recruiting freeze
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recruiting freeze
I think you chaps may have missed this Telegraph article from Saturday
Fighter pilots on the RAF slow track Too many trainees for RAF’s fast jets - Telegraph
Fighter pilots on the RAF slow track Too many trainees for RAF’s fast jets.
The RAF faces a freeze on recruiting pilots after being forced to clear a three-year backlog of trainees caused by defence cuts, confidential documents show. Despite sacking 170 trainee pilots earlier this year, air force chiefs have found they still have 150 recruits “too many” for their flying programme, papers passed to The Telegraph disclose.
Other documents obtained by this newspaper say that training for more than 75 per cent of pilot recruits is “on hold” for up to three and a half years.
Commanders now admit that the chances of joining the RAF to become a fighter pilot are extremely remote.
With training for 239 recruits on ice, the RAF accepts that it will take at least three years to clear the backlog.
“The 'Few’ are becoming the very few,” said one former RAF flier. Senior RAF officers made their concerns known in a high-level communication exchange on a system known as “Sapphire”. “A fly training risk has now been loaded on to Sapphire highlighting that there were potentially some 150 too many trainees in the system,” one commander said.
Referring to a freeze on recruitment, the document said the requirement for new pilots had “significantly reduced” and the figure for students starting courses for the financial year 2011-12 was “zero”. There are suggestions that the reduction in trainees is being forced by potential further cuts to the already depleted front-line jet fleet.
Nimrod surveillance aircraft and Harrier jump jets along with Tornado F3 fighters have already been cut. Further figures show that out of 80 student fast jet pilots only 13 are still in training with the rest “on hold”. The RAF, which has 520 fast jet qualified pilots, wants to graduate 102 fighter pilots in the next four years.
Most of the “on hold” trainees are unhappy after they were given posts elsewhere while they wait to continue flying.
“There’s nothing wrong with admin work but we’ve given up years of our lives to be pilots,” said one.
An RAF spokesman said: “The RAF has a long-term requirement for pilots and for this reason will ensure that the RAF recruitment process will deliver sufficient pilots to meet the operational need. There are no plans for further redundancies from the RAF’s flying training pipeline.”
The latest disclosure comes amid a row over Army pay. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body may ask the Treasury to find more money in defiance of a one per cent pay limit so military wages are not effectively cut once inflation is taken into account.
Þ Hundreds of jobs are likely to be lost from the Military of Defence police under budget cuts, the Defence Police Federation has warned.
The civilian force, which provides security for some of the UK’s most sensitive military bases, could lose up to 1,500 staff, the union estimates.
Fighter pilots on the RAF slow track Too many trainees for RAF’s fast jets - Telegraph
Fighter pilots on the RAF slow track Too many trainees for RAF’s fast jets.
The RAF faces a freeze on recruiting pilots after being forced to clear a three-year backlog of trainees caused by defence cuts, confidential documents show. Despite sacking 170 trainee pilots earlier this year, air force chiefs have found they still have 150 recruits “too many” for their flying programme, papers passed to The Telegraph disclose.
Other documents obtained by this newspaper say that training for more than 75 per cent of pilot recruits is “on hold” for up to three and a half years.
Commanders now admit that the chances of joining the RAF to become a fighter pilot are extremely remote.
With training for 239 recruits on ice, the RAF accepts that it will take at least three years to clear the backlog.
“The 'Few’ are becoming the very few,” said one former RAF flier. Senior RAF officers made their concerns known in a high-level communication exchange on a system known as “Sapphire”. “A fly training risk has now been loaded on to Sapphire highlighting that there were potentially some 150 too many trainees in the system,” one commander said.
Referring to a freeze on recruitment, the document said the requirement for new pilots had “significantly reduced” and the figure for students starting courses for the financial year 2011-12 was “zero”. There are suggestions that the reduction in trainees is being forced by potential further cuts to the already depleted front-line jet fleet.
Nimrod surveillance aircraft and Harrier jump jets along with Tornado F3 fighters have already been cut. Further figures show that out of 80 student fast jet pilots only 13 are still in training with the rest “on hold”. The RAF, which has 520 fast jet qualified pilots, wants to graduate 102 fighter pilots in the next four years.
