Senior RAF Officers Highlight Safety Dangers From Ground Crew Cuts
Frankly rather typical of the modern RAF - senior officers who know better, won't listen to the concerns of their SMEs and believe that more efficiencies can always be made by just working harder.
Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it
Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it
"Frankly rather typical of the modern RAF - senior officers who know better, won't listen to the concerns of their SMEs and believe that more efficiencies can always be made by just working harder.
Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it"
Unfortunately - this example of leadership is not a military trait but an industrial trait.
THAT's a sign of the times.
Unfortunately no-one listens when you say something is on the verge of breaking - it has to completely stop working before anyone pays attention and then it costs many times more to recover the situation rather than prevent it"
Unfortunately - this example of leadership is not a military trait but an industrial trait.
THAT's a sign of the times.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's taken about 12/18 months for the lossie situation to break outside the gate...glad to see it.
Proof of what many knew...you can only stretch elastic morale so far before its irrecoverable...very sad indeed.
PVR perfect storm.
I believe that there is more to this particular situation than is immediately apparent. While I don't personally work at Lossiemouth, I have heard directly from people who do, so believe there is more than an element of truth in what I am about to say.
The article leads one to believe that the problem at Lossiemouth was solely a result of compulsory redundancies as part of SDSR. This is only partly true. I believe the "huge" PVR rate at Lossie is a major, perhaps the major, factor. Why a huge PVR rate at Lossie?
The story goes something like this. As part of SDSR RAF Kinloss is closed, with many compulsary redundancies. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Moray area at the prospect that Lossie may go too, devastating the Moray economy. Concern is such that MPs of all Scottish parties, lead by the first minister himself, march in protest at possible closure of Lossie.
However, what actually happens? Lossie stays open. As for those made redundant from Kinloss, the vast majority actually land on their feet, finding generally better paid jobs in the offshore oil and gas, and renewables sector. Aberdeen is a relative boom town, and many of the companies have only recently discovered the benefits of employing ex-military personnel. Those still serving at Lossie suddenly see ex-RAF people they know, possibly less qualified than themselves, earning much more money than them, with a fixed work pattern and better overall quality of life. As a result the PVR rate at Lossie goes up dramatically as many elect to jump ship and do the same.
With Aberdeen not far away geographically, a steady demand for good quality people to work offshore, friends and colleagues already doing so (thus providing networking opportunities to gain employment, and even headhunting), and increased pressure at the RAF workplace with shortages of personnel - you have the situation for a perfect PVR storm. I have also heard that Lossie is not a very happy ship, at least at junior ranks level. Lossie could be a running sore for Manning for years to come - purely as a result of geography.
How many PVRs have there been from Lossie in the last 12 months?
As for the article itself. How you read it depends on your perspective - what exactly was its purpose.
As I say I don't work at Lossie myself, but believe from what I have heard that the above is a fairly accurate description of the current situation. Perhaps someone better placed would care to confirm or deny?
The article leads one to believe that the problem at Lossiemouth was solely a result of compulsory redundancies as part of SDSR. This is only partly true. I believe the "huge" PVR rate at Lossie is a major, perhaps the major, factor. Why a huge PVR rate at Lossie?
The story goes something like this. As part of SDSR RAF Kinloss is closed, with many compulsary redundancies. There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the Moray area at the prospect that Lossie may go too, devastating the Moray economy. Concern is such that MPs of all Scottish parties, lead by the first minister himself, march in protest at possible closure of Lossie.
However, what actually happens? Lossie stays open. As for those made redundant from Kinloss, the vast majority actually land on their feet, finding generally better paid jobs in the offshore oil and gas, and renewables sector. Aberdeen is a relative boom town, and many of the companies have only recently discovered the benefits of employing ex-military personnel. Those still serving at Lossie suddenly see ex-RAF people they know, possibly less qualified than themselves, earning much more money than them, with a fixed work pattern and better overall quality of life. As a result the PVR rate at Lossie goes up dramatically as many elect to jump ship and do the same.
With Aberdeen not far away geographically, a steady demand for good quality people to work offshore, friends and colleagues already doing so (thus providing networking opportunities to gain employment, and even headhunting), and increased pressure at the RAF workplace with shortages of personnel - you have the situation for a perfect PVR storm. I have also heard that Lossie is not a very happy ship, at least at junior ranks level. Lossie could be a running sore for Manning for years to come - purely as a result of geography.
How many PVRs have there been from Lossie in the last 12 months?
As for the article itself. How you read it depends on your perspective - what exactly was its purpose.
As I say I don't work at Lossie myself, but believe from what I have heard that the above is a fairly accurate description of the current situation. Perhaps someone better placed would care to confirm or deny?
