PVR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Anywhere I'm told
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PVR
Since I was kindly excluded from the redundancy quota (probably for good reason), one of my remaining options is to hit the fabled PVR button on JPA. As it is only an option, I'm not wanting to reveal my cards to my Sqn or unit admin (JPAC were no help whatsoever).
Anyone out there of the two winged creed press the button recently? What's the latest gen on time before receiving an exit date, and when is that exit date likely to be? What happens to your flying pay now? All I've heard is rumours.
Anyone out there of the two winged creed press the button recently? What's the latest gen on time before receiving an exit date, and when is that exit date likely to be? What happens to your flying pay now? All I've heard is rumours.
Champagne anyone...?
Exit time is now 12 months unless manning pluck another figure from the air.
Flying Pay, I think, goes to 50% on application and then to 0% from 1 April 12. You do the maths.
Flying Pay, I think, goes to 50% on application and then to 0% from 1 April 12. You do the maths.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attended a Manning Brief for NCA late last year where the advice given was to speak direct with our desk officer BEFORE hitting the button as in the current climate they would bend over backwards to make the exit procedure as fair as possible by telling you WHEN to hit the button.
Not sure if that has a direct read across for pilots but maybe your deskie has the answers you want, what ever happens best of luck
Not sure if that has a direct read across for pilots but maybe your deskie has the answers you want, what ever happens best of luck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was NCA and having recently pressed the PVR button on JPA I would very much advise speaking to your desk officer and chain if command - I have never known things go so smoothly in my 10 years and everyone involved, from the Gp Capt downwards deserves my sincere thanks.
Let the powers that be know and, in my recent experience, they will help you out to the best of their abilities. All the best whatever you decide.
Let the powers that be know and, in my recent experience, they will help you out to the best of their abilities. All the best whatever you decide.
With the greatest respect, if it is the right time for you to PVR then you'll know and won't need stats to come to a decision.
If you are going - get on with it. Trust me, its better for all, especially you, in the long run.
Good luck either way.
If you are going - get on with it. Trust me, its better for all, especially you, in the long run.
Good luck either way.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere near the Rhine
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will reinforce the need to check the management chain set up in JPA to handle your PVR and to make sure it ends up in the right place. After 3 weeks of some sterling efforts by the deskie and PSF to sort things out, I had to be given a theoretical posting so that my bosses could get at it. I gather the manning phrase is "Position Bouncing".
I can also agree with other posts that by keeping all informed once I had made the decision the whole process was one of the smoothest admin type things I had done in my entire service career. In the current climate, timing can be everything.
I can also agree with other posts that by keeping all informed once I had made the decision the whole process was one of the smoothest admin type things I had done in my entire service career. In the current climate, timing can be everything.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loss of Flying Pay
Unless I am grossly misinformed, any aircrew who have PVR'd will lose ALL flying pay from 1 Apr 12.
Sounds like a costly final stab in the back for a bunch of people who must have already been at wits end to push the button in the first place.
With people working their PVR waiting times across the fleets are we shortly going to have a bunch of guys who down tools in 12 days?
Surely, no flying pay = no flying?
Sounds like a costly final stab in the back for a bunch of people who must have already been at wits end to push the button in the first place.
With people working their PVR waiting times across the fleets are we shortly going to have a bunch of guys who down tools in 12 days?
Surely, no flying pay = no flying?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a chat to your 1 up and your desk officer. They may be happy for you to PVR on JPA but keep the notification on JPA unactioned therefore keeping you your flying pay. Once you've got yourself a job lined up or at least close to a deal, you ask them to action the PVR, from which point you flying pay will cease (50% upto 1 Apr 0% after) and you leave a year after you original PVR or you ask for early release. Some 1 ups that I know of are happy to do this if you're a Bon Oeuf.
Good luck. There's a whole world out there!
