!!
Biggus is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the edge
Posts: 237
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Whether people decide to stop flying when they apply for PVR or the RAF grounds them, the end result is the same. No-one to fly the aircraft.

The no flying pay after Apr 12 issue has forced /will force people to pull the plug early.
12 month PVR terms lend a modicum of short term stability to the system from manning's perspective, but in combination with the above, it has resulted in a breakdown of trust and loyalty towards the service from many in the pilot cadre. Hence the somewhat militant attitudes expressed here and elsewhere.

In most walks of life, if an organisation is keen to stop people walking out the door it looks at the reasons why and tries to address those issues. Only the MOD tries to keep people in with threats of financial hardship or punitive job changes if one decides to leave. Not to mention the ability to force such condition for up to 18 months if they so desire.
It is true that companies in the real world are every bit as cunning and exploitative as the RAF appears to have become. But that is why employment law is there, to protect individuals from these sorts of tactics that would otherwise be rife.

Trust and loyalty. Not much of either around these days, which is a shame, because it's very hard to get back.
Arty Fufkin is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah, the good old stick, again... Haven't seen the carrot for a while, have we? Mind, what next, the carrot, but only in that it gets put up your a*se and the stick used to tw*t it as far up there as possible...
I'm Off! is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 16:35
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if an organisation is keen to stop people walking out the door
You are assuming this to be the case - a PVR is far cheaper than a redundancy (and remember there were no qualified pilot redundancies on the first tranche). In theory, you still also have the individual to fill a non-flying appointment for 12-18 months (albeit on a "work to rule" basis). The financial penalty may be just enough to keep those who are "undecided" as to where their future lies stay in. I suspect those determined to leave will go regardless.

It is however a very dangerous game to play and one that could go horribly wrong (for the MOD/RAF) if they have misjudged the true feelings on the shop floor. Which I suspect they may well have done .....

Edited to add - latest voluntary outflow stats here
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 17:03
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
On the issue of failing the RAFFT as a means of leaving whilst retaining ones FP, which is clearly a possibility, I have heard that that discharge on those grounds can lead to forfeiture of all pension rights, gratuities and resettlement package, but on the bright side you will be out in 48 weeks not 52.
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 17:26
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The no flying pay after Apr 12 issue has forced /will force people to pull the plug early.
Arty, what issue is this? Can you elaborate please?
skaterboi is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 17:29
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have heard that that discharge on those grounds can lead to forfeiture of all pension rights, gratuities and resettlement package,
As politely as it can be said....not correct.

An admin discharge carries the same status as a PVR. All minor and most major formal charges as well as all admin discharges (for whatever reason) are treated as admin discharges for the sake of pensions/resettlement packages etc.

To lose the lot as you suggest you have to commit one of the biggies...murder, high treason, somthing of that ilk.

Moreover, I do not think this is something it is within the remit of the military or the government to change without primary legislation, because all military punishment tariffs have to reflect their civilian counterparts as required by UK law.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 18:14
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Ok, not been in the office much today but I find this rumour pretty hard to believe. If the Service did remove people from flying duties on what grounds do they think they can keep people in?

The Service can retain people formally months and month beyond their PVR date if the Service has an operational need to retain the skills. If they did carry out this daft policy then they would undermine the published reason for not letting you go.

I know the RAF can be a little stupid at times, but this would be breaking new ground. Even the most career-minded senior numpty knows that it will only take one example being leaked to the press before joe-taxpayer will ask why we are paying a chap for a year yet stopping him from doing his job.



Although I have been wrong in the past....
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 18:51
  #18 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Wrathmonk
In theory, you still also have the individual to fill a non-flying appointment for 12-18 months (albeit on a "work to rule" basis).
In theory is the key word.

In practice how many slots are available for people to move in to? Posting someone to a different unit can have many unintended consequences. And work to rule is the big one.

I suffered at least once from someone working to rule and it is not pleasant if you are on a shift roster - their take-over occurs after their shift starts and they expect to depart on time too.

On another occasion, and this plonker was not on work to rule, he simply stashed stuff inside and behind a cabinet and under his desk. The poor sap who took over then had to send out letters "Have you seen this?" "Has this been done?" etc. And the plonker? - promoted
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 20:24
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,053
Received 175 Likes on 62 Posts
The wheels really are coming off the bus this time.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2011, 20:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,076
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Its lovely to see how BALPA got to being so militant.

I'd bet that you guys might have earned lifetime membership (for when you get out) by putting non-represented fellow pilots in the right frame of mind.

The theory about making situations so bad that people just "Pop out" at their own volition is a typical move by many companies in varying circumstances, such as profit losses leading to staff reductions, mergers, takeovers or company relocations. In these situations recruitment and training always goes first - does that sound familiar? I've been through three of those situations in my time on the outside.

Its always good to see how groups of people figure out how to take "non-action" actions too. Although these discussions were normally done in the privacy of Snugs in pubs, or coffee houses (I assume!). Its amazing how the digital age can replace these meetings.

What I want to say is that, even for those in the military, the only real vote any of you have is with your feet.

Unfortunately, the increasing rate of foot-voting strengthens the likelihood and increases the amount of reward those (less decisive or stronger will'd?) mortals that stay behind will eventually receive in reward or retention payments.

Whatever you decide ...all the best.

Anyway... what will you call your union? MILPA?
Rigga is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.