Most of the “on hold” trainees are unhappy after they were given posts elsewhere while they wait to continue flying.
“There’s nothing wrong with admin work but we’ve given up years of our lives to be pilots,” said one.
An RAF spokesman said: “The RAF has a long-term requirement for pilots and for this reason will ensure that the RAF recruitment process will deliver sufficient pilots to meet the operational need. There are no plans for further redundancies from the RAF’s flying training pipeline.”
The latest disclosure comes amid a row over Army pay. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body may ask the Treasury to find more money in defiance of a one per cent pay limit so military wages are not effectively cut once inflation is taken into account.
Þ Hundreds of jobs are likely to be lost from the Military of Defence police under budget cuts, the Defence Police Federation has warned.
The civilian force, which provides security for some of the UK’s most sensitive military bases, could lose up to 1,500 staff, the union estimates.
Last edited by jamesdevice; 21st Dec 2011 at 17:19.
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
There was a recent review of university bursars and I understand that at least 30% were chopped. They get to keep the cash, but they have no place at Cranwell on graduating. By the sounds of things the future pilots in the remaining 70% will be enough for the time being.
The son of a friend was one of the 30%.
The son of a friend was one of the 30%.
A good issue to bring to the forum. This is nothing new, I'm sorry to report. I was SO1 Training at HQ1 Gp for my final few years of service and this was one of my biggest headaches - even though it was a PTC issue, I was the STC player in the game. The problem wasn't really caused really through any fault on the MoD's behalf, I must add.
The lead time for recruiting pilts and getting them "into productive srvice" (IPS) is far longer than the rate at which the size and shape of the front line has been changing. PMC (as it was) was doing its best to make sure we had enough aircrew coming through the front end of the system to accommodate the frontline needs, suspension rate, PVRs, normal exits, promotion and "branch sustainment" as stated at the time. But by the time these guys were hitting Valley the demand had always dropped off and, so, there was a backlog that just kept getting bigger.
This will get worse. As with all other defence planning, salmi slicing is (in my opinion) the worst way of doing things. As soon as the planners adapt to one change, another comes along. They can never catch up. Far better to wait, consider exactly what is required and (if necessary) have one huge cut far enough in the future than loads of instant little ones. Even the huge cuts they've suffered recently are going to be followed by more.
Stating the bleedin' obvious again, I suspect, but it's this kind of short-sighted, politically and financially driven instability that has led to (and will continue to lead to) the worst problems that the RAF has been criticised for.
The Government nees to decide what it wants and is willing to fund, state that openly all in one go and then let the RAF get on with it. Same for other services, I'm sure, but I can only speak about that which I know.
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.
Courtney
The lead time for recruiting pilts and getting them "into productive srvice" (IPS) is far longer than the rate at which the size and shape of the front line has been changing. PMC (as it was) was doing its best to make sure we had enough aircrew coming through the front end of the system to accommodate the frontline needs, suspension rate, PVRs, normal exits, promotion and "branch sustainment" as stated at the time. But by the time these guys were hitting Valley the demand had always dropped off and, so, there was a backlog that just kept getting bigger.
This will get worse. As with all other defence planning, salmi slicing is (in my opinion) the worst way of doing things. As soon as the planners adapt to one change, another comes along. They can never catch up. Far better to wait, consider exactly what is required and (if necessary) have one huge cut far enough in the future than loads of instant little ones. Even the huge cuts they've suffered recently are going to be followed by more.
Stating the bleedin' obvious again, I suspect, but it's this kind of short-sighted, politically and financially driven instability that has led to (and will continue to lead to) the worst problems that the RAF has been criticised for.
The Government nees to decide what it wants and is willing to fund, state that openly all in one go and then let the RAF get on with it. Same for other services, I'm sure, but I can only speak about that which I know.
Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.
Courtney
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So, if we don't need any pilots:
SCRAP THE RED ARROWS NOW
and save a lot of money."
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think for very different reasons. Scrap the Reds, the BBMF, the Falcons, the pomp of Changing the Guard in London etc, in an attempt to get the message across to the public. I fear that the public wouldn't particularly care.