Good luck. There's a whole world out there!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does sound like the DS solution but it's a lucky man who gets that kind of deal. Flying pay is only reduced or withdrawn once the PVR on JPA has been actioned by your desk officer or Adjt/MCM. So it pays to be in a. It with terrible admin!
I'm not saying that this is right but it does happen. One thing's for sure, being paid 50% flying pay when you're on Ops is just rude. Not being paid any flying pay whilst on Ops is outrageous!
I'm not saying that this is right but it does happen. One thing's for sure, being paid 50% flying pay when you're on Ops is just rude. Not being paid any flying pay whilst on Ops is outrageous!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM,
that does sound great but I reckon it'll end in a planet of pain; either far longer notice period (when JPA actioned) or a big bill!
The whole docking/ceasing 'retention pay' issue is as watertight as a sieve, TBH. But there you go!
that does sound great but I reckon it'll end in a planet of pain; either far longer notice period (when JPA actioned) or a big bill!
The whole docking/ceasing 'retention pay' issue is as watertight as a sieve, TBH. But there you go!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AFPRB expressed concerns relating MOD's approach to Specialist Pay in this year's report
Specialist Pay
3.25 Specialist Pay is paid to specific groups within the Armed Forces to assist with recruitment and retention. The rationale for payment may be internal (to attract existing personnel into particular cadres) or in response to external market forces, or a combination of these. Around 40 per cent of personnel receive SP at an overall annual cost of about £121 million, with the greatest expenditure on SP(Flying) and SP(Submarine). Some types of SP are paid continuously where the specialism is fundamental to the core role of the individual, and will remain so. The reserve banding arrangements described below provide a degree of protection for such personnel if they move temporarily to a non-SP post. Other types of SP are paid non-continuously only to those serving in a particular post, or doing a time limited task, that attracts SP...
...
3.26 In December 2010 MOD asked us to undertake a comprehensive review of SP during this round. It indicated it would submit evidence to us for a full review of all SP cadres, to identify how to deliver the most effective focus on recruitment and retention. We therefore sought views on SP from Service personnel in the course of our 2011 visits programme. It became clear to us that there were widespread misconceptions about the purpose of SP which many saw as rewarding skills acquisition or compensation for risk, rather than as a tool to support recruitment and retention of certain trades (its core rationale).
3.27 We also heard a range of concerns about the effective targeting and detailed conditions for receipt of SP. Some who did not receive SP questioned its payment to those who were not actually undertaking the activity for which SP was nominally paid; others were concerned that SP was not available to particular cadres for whom retention was a problem, or was not paid at a sufficient rate.
3.28 Under reserve banding rules, individuals receiving SP on a career continuous basis continued to receive full payment for the first three years in a non-SP post, with the rate then decreasing annually to 75 per cent, 50 per cent and 25 per cent before being stopped. However, MOD announced in January 2011 that with effect from April 2012, SP will reduce by 50 per cent for those in year three of a non-SP tagged posting before stopping altogether in year four. The announcement was not well received by Service personnel, particularly as there has been a move towards longer, three-year postings in some areas.
3.29 We continue to hear concerns about MOD’s announcement that it will completely withdraw SP from those who submit notice to terminate. This could mean, for example, that submariners may be required to serve at sea for several months during their notice period without receiving the same SP as those working alongside them. While we understand that it can be argued that if someone has said they are leaving, SP has not served its retention purpose, we have a particular concern when the situation relates to someone who has already served a full career, so demonstrating the effectiveness of SP in retaining them to date.
3.30 We strongly encourage MOD to reconsider its decisions on reserve banding and on withdrawing SP from those submitting notice to terminate, before the announced cuts come in to effect.
MOD evidence
3.31 MOD submitted evidence on a suite of proposals for change to the overall approach to SP, to reinforce its purpose as a recruitment and retention lever and to enhance flexibility. These included a change of name, a more flexible process for reviewing the appropriateness and levels of SP and proposals for further work on a number of detailed issues (such as receipt of multiple forms of SP and the interaction with return of service commitments). We also received detailed papers which set out the assumptions and bases for individual cadres, but these made no proposals for change this year. MOD explained in further evidence that its thinking on the review had developed since December 2010 and it now envisaged a more evolutionary approach, with some more fundamental changes to SP integrating with wider pay reform under the NEM programme.