Last edited by Biggus; 7th Aug 2013 at 17:41.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: europe
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Quite funny really as when my wg cdr boss was about to introduce me CinC said 'Hello PN, we must stop meeting like this."
I also knew CAS and was able to relate how I met his Turkish AF driver when he had been a gp capt at SHAPE. Boss went crinkle and said afterwards that I hadn't told him they knew me to which I responded that he hadn't asked,
Maybe they daren't do an arrivals tours lest they make rash promises that they can't keep.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus,
There is an element of truth in what you wrote.... Nobody I know that has left Lossie to work in the oil and gas industry is worse off.
Manning always seem to blame the oil and gas industry for the pvr rate. However, I'd like to stress the RAF is as much to blame for pushing these guys out (with lack of incentive, lack of appreciation, poor quality of life, all the bull poo we have to put up with, etc) than Aberdeen pulling them out.
To answer your question Biggus, an article I read in Airclues quoted "270 TG1 pvr'd from Lossie in 18 months. Approx 35% of station TG1 strength. Equates to 1500 years of engineering experience."
There is an element of truth in what you wrote.... Nobody I know that has left Lossie to work in the oil and gas industry is worse off.
Manning always seem to blame the oil and gas industry for the pvr rate. However, I'd like to stress the RAF is as much to blame for pushing these guys out (with lack of incentive, lack of appreciation, poor quality of life, all the bull poo we have to put up with, etc) than Aberdeen pulling them out.
To answer your question Biggus, an article I read in Airclues quoted "270 TG1 pvr'd from Lossie in 18 months. Approx 35% of station TG1 strength. Equates to 1500 years of engineering experience."
A subject dear to my heart so I'll have a pound's worth...
As mentioned in an earlier post, the RAF has indeed reaped what it has sown. For more than a few years now, we've seen squadrons steadily drained of experience due to (what appears to me to be) an increasing PVR rate coupled with more personnel leaving at 12, 15 and 22 years rather than signing on; also add in Project Zeus and Project Apollo which causes hurt however well it was intentioned.
What this means to the guys on he line is that the fewer experienced troops there are get used to achieve the flying programme - this is usually just about achieveable with them working flat out most of the time, going from job to job. The big snags that take 2 or 3 shifts to fix have to be left to whoever you have left, typically a supervisor or bod who have a bit of clue - rarely if ever do you have both. Thus the big snags take longer to fix but more importantly, new guys don't get the chance to learn properly as many of us did years ago. They pick up what they can when they can, rather than being taken through tasks in a structured manner depending on ability. This means that experience takes longer to develop and so, we are where we are. Does it all lead to cutting corners? Not necessarily, just longer hours that are relentless and eventually grind folk down.
Why spend your working life trying to do more with less when you can leave, maybe have a better quality of life and earn a lot more money elsewhere? Look at Lossie, and 99 Sqn currently - and wait till the UAE and Qatar (and Malaysia?) buy Typhoon...only 1 font of knowledge that BAES support is coming from.
Now consider the feeling of worth of your average RAF techie. For example, the scribbly next door who doesn't get cold, wet, dirty, prematurely deafened or slowly poisoned, takes 10 minutes to train compared to you, has a darn sight less responsibility and gets promoted quicker, gets paid the same as you do. Gets to the gym in work time, and closes the office now and again for training or due to the backlog of work...
IMHO each techie in the RAF is now more valuable than ever before due to the numbers left. There just isn't the time to spend bringing someone on properly any more We either achieve the flying task or we develop people - we can't do both, so those with type experience are like gold dust. Manning appear to have no concept of this and seem to think a techie is a techie is a techie. As long as they fill the slot that's it job done. The RAF can't compete financially, so the only thing to offer is stability - if someone's happy at a unit then leave them there, as we did 2000-05ish. That period of time to me was the happiest I've known the RAF to be in 25 years - maybe we should have a look at how things were done then...
That Air Clues article - "look what we've done to try and recover this mess". Well, the other side of that is how did you let it get like that in the first place or what did you do to try and prevent it?
Dons ECBA and helmet.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the RAF has indeed reaped what it has sown. For more than a few years now, we've seen squadrons steadily drained of experience due to (what appears to me to be) an increasing PVR rate coupled with more personnel leaving at 12, 15 and 22 years rather than signing on; also add in Project Zeus and Project Apollo which causes hurt however well it was intentioned.