I guess the argument that the Reds generate money for UK industry is perhaps a little outdated, but my understanding is that given the sponsorship they receive, they are not actually that expensive.
It would break my heart to see all these things lost, and maybe it would just be interpreted as petulance from HM Forces.
However, regarding the Reds in particular, I think the wrong message would be interpreted, given the tragic year the team has endured. "Reds scrapped because they can't fly safely!!!!!" What an insult to the memories of two fine pilots.
SCRAP THE RED ARROWS NOW
and save a lot of money."
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think for very different reasons. Scrap the Reds, the BBMF, the Falcons, the pomp of Changing the Guard in London etc, in an attempt to get the message across to the public. I fear that the public wouldn't particularly care.
I guess the argument that the Reds generate money for UK industry is perhaps a little outdated, but my understanding is that given the sponsorship they receive, they are not actually that expensive.
It would break my heart to see all these things lost, and maybe it would just be interpreted as petulance from HM Forces.
However, regarding the Reds in particular, I think the wrong message would be interpreted, given the tragic year the team has endured. "Reds scrapped because they can't fly safely!!!!!" What an insult to the memories of two fine pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Red Arrows are going to have to go, but for a different reason.
With just 25 or so pilots a year, its going to be impossible to justify retaining the Hawk and Tucano fleets. I can see both being sold overseas, and all flying training subcontracted out, maybe overseas also. With its good weather, India would be a good location
If India also buys the Typhoon / Sea Typhoon then sending our students there would be a perfect solution
With just 25 or so pilots a year, its going to be impossible to justify retaining the Hawk and Tucano fleets. I can see both being sold overseas, and all flying training subcontracted out, maybe overseas also. With its good weather, India would be a good location
If India also buys the Typhoon / Sea Typhoon then sending our students there would be a perfect solution
Ah, yes, James. That was onother of the "pilot training pipeline" nightmares. The Harrier Force was (about 6 years ago) heading into meltdown and it wasn't helped by their insistance that only Harrier pilots could be Reds, "or we'll see a massive increase in accidents".
Anyway, what a/c are they going to fly? You have hit a very hard rock there.
Anyway, what a/c are they going to fly? You have hit a very hard rock there.
retaining the Hawk and Tucano fleets. I can see both being sold overseas
More importantly, could you remove your bright idea about moving flying training to India? Valley is looking awfully vulnerable since that nice shiny new hangar opened recently and this might tip the place over the edge...
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
Valley is looking awfully vulnerable since that nice shiny new hangar opened recently and this might tip the place over the edge...
Mind you, I bet there's at least one SAR junior-officer FMQ there (Valley) that's in pretty good nick.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Faringdon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been another cull of Herc pilots recently with some of them going to Canada in the new year. Although, that has more to do with the lack of hours available for currencies.
The other bonus of this is that when the Pilots get chopped and shown the door, their friends in other branches see how the Pilots have been treated and how they're being told nothing and also make for the door.
Well, I say 'bonus'...
Well, I say 'bonus'...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
KF, they did spend money on a nice path across the open play ground in the MQs. It went no where but was useful when there was a bonfire.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
. . .salmi slicing is . . .the worst way of doing things. . . never catch up. Far better to wait, consider exactly what is required and (if necessary) have one huge cut far enough in the future than loads of instant little ones.
You will remember the big aircrew retention measure in 1969 - Spec aircrew - followed in '73 by massive cuts with the Canberra force and much of the AT force balanced by the need for lots of fast-jet aircrew.
Salami slicing at the start of the pipe and aircrew ground tours at the other might be a way to go. Look at the plot. Anticipate you need 10x pilots per year to provide 9x at the front line 4-5 years hence. Recruit 9x. It is unlikely that you will need 9x or even 10x down the line.
PN,
I don't think I stated my case clearly enough. But, yes, the net result is that the planners cannot keep up. However, the training pipeline could never be based on the assumption that the front line requirement will have shrunk by the time the current intake gets there. That sort of planning can only be based on fact and properly established planning assumptions. The day the intake is arbitrarily reduced, leading to a shortfall at the sharp end, heads would (and should) roll.