Our analysis
3.32 We welcome much of the thinking underpinning the MOD proposals. The current system of SP has evolved over many years and gives rise to a number of questions about discrepancies in treatment between different groups. Issues include the justification of levels of payment and the interaction with other payments which have a recruitment and retention rationale, such as pay spines and Financial Retention Initiatives (FRIs). However, we believe MOD needs to do further work to articulate its strategic approach on recruitment and retention payments before we can consider properly the merits of detailed changes to SP. Clear guidelines are needed for testing the appropriateness of using SP (or other recruitment and retention tools) for specific cadres. Such work is, in our view, part of the essential underpinning for other changes to the pay system under the NEM, and should be progressed sooner rather than later. It would also promote a clearer understanding on the part of Service personnel of when such payments may, or may not, be appropriate.
3.33 Regarding MOD’s detailed proposals, we particularly welcome the intention to develop a system for annual review of manning in SP cadres, enabling a more flexible and agile approach to aligning levels of SP with the defence requirement. We also agree that Specialist Pay is a misnomer and that another term is desirable to emphasise that these payments are intended to address issues of recruitment and retention in particular trades.
3.34 We believe that some important issues need to be resolved before proceeding, and we invite MOD to develop further proposals before we endorse any specific changes. The issues on which we seek further evidence are:
3.25 Specialist Pay is paid to specific groups within the Armed Forces to assist with recruitment and retention. The rationale for payment may be internal (to attract existing personnel into particular cadres) or in response to external market forces, or a combination of these. Around 40 per cent of personnel receive SP at an overall annual cost of about £121 million, with the greatest expenditure on SP(Flying) and SP(Submarine). Some types of SP are paid continuously where the specialism is fundamental to the core role of the individual, and will remain so. The reserve banding arrangements described below provide a degree of protection for such personnel if they move temporarily to a non-SP post. Other types of SP are paid non-continuously only to those serving in a particular post, or doing a time limited task, that attracts SP...
...
3.26 In December 2010 MOD asked us to undertake a comprehensive review of SP during this round. It indicated it would submit evidence to us for a full review of all SP cadres, to identify how to deliver the most effective focus on recruitment and retention. We therefore sought views on SP from Service personnel in the course of our 2011 visits programme. It became clear to us that there were widespread misconceptions about the purpose of SP which many saw as rewarding skills acquisition or compensation for risk, rather than as a tool to support recruitment and retention of certain trades (its core rationale).
3.27 We also heard a range of concerns about the effective targeting and detailed conditions for receipt of SP. Some who did not receive SP questioned its payment to those who were not actually undertaking the activity for which SP was nominally paid; others were concerned that SP was not available to particular cadres for whom retention was a problem, or was not paid at a sufficient rate.
3.28 Under reserve banding rules, individuals receiving SP on a career continuous basis continued to receive full payment for the first three years in a non-SP post, with the rate then decreasing annually to 75 per cent, 50 per cent and 25 per cent before being stopped. However, MOD announced in January 2011 that with effect from April 2012, SP will reduce by 50 per cent for those in year three of a non-SP tagged posting before stopping altogether in year four. The announcement was not well received by Service personnel, particularly as there has been a move towards longer, three-year postings in some areas.
3.29 We continue to hear concerns about MOD’s announcement that it will completely withdraw SP from those who submit notice to terminate. This could mean, for example, that submariners may be required to serve at sea for several months during their notice period without receiving the same SP as those working alongside them. While we understand that it can be argued that if someone has said they are leaving, SP has not served its retention purpose, we have a particular concern when the situation relates to someone who has already served a full career, so demonstrating the effectiveness of SP in retaining them to date.
