Senior RAF Officers Highlight Safety Dangers From Ground Crew Cuts
I really think that we need to look closely at the creeping infection of senior management applying MBA bolleaux. This insidious faux-management qualification, aimed at those in the service-sector providing a specific service in a commercial enterprise, has poisoned the Armed Service environment, where measuring ‘key performance indicators’ has superseded doing the job properly. Our 'Customers' do not want our services and if we deliver it properly there are no complaints or requests for refunds. The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the armed forces is that we can defend ourselves against an unseen threat at short notice, which is outside the remit of MBA thinking. MBA methods are single issue, commercial answers to ‘Just enough just in time’ operations. We need to attack this mind-set inculcated our senior management. Unfortunately, I think we have gone too far down this route to do anything about it. Too many senior ‘leaders’ have had their ‘political antennae’ tuned to see the armed forces as a political business, providing a service to customers and not an insurance policy which is prepared to visit violence against an robust attack on those who fully deserve it.
Last edited by cynicalint; 10th Aug 2013 at 00:50. Reason: spooling
Ditto the one above . MBA dogma (often blindly promulgated by those of somewhat limited practical managerial experience) is largely irrelevant to operations as erratic and diverse in nature as the Armed Forces.
Last edited by Haraka; 10th Aug 2013 at 06:15.
Anyone who feels the need to write such stuff about themselves seems to be a clear symptom of the problem in the modern RAF
A leadership blog......perleeaze..
A leadership blog......perleeaze..
a_t_g
Whilst I do not wish to criticize the individual, perhaps I could make one constructive suggestion - why not let your SNCOs participate in the "command group meetings" rather than the junior officers. You know, the WO and Chf Techs with 20+ years of practical and technical experience, who won't ever be making comments with the aim of impressing or sucking up to the boss, and have seen some of these wonderful ideas tried years before and fail.
Once again, I have no wish, or authority, to either criticize or praise the individual concerned, but I do believe he is currently in charge of an unhappy ship (at least below junior officer level) with a large PVR rate. Maybe he can turn things around?
Whilst I do not wish to criticize the individual, perhaps I could make one constructive suggestion - why not let your SNCOs participate in the "command group meetings" rather than the junior officers. You know, the WO and Chf Techs with 20+ years of practical and technical experience, who won't ever be making comments with the aim of impressing or sucking up to the boss, and have seen some of these wonderful ideas tried years before and fail.
Once again, I have no wish, or authority, to either criticize or praise the individual concerned, but I do believe he is currently in charge of an unhappy ship (at least below junior officer level) with a large PVR rate. Maybe he can turn things around?
Last edited by Biggus; 10th Aug 2013 at 08:07.
crab and alfred, you're doing him a total disservice.
Windy is a top bloke and he goes out of his way in that blog to explain some of the new concepts ('Delivery Duty Holder'....ffs) forced upon him.
There are targets far more worthy of your derision - OC Lossie is one of the good guys!
Windy is a top bloke and he goes out of his way in that blog to explain some of the new concepts ('Delivery Duty Holder'....ffs) forced upon him.
There are targets far more worthy of your derision - OC Lossie is one of the good guys!
Beags, he may, indeed, be a top bloke, but why on earth does he need to use such modern management bolleaux as "Walking the talk of this aspect of authentic leadership..."?
Looking back at the many Staishes I served under I can't imagine any of them coming out with such pompous claptrap. However, in my day we had leaders and commanders, rather than managers and executives! (We also had an Air Force then).
Looking back at the many Staishes I served under I can't imagine any of them coming out with such pompous claptrap. However, in my day we had leaders and commanders, rather than managers and executives! (We also had an Air Force then).
Last edited by 1.3VStall; 10th Aug 2013 at 08:38.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree fully with Beagle. Met him at community events, he does indeed seem like a decent chap and his blog is much better than many I've read. Let's not forget he was one of the few to speak out about the situation the RAF currently faces and that can't have been easy.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jobza Gudun
Indeed. BiL, Lightning FLM to Cpl on Tornado at St Athan - instructor in Saudi - instructor with BAE - turbine engineer on oil rigs, then power stations, now back on a oil barge - 2 weeks on 3 weeks off, mega bucks. Thanks for the training, not thanks for the job and he banged out 20 years ago.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it seems the MBA qualification is the root of all evil
The erosion of techie pay in pay 2000 was the start of the rot. How on earth a JNCO chef held the same responsibility (and pay) as a JNCO techie was lost on me at the pay 2000 briefings. The NEM has made noises about specialist pay; let's hope they follow through on it for tech trades - that would at least be a start.
The core poison in this is the reduction in overall manning and the result this has on harmony. In the pre end to end (remember that buzz word?) days we had multiple bays, ASF etc. this allowed rotation of personnel through the 2nd and 3rd line environments to improve domestic harmony if required. It also provided a very good pool of knowledgable guys who could supplement 1st line techies with their knowledge on dets etc. The other consequence of having higher tech manning on Stn was people who could run the things that made the RAF worth being in i.e. expends, sports clubs....
The arrival of the fwd and depth concept really was the line in the sand where we lost that on Stn rotation ability. Couple that with manning being cut to the bone and more dets to sh1t places and we have a recipe for disappointment in a volunteer force.
The initiatives I have cited above are, I believe, the brainwaves of mgmt consultancy firms (McKinsey et al) and have been adopted by those above. Undoubtedly there are some areas of defence which can have general management concepts applied - but one has to step back and examine if those concepts are really appropriate to a unique organisation whose primary job is to rapidly generate aircraft to meet the flying program in peacetime and in theatre.