Courtney
I don't think I stated my case clearly enough. But, yes, the net result is that the planners cannot keep up. However, the training pipeline could never be based on the assumption that the front line requirement will have shrunk by the time the current intake gets there. That sort of planning can only be based on fact and properly established planning assumptions. The day the intake is arbitrarily reduced, leading to a shortfall at the sharp end, heads would (and should) roll.
Courtney
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CM,
True, which is why I advocated (on deaf ears) back in the 60s that it would be better to hold fully trained aircrew post-OCU, or even post first tour, in sparable ground slots to back fill for contingencies.
In the late 1970s, in the biennial paper exercise I employed that technique to replace lost aircrew. This time it fell on fruitful ground and I believe spawned the GWAN system.
That flexibility was then lost in the 90s with the creation of the Flt Ops branch, the civilianisation of simulator posts, and the general disestablishment of ground tours.
I would advocate a return to ground tours for a proportion of qualified aircrew who could be used to backfill if a planned smaller in-to-Service cadre proved insufficient.
Naturally this would cost a little more as trained aircrew are paid more than new untrained ones.
True, which is why I advocated (on deaf ears) back in the 60s that it would be better to hold fully trained aircrew post-OCU, or even post first tour, in sparable ground slots to back fill for contingencies.
In the late 1970s, in the biennial paper exercise I employed that technique to replace lost aircrew. This time it fell on fruitful ground and I believe spawned the GWAN system.
That flexibility was then lost in the 90s with the creation of the Flt Ops branch, the civilianisation of simulator posts, and the general disestablishment of ground tours.
I would advocate a return to ground tours for a proportion of qualified aircrew who could be used to backfill if a planned smaller in-to-Service cadre proved insufficient.
Naturally this would cost a little more as trained aircrew are paid more than new untrained ones.
I agree with your position, PN. These days, the only two show stoppers would be perishable skills (the need for expensive OCU retraining, therefore bigger white card, etc) and the fact that the Government won't pay for anything just to make life easier. All they want is capability and footprint and it doesn't look like they're too happy about paying for that.
The real up side of aircrew being truly GD officers (which I think is what you're saying) is that we end up with more rounded officers (and I'm not talking phyique).
So, yes, a mix of flying and ground tours was a good thing, but unlikely to come back. Now I have to admit that my first five tours were all flying, so I could be accused of being a bit hypocritical here. Sorry.
The real up side of aircrew being truly GD officers (which I think is what you're saying) is that we end up with more rounded officers (and I'm not talking phyique).
So, yes, a mix of flying and ground tours was a good thing, but unlikely to come back. Now I have to admit that my first five tours were all flying, so I could be accused of being a bit hypocritical here. Sorry.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
On a related note I see there has been no substantial activity on the OASC Wannabee thread since early August.
Not only has the tap been turned off but it would appear that the reservoir behind the dam is empty. Now if I were a recruiter I would be worried seriously that when I turn on the tap there will be no foot fall in the AFCOs.
The recruiting freeze will end; we will need new pilots; the question is when?
If we toss a coin and chose say 2015 then hopefully the residue in training will satisfy that need, but 2016, 2017?
If we look to 2017 we are looking at today's 15-18 year olds. Last year (figuratively) they were active Ppruners. Today not one.
That is worrying.
Not only has the tap been turned off but it would appear that the reservoir behind the dam is empty. Now if I were a recruiter I would be worried seriously that when I turn on the tap there will be no foot fall in the AFCOs.
The recruiting freeze will end; we will need new pilots; the question is when?
If we toss a coin and chose say 2015 then hopefully the residue in training will satisfy that need, but 2016, 2017?
If we look to 2017 we are looking at today's 15-18 year olds. Last year (figuratively) they were active Ppruners. Today not one.
That is worrying.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear we may need more that even the pessimists are predicting, Pontious Nav. There are a lot of people sitting here waiting for the redundancy announcements. Once that has happened, if the guys in the crewroom are to be believed, there is likely to be a steady stream heading for the door. I'm not saying a mass exodus, but enough of an out-flow to become a self-sustaining pilot drain.
The recruiters and the trainers may well start to wish that they had a bit of a reserve there.
The recruiters and the trainers may well start to wish that they had a bit of a reserve there.