3.30 We strongly encourage MOD to reconsider its decisions on reserve banding and on withdrawing SP from those submitting notice to terminate, before the announced cuts come in to effect.
MOD evidence
3.31 MOD submitted evidence on a suite of proposals for change to the overall approach to SP, to reinforce its purpose as a recruitment and retention lever and to enhance flexibility. These included a change of name, a more flexible process for reviewing the appropriateness and levels of SP and proposals for further work on a number of detailed issues (such as receipt of multiple forms of SP and the interaction with return of service commitments). We also received detailed papers which set out the assumptions and bases for individual cadres, but these made no proposals for change this year. MOD explained in further evidence that its thinking on the review had developed since December 2010 and it now envisaged a more evolutionary approach, with some more fundamental changes to SP integrating with wider pay reform under the NEM programme.
Our analysis
3.32 We welcome much of the thinking underpinning the MOD proposals. The current system of SP has evolved over many years and gives rise to a number of questions about discrepancies in treatment between different groups. Issues include the justification of levels of payment and the interaction with other payments which have a recruitment and retention rationale, such as pay spines and Financial Retention Initiatives (FRIs). However, we believe MOD needs to do further work to articulate its strategic approach on recruitment and retention payments before we can consider properly the merits of detailed changes to SP. Clear guidelines are needed for testing the appropriateness of using SP (or other recruitment and retention tools) for specific cadres. Such work is, in our view, part of the essential underpinning for other changes to the pay system under the NEM, and should be progressed sooner rather than later. It would also promote a clearer understanding on the part of Service personnel of when such payments may, or may not, be appropriate.
3.33 Regarding MOD’s detailed proposals, we particularly welcome the intention to develop a system for annual review of manning in SP cadres, enabling a more flexible and agile approach to aligning levels of SP with the defence requirement. We also agree that Specialist Pay is a misnomer and that another term is desirable to emphasise that these payments are intended to address issues of recruitment and retention in particular trades.
3.34 We believe that some important issues need to be resolved before proceeding, and we invite MOD to develop further proposals before we endorse any specific changes. The issues on which we seek further evidence are:
• The MOD’s strategic approach to recruitment and retention payments, including the respective rationales for pay spines and for SP. It is not clear to us why some groups are on pay spines, which provide certainty of long term payment (which is pensionable), while others receive SP which is in principle a temporary payment (and not pensionable), although in practice the expectation of many receiving it is that it will be permanent. The career-continuous basis of some SP reinforces this and appears to us to resemble a pay spine. Clarity on the underlying rationales would enable a strategic review of their appropriateness in relation to specific cadres and the potential interaction with other return of service commitments including FRIs;
• Safeguards which would be needed in a more agile model in which SP might increase or reduce in the light of revised manning needs. Given that many service personnel have been in receipt of SP for long, continuous periods, and have made commitments in expectation of its continuation, we expect to receive proposals which would ensure individuals have a degree of protection from sudden reductions in pay. Options might include preserving payments for individuals already receiving SP, or reducing payments progressively over a period of years, to ease the transition;
• Fuller proposals on how the more dynamic review process would work to enable us to consider an annual analysis of the manning of SP earning cadres, and associated proposals for changes to the levels of payment which would be better matched to current recruitment and retention requirements. We would welcome a presentation of evidence on a ‘shadow’ basis next round. We can then consider this in detail and assess whether the approach would provide the evidence we need to make firm recommendations in future. The evidence should also cover arrangements for assessing the case for SP to be awarded to a group or groups not previously covered.
3.35 We would like MOD further to develop its proposals to ensure SP better supports current recruitment and retention needs, including a more dynamic review process, to enable us to make detailed recommendations in 2013.
