Retention
Ken,
The point is that some of those crap staff jobs need an aircrew mate to fill them; because they need specialist knowledge. That's what marks them as "flying related," even if they're at HQ Air or Abbey Wood or somewhere miles away from the nearest runway.
They do attract flying pay though; it's a "non-flying related" ground job that puts you on the 2 year counter to reserve band. Hence why there aren't many of us volunteering to be IOT flt cdrs, or work in recruiting offices....!
The point is that some of those crap staff jobs need an aircrew mate to fill them; because they need specialist knowledge. That's what marks them as "flying related," even if they're at HQ Air or Abbey Wood or somewhere miles away from the nearest runway.
They do attract flying pay though; it's a "non-flying related" ground job that puts you on the 2 year counter to reserve band. Hence why there aren't many of us volunteering to be IOT flt cdrs, or work in recruiting offices....!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, its all about SQEP (suitably qualified and equipped personnel). if the appointments were not flying pic, aircrew would be pvr'ing in droves as they could be risking losing flying pay if kept in a flying appointment past manning 'guarantees'.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I received a number of emails from Air with the byline 'this is the personal opinion of the originator and not . . . '
I pinched it and added '. . . therefore you may ignore all the forgoing.'
No one noticed or commented until my daughter actually read it
ATG,
More like it made the RN Capt look bad...
SQEP is an interesting point; the MAA Report last year mentioned the training and retention of SQEP in key areas was a major concern. However, the problem Manning has is that to acquire SQEP status individuals have to do several tours in the same field to first acquire then exploit their specialist knowledge. This is, of course, a planning overhead on Manning who then actually have to examine their spreadsheets rather than merely fill them. It is also a paradox as the individuals' promotion chances will be hammered by not being 'broadened' by bouncing around every 18mths. Therefore, the few genuine SQEP the RAF have all shuffle to the exit at the earliest opportunity as their credentials are better recognised outside. The NEM may well help, with extended tours and greater stability, but I'm seeing SQEP haemorrhage out of the RAF as 'generalists' with the 'right' background are promoted at their expense. Manning need to up their game to retain this experience or we risk either having an even more risk averse culture than we have now or another Haddon-Cave in 5 years time.
More like it made the RN Capt look bad...
SQEP is an interesting point; the MAA Report last year mentioned the training and retention of SQEP in key areas was a major concern. However, the problem Manning has is that to acquire SQEP status individuals have to do several tours in the same field to first acquire then exploit their specialist knowledge. This is, of course, a planning overhead on Manning who then actually have to examine their spreadsheets rather than merely fill them. It is also a paradox as the individuals' promotion chances will be hammered by not being 'broadened' by bouncing around every 18mths. Therefore, the few genuine SQEP the RAF have all shuffle to the exit at the earliest opportunity as their credentials are better recognised outside. The NEM may well help, with extended tours and greater stability, but I'm seeing SQEP haemorrhage out of the RAF as 'generalists' with the 'right' background are promoted at their expense. Manning need to up their game to retain this experience or we risk either having an even more risk averse culture than we have now or another Haddon-Cave in 5 years time.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, why don't we introduce a system of personnel that are retained, at incremented pay rates, within their specialisation to provide a sound backbone to the various trades/branches? We called call the aircrew element, Specialist Aircrew. We could also commission SNCOs with extensive knowledge in their particular specialisation, retaining a corps of SQEP at SO2/3 level, perhaps we could call them Branch Officers.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the time that Core Competencies came into being, they did introduce an Acquisition Stream. As I remember it, you had to apply to enter that stream by providing evidence that you had the necessary skills/experience and pertinent qualifications.
I was accepted into that stream on the basis of having done Aerosystems, a tour at A&AEE Boscombe Down and by being at that time mid-tour at DPA Abbey Wood where I had done the Risk Management Course.
I don't think the Acquisition Stream idea really went anywhere though, unless someone knows different, although I did subsequently bag a tour in a Systems Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command, NAS Patuxent River.
I was accepted into that stream on the basis of having done Aerosystems, a tour at A&AEE Boscombe Down and by being at that time mid-tour at DPA Abbey Wood where I had done the Risk Management Course.
I don't think the Acquisition Stream idea really went anywhere though, unless someone knows different, although I did subsequently bag a tour in a Systems Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command, NAS Patuxent River.