What this means to the guys on he line is that the fewer experienced troops there are get used to achieve the flying programme - this is usually just about achieveable with them working flat out most of the time, going from job to job. The big snags that take 2 or 3 shifts to fix have to be left to whoever you have left, typically a supervisor or bod who have a bit of clue - rarely if ever do you have both. Thus the big snags take longer to fix but more importantly, new guys don't get the chance to learn properly as many of us did years ago. They pick up what they can when they can, rather than being taken through tasks in a structured manner depending on ability. This means that experience takes longer to develop and so, we are where we are. Does it all lead to cutting corners? Not necessarily, just longer hours that are relentless and eventually grind folk down.
Why spend your working life trying to do more with less when you can leave, maybe have a better quality of life and earn a lot more money elsewhere? Look at Lossie, and 99 Sqn currently - and wait till the UAE and Qatar (and Malaysia?) buy Typhoon...only 1 font of knowledge that BAES support is coming from.
Now consider the feeling of worth of your average RAF techie. For example, the scribbly next door who doesn't get cold, wet, dirty, prematurely deafened or slowly poisoned, takes 10 minutes to train compared to you, has a darn sight less responsibility and gets promoted quicker, gets paid the same as you do. Gets to the gym in work time, and closes the office now and again for training or due to the backlog of work...
IMHO each techie in the RAF is now more valuable than ever before due to the numbers left. There just isn't the time to spend bringing someone on properly any more We either achieve the flying task or we develop people - we can't do both, so those with type experience are like gold dust. Manning appear to have no concept of this and seem to think a techie is a techie is a techie. As long as they fill the slot that's it job done. The RAF can't compete financially, so the only thing to offer is stability - if someone's happy at a unit then leave them there, as we did 2000-05ish. That period of time to me was the happiest I've known the RAF to be in 25 years - maybe we should have a look at how things were done then...
That Air Clues article - "look what we've done to try and recover this mess". Well, the other side of that is how did you let it get like that in the first place or what did you do to try and prevent it?
Dons ECBA and helmet.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.
This and the "Retention/Manning" threads just goes to show who the ones are who have totally failed to lead the RAF, at all levels, for many many years.
Last edited by glad rag; 8th Aug 2013 at 13:47.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it. In times gone by, the senior RAF officers couldn't have given a toss about the groundcrew. Why, with options for change, our premier aerospace company was going to provide all the support at the click of the fingers. Groundcrew were an inconvenience to be humoured when needed, and ignored when they had served their purpose. Unfortunately for the VSO's the groundcrew held them in just as much contempt. The groans around the crew room could be heard a mile away when being told some chinless wonder who wore his chip bag like a u boat commander was about to visit. The RAF is now reaping what it has sown, after decades of being led by arrogant self-servers.
The RAF created this mess it now has, too many high up with a can-do attitude that was more about them climbing the greasy pole than doing the right thing and telling MOD/Westminster it had got it wrong. The oil industry simply recruits what it sees as good employees so don't blame it for taking advantage of a situation.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Top floor, b@stards moved me. NO LONGER watchin the circuit
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The latest savage cuts all came off the back of pay 2000 (or what ever they called it). This was where the current rot started to set in as the Admin branch (and the bean counters) started their assault on the Technical trades. (and they won!) This and the wholly misguided current view of 'just in time, modular training'..... this modern (read cheap!!) ethos has eroded the systems knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of potentially very good people.... but mention this at your peril. Anyone 'in the know' going to let us have the actual PVR numbers for the technical trades by Station?? Suggest these would make many blanch if the rumours I'm hearing are true.... I despair for what used to be a well maintained air force 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest savage cuts all came off the back of pay 2000 (or what ever they called it). This was where the current rot started to set in as the Admin branch (and the bean counters) started their assault on the Technical trades. (and they won!) This and the wholly misguided current view of 'just in time, modular training'..... this modern (read cheap!!) ethos has eroded the systems knowledge and diagnostic capabilities of potentially very good people.... but mention this at your peril. Anyone 'in the know' going to let us have the actual PVR numbers for the technical trades by Station?? Suggest these would make many blanch if the rumours I'm hearing are true.... I despair for what used to be a well maintained air force
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's CASWO in all this?
Isn't it his job to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on?
Apologies to the current CASWO, (the post didn't exist in my time), I suppose I'm one of the sad tossers who despair on what has happened to the Service I was a proud member of and proud to serve in.
Isn't it his job to tell the Emperor he has no clothes on?
Apologies to the current CASWO, (the post didn't exist in my time), I suppose I'm one of the sad tossers who despair on what has happened to the Service I was a proud member of and proud to serve in.
Last edited by taxydual; 8th Aug 2013 at 21:38. Reason: Apology to CASWO
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then again some techies have had it easy for a while. I'm thinking of the large Lincolnshire secret squirrel airbase where techies I know have been er, not too hard pushed shall we say.
I'm not arguing the Lossiemouth point by the way, as an ex techie who was out of the RAF loop for 16 years I was amazed by how much things had changed in that time; not just for techies but for all.