• Safeguards which would be needed in a more agile model in which SP might increase or reduce in the light of revised manning needs. Given that many service personnel have been in receipt of SP for long, continuous periods, and have made commitments in expectation of its continuation, we expect to receive proposals which would ensure individuals have a degree of protection from sudden reductions in pay. Options might include preserving payments for individuals already receiving SP, or reducing payments progressively over a period of years, to ease the transition;
• Fuller proposals on how the more dynamic review process would work to enable us to consider an annual analysis of the manning of SP earning cadres, and associated proposals for changes to the levels of payment which would be better matched to current recruitment and retention requirements. We would welcome a presentation of evidence on a ‘shadow’ basis next round. We can then consider this in detail and assess whether the approach would provide the evidence we need to make firm recommendations in future. The evidence should also cover arrangements for assessing the case for SP to be awarded to a group or groups not previously covered.
Last edited by Climebear; 19th Mar 2012 at 12:49.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you lose the pay for flying, just stop flying. Nobody can actually make you fly - as I understand it there are a plethora of reasons you can use which cannot be 'proven' invalid or held against you. By the same token, just don't go on Ops - glass-back as required. If the system wants to screw you over, it is just as easy for you to push back.
Other than the loss of some money, seems like a good deal to me. Stop flying and get on with the courses, career transition workshops that will prepare you for life outside.
Other than the loss of some money, seems like a good deal to me. Stop flying and get on with the courses, career transition workshops that will prepare you for life outside.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard a rumour that a pressed man may have "accidentally" deleted some rather important work data that wasnt backed up.
There is a reason big companies fire/make people redundant then escort them to the door. Having people hang round for 12 months on 20% reduced pay isnt good for anyone, least of all colleagues who are trying to make the most of a bad situation. Is anyone going to deny themselves 12 months' currency before looking for a job on civvie street? Unlikely. But I wouldnt say it was the safest plan to put a pressed man on a flight deck/cockpit.
There is a reason big companies fire/make people redundant then escort them to the door. Having people hang round for 12 months on 20% reduced pay isnt good for anyone, least of all colleagues who are trying to make the most of a bad situation. Is anyone going to deny themselves 12 months' currency before looking for a job on civvie street? Unlikely. But I wouldnt say it was the safest plan to put a pressed man on a flight deck/cockpit.
Champagne anyone...?
Declining to do any aviation will affect no one except you. People leave when the bull**** outweighs the good ****. "Sticking it to the man" by refusing to fly will consign you to a year of solid bull****. No one will care and you'll just be miserable.
Additionally the whole "not in current flying practice" will look a bit crap on your airline application.
Additionally the whole "not in current flying practice" will look a bit crap on your airline application.
There is a reason big companies fire/make people redundant then escort them to the door.
Wasn't there a tale of a software 'bomb' in some submarine, left by a disgruntled software writer. When a certain date was reached, a message popped up daying "Your software application has been suspended. To reactivate the application, send $ lots to [email protected]" or something to that effect?
Work data not backed-up? What a mistake-a to make-a!! Of course CIS-plod probably doesn't allow data to be copied to a USB stick and kept safe by air gap, do they? Back in the days of 'Word Perfect' or 'Word for Windows' or whatever it was called, most people who had to write reports kept their work safe on a private floppy disk. But that was before the A: Drives were disabled and everyone had to rely on the world's worst (and slowest) network system........
The way that Flying Pay is being used as a PVR punishment speaks volumes about the RAF of today, to my mind. Good luck to those few who elect to stay, you'll need it, I'm afraid
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sidewaysspeak, I think I know where you're coming from but as stopstart said (between the lines) people tend to PVR when they get taken off the flightline.
If people refuse to fly the system won't care. In fact, it needs people not to want to fly because then someone can do all the bunty BS which pilots don't want to touch.
There is a balance to strike but I think most pilots would do anything to get airborne but you'd be hard pushed to get them into a desk job with no prospect of flying again.
If people refuse to fly the system won't care. In fact, it needs people not to want to fly because then someone can do all the bunty BS which pilots don't want to touch.
There is a balance to strike but I think most pilots would do anything to get airborne but you'd be hard pushed to get them into a desk job with no prospect of flying again.