We find ourselves in a scenario where the defence budget does not stretch as far as it used to. The additional oversight/policy (MAA etc.) is making defence more difficult and ultimately more expensive (i am not arguing for or against MAA). This means the old days of tech pay, ASFs, spare manning and the derived benefits they brought are behind us. It is much easier to quantify the (increased cost) of bringing a piece of kit into service than it is to quantify the value a few more Stn bods would bring - and guess which wins.
It is only when incidents like lossiemouth raise their head do the people who hired McKinsey think for a second. But then their job is to deliver a capability and not blow the budget.
Holding an MBA does not instantly make you a cock, nor is it a bad qualification as long as its content is applied to contexts where it suits. It is not a substitution for good management merely an education in theoretical management practices.
I sincerely hope some lessons are learned from the Lossiemouth saga and actually acted on.
H
The erosion of techie pay in pay 2000 was the start of the rot. How on earth a JNCO chef held the same responsibility (and pay) as a JNCO techie was lost on me at the pay 2000 briefings. The NEM has made noises about specialist pay; let's hope they follow through on it for tech trades - that would at least be a start.
The core poison in this is the reduction in overall manning and the result this has on harmony. In the pre end to end (remember that buzz word?) days we had multiple bays, ASF etc. this allowed rotation of personnel through the 2nd and 3rd line environments to improve domestic harmony if required. It also provided a very good pool of knowledgable guys who could supplement 1st line techies with their knowledge on dets etc. The other consequence of having higher tech manning on Stn was people who could run the things that made the RAF worth being in i.e. expends, sports clubs....
The arrival of the fwd and depth concept really was the line in the sand where we lost that on Stn rotation ability. Couple that with manning being cut to the bone and more dets to sh1t places and we have a recipe for disappointment in a volunteer force.
The initiatives I have cited above are, I believe, the brainwaves of mgmt consultancy firms (McKinsey et al) and have been adopted by those above. Undoubtedly there are some areas of defence which can have general management concepts applied - but one has to step back and examine if those concepts are really appropriate to a unique organisation whose primary job is to rapidly generate aircraft to meet the flying program in peacetime and in theatre.
We find ourselves in a scenario where the defence budget does not stretch as far as it used to. The additional oversight/policy (MAA etc.) is making defence more difficult and ultimately more expensive (i am not arguing for or against MAA). This means the old days of tech pay, ASFs, spare manning and the derived benefits they brought are behind us. It is much easier to quantify the (increased cost) of bringing a piece of kit into service than it is to quantify the value a few more Stn bods would bring - and guess which wins.
It is only when incidents like lossiemouth raise their head do the people who hired McKinsey think for a second. But then their job is to deliver a capability and not blow the budget.
Holding an MBA does not instantly make you a cock, nor is it a bad qualification as long as its content is applied to contexts where it suits. It is not a substitution for good management merely an education in theoretical management practices.
I sincerely hope some lessons are learned from the Lossiemouth saga and actually acted on.
H
Beags - I have no 'beef' with the Stn Cdr of Lossie, I was simply inviting Biggus to actually address his concerns to the man himself rather than gobbing off on the internet about it.
And I have had both SRs and JOs at the Command Briefs I run - both provide valuable talking points.
And I have had both SRs and JOs at the Command Briefs I run - both provide valuable talking points.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
In this way, they get to see what we're doing at 'senior' level whilst they get to raise issues direct. So far, both parties have found the experience very useful – it has certainly kept me on my toes and its great to have the juniors especially critique your work, it keeps you extremely focussed!
a_t_g, sorry - I misinterpreted your post.
I also read that Lossie has recently held an event to recognise and reward the excellence of the station's technicians. Just one step in a concerted and determined programme to restore the pride and status of such valuable and hard working people.
I also read that Lossie has recently held an event to recognise and reward the excellence of the station's technicians. Just one step in a concerted and determined programme to restore the pride and status of such valuable and hard working people.
inviting Biggus to actually address his concerns to the man himself
Riskman:_
Well certain Air Officers did in the 1980s breaking a system that still doesn't work, and others have been covering up that sabotage ever since. The MAA continues to do so, and will go on continuing to do so, unless and until it becomes separate and independent of the MOD. Ditto the MAAIB which must also become independent of the MAA. Finally, both must become civilian led.
At the moment you have a totally compromised Military Airworthiness Authority that cannot provide airworthiness and an Air Accident Investigator that cannot be relied upon to objectively investigate Air Accidents. In short the whole rotten mess is a recipe for disaster. Aviation being aviation, it will surely happen.
I know that no individual will intentionally compromise airworthiness or flight safety
At the moment you have a totally compromised Military Airworthiness Authority that cannot provide airworthiness and an Air Accident Investigator that cannot be relied upon to objectively investigate Air Accidents. In short the whole rotten mess is a recipe for disaster. Aviation being aviation, it will surely happen.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,072
Received 2,940 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Then the simple fix is to extend the PVR period to say two years plus and or raise the price to tens of thousands to reflect the training costs involved....keep extending it to control the flow... That's how they did it in the 80's, one guy I know was looking at several hundred pound and a year plus, the chief clerk told him to come back tomorrow as he had wind of a change, he left that week for free, as the trade numbers had swung the other way...
Not rocket science, an airline will expect you to refund their training costs if you bail early, the RAF should too. They write it into your contract, the armed forces should too.
..
Not rocket science, an airline will expect you to refund their training costs if you bail early, the RAF should too. They write it into your contract, the armed forces should too.
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 10th Aug 2013 at 13:42.
Not rocket science, an airline will expect you to refund their training costs if you bail early, the RAF should too.