I had my share of starting nights at 1700 and finishing when the day shift started at 0800 the next day. Then you had to run the gamut of arseholes on the way back to the mess/block who wanted to know why you hadn't shaved that morning/looked like a bag of ****. They will never know how close they came to being seriously damaged. A week of that soon puts the bags under the eyes.
I remember when I was without transport as a young erk and used to thumb lifts everywhere. I was kindly given a lift by a retired Group Captain all the way to the gates at Conners from Sheffield. On the way we were talking about shifts and the long hours we worked and he could barely believe it. He thought that the hangar was locked up at around 2100 each night.
I'm not arguing the Lossiemouth point by the way, as an ex techie who was out of the RAF loop for 16 years I was amazed by how much things had changed in that time; not just for techies but for all.
I had my share of starting nights at 1700 and finishing when the day shift started at 0800 the next day. Then you had to run the gamut of arseholes on the way back to the mess/block who wanted to know why you hadn't shaved that morning/looked like a bag of ****. They will never know how close they came to being seriously damaged. A week of that soon puts the bags under the eyes.
I remember when I was without transport as a young erk and used to thumb lifts everywhere. I was kindly given a lift by a retired Group Captain all the way to the gates at Conners from Sheffield. On the way we were talking about shifts and the long hours we worked and he could barely believe it. He thought that the hangar was locked up at around 2100 each night.
In my opinion a large part of the problem is that the RAF is now run on the basis of management rather than leadership (how many officers have MBAs these days, even down to junior level?).
This has created a tick chasing, box filling culture, where the performance of a base, and no doubt promotion recommendations for senior officers, is now measured in terms of certain KPIs (key performance indicators).
In the same way that league tables for schools ended up distorting activity (for example I have heard of schools not letting pupils sit exams because they would probably only get a D, which would effect the schools pass rate and therefore league table position), the same is happening within the RAF. Station senior hierarchy make meeting KPIs their main focus of activity, creating a culture where the box has to be ticked, whether or not it actually has any relevance to the individual involved, and despite the amount of effort/goodwill/overtime it might require to do so.
Yes, Lossiemouth, for example, may have the highest RAFFT pass rate, and other meaningful KPIs for stations no doubt include CCS currency rate, in date medicals, etc. However, who looks at such statistics for a base such as, PVR rate, divorce rate, retention rate, number of people applying for early postings etc. Why don't we measure the performance of the senior officers on a base in those terms?
Perhaps we might then see more leaders, as opposed to bureaucrats who spout meaningless management drivel (see this thread for an example:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ghanistan.html
) coming to the fore?
This has created a tick chasing, box filling culture, where the performance of a base, and no doubt promotion recommendations for senior officers, is now measured in terms of certain KPIs (key performance indicators).
In the same way that league tables for schools ended up distorting activity (for example I have heard of schools not letting pupils sit exams because they would probably only get a D, which would effect the schools pass rate and therefore league table position), the same is happening within the RAF. Station senior hierarchy make meeting KPIs their main focus of activity, creating a culture where the box has to be ticked, whether or not it actually has any relevance to the individual involved, and despite the amount of effort/goodwill/overtime it might require to do so.
Yes, Lossiemouth, for example, may have the highest RAFFT pass rate, and other meaningful KPIs for stations no doubt include CCS currency rate, in date medicals, etc. However, who looks at such statistics for a base such as, PVR rate, divorce rate, retention rate, number of people applying for early postings etc. Why don't we measure the performance of the senior officers on a base in those terms?
Perhaps we might then see more leaders, as opposed to bureaucrats who spout meaningless management drivel (see this thread for an example:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ghanistan.html
) coming to the fore?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 68
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread reminded me of a quote in the Haddon-Cave report.
What was the point of setting up the MAA if the intent is nullified by lack of experienced manpower? As Jobza Guddun says
I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety but I infer from the comments on this thread that the RAF is doing just that as a result of government policy!
R
17.35.1 By Brigadier General Duane Deal:
“If reliability and safety are preached as “organizational bumper stickers”, but leaders constantly emphasize keeping on schedule and saving money, workers will soon realize what is deemed important and change accordingly. Such was the case with the shuttle program.”
“If reliability and safety are preached as “organizational bumper stickers”, but leaders constantly emphasize keeping on schedule and saving money, workers will soon realize what is deemed important and change accordingly. Such was the case with the shuttle program.”
What this means to the guys on the line is that the fewer experienced troops there are get used to achieve the flying programme - this is usually just about achieveable with them working flat out most of the time, going from job to job.
R
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety but I infer from the comments on this thread that the RAF is doing just that as a result of government policy!