Squadron 'Uncles'
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FTRS is also pensionable. So, apart from creating work for idle hands it eventually gives a useful increase in pension too.
JAJ
It is more basic than that H2D for FTRS came in with JPA, it is in JSP 752 under the who is entitled bit. It is so black and white even a bluntly could see.If there are FTRS chap(ess)s who are not getting it paid I suggest that they put in a retrospective claim, that should help OC Admin's blood pressure!
It is more basic than that H2D for FTRS came in with JPA, it is in JSP 752 under the who is entitled bit. It is so black and white even a bluntly could see.If there are FTRS chap(ess)s who are not getting it paid I suggest that they put in a retrospective claim, that should help OC Admin's blood pressure!
Thread Starter
I'd be interested to know where it says you can have HDT as FTRS? Unless you are a very unusual 'Full Commitment' reservist or live in Central London...
Here is a quote straight from JSP752 (latest version 2012)
LJ
Here is a quote straight from JSP752 (latest version 2012)
f. FTRS (Limited Commitment) (FTRS(LC)), FTRS (Home Commitment), FTRS(HC)), Sponsored Reserves, Additional Duties Commitment (ADC) and FTRS (LC) Reserve Staff Group personnel are ineligible for HDT, but may exceptionally become eligible when authorised by the SPVA PACCC
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 21st Dec 2013 at 01:34.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had never met a Sqn uncle before I joined 20(R) and so Furze was the only example I had to go on. A true gentlemen, he did a superb, if somewhat undefined, job of looking after everyone on the Sqn from top to bottom.
If every Uncle is like Furze then I would suggest that every Sqn should have one!
If every Uncle is like Furze then I would suggest that every Sqn should have one!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A note has recently been released insisting that accommodation can be made available 'at entitled rates' for FTRS subject to certain conditions, chief amongst which is that the post has to have been advertised unsuccessfully several times before this can be applied for. As with almost all things to do with the reserve forces, the entitlement is unclear and needs to be approved (if memory serves) at 2* level. It also assumes that there is 'surplus' accommodation available - something which will become a real problem as more people take this up because, if I read the note correctly, this only applies to SLA (ie not SFA), so will see messes used as hotels by the shift workers or those working week days travelling to their real homes over the weekends.
The other thing about FTRS is just how difficult it is to justify having someone in uniform to do it - there is an agreement between MOD (RAF?) and the unions that these posts will only be created where there is a 'legal requirement' for the postholder to be a member of the Armed Forces. Some examples include flying instructors and ATCOs, neither of whom are required to hold civilian licenses so long as they are members of the Reserve. I am surprised that the sqns concerned have managed to get this past the TUs, but good on them if they have.
Edited to add:
I guess it may be different if the existing post-holder is in uniform and it's a conversion from regular to reserve service, otherwise I would be surprised that the unions hadn't fought it.
The other thing about FTRS is just how difficult it is to justify having someone in uniform to do it - there is an agreement between MOD (RAF?) and the unions that these posts will only be created where there is a 'legal requirement' for the postholder to be a member of the Armed Forces. Some examples include flying instructors and ATCOs, neither of whom are required to hold civilian licenses so long as they are members of the Reserve. I am surprised that the sqns concerned have managed to get this past the TUs, but good on them if they have.
Edited to add:
I guess it may be different if the existing post-holder is in uniform and it's a conversion from regular to reserve service, otherwise I would be surprised that the unions hadn't fought it.
Last edited by SirToppamHat; 22nd Dec 2013 at 12:51.
Thread Starter
Just to clarify from STH's post.
There have been difficulties with changing some RO, AVO and RAF (Civilian Component) (RAF(CC)) posts as they are paid via the Civil Service and as they are feeling the squeeze of redundancies then the Unions need convincing that the job has to be done by someone in uniform. In the case of new posts, like this Sqn Uncle, that is not the case as it is a new post generated for the military by the military via an EAF.
As I am free to have an opinion in this great country of ours - frickin' Unions, I'm sick to death of Unions. Can't we get rid of them and come up with a better method of employee representation in the 21st Century?? Surely, we are past the days of the Tolpuddle Marchers?
LJ
There have been difficulties with changing some RO, AVO and RAF (Civilian Component) (RAF(CC)) posts as they are paid via the Civil Service and as they are feeling the squeeze of redundancies then the Unions need convincing that the job has to be done by someone in uniform. In the case of new posts, like this Sqn Uncle, that is not the case as it is a new post generated for the military by the military via an EAF.
As I am free to have an opinion in this great country of ours - frickin' Unions, I'm sick to death of Unions. Can't we get rid of them and come up with a better method of employee representation in the 21st Century?? Surely, we are past the days of the Tolpuddle Marchers?
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Station Ops
And what about Stn Ops, or whatever they have called themselves these days?
Think about a flying sqn as a wing just as Admin/Eng etc - the sqns have their own staff through the Admin/Eng/Ops chain to do their own work whereas Stn Ops as a wing of its own keeps the airfield and station functions going that the Sqns need to fly - they are not sqn gophers albeit certain people in green seem to try it on sometimes from my past experience.
Think about a flying sqn as a wing just as Admin/Eng etc - the sqns have their own staff through the Admin/Eng/Ops chain to do their own work whereas Stn Ops as a wing of its own keeps the airfield and station functions going that the Sqns need to fly - they are not sqn gophers albeit certain people in green seem to try it on sometimes from my past experience.
Why does the FTRS Vacancies List that the link takes you to say "2 x Sqn Ldrs (Fast Jet Pilots)" when the criteria then listed are:
Essential - ......Sqn Ldr or Flt Lt aircrew.....
Desirable - .... recent experience working on a flying station (FJ, RW or ME)
It would appear that:
a) You don't have to be a pilot
b) If you are a pilot, you don't have to be FJ
Alternatively, someone is not very good at writing job requirements, which is a distinct possibility when you consider that throughout the first few lines "squadron" is abbreviated as "sqn" as frequently as "Sqn", "Squadron Leader" is abbreviated as "sqn ldr", etc ........
Essential - ......Sqn Ldr or Flt Lt aircrew.....
Desirable - .... recent experience working on a flying station (FJ, RW or ME)
It would appear that:
a) You don't have to be a pilot
b) If you are a pilot, you don't have to be FJ
Alternatively, someone is not very good at writing job requirements, which is a distinct possibility when you consider that throughout the first few lines "squadron" is abbreviated as "sqn" as frequently as "Sqn", "Squadron Leader" is abbreviated as "sqn ldr", etc ........
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Live Ops Spt?
Wallah - Pity, there goes another 2 x Sqn Ldr Flight Ops posts by the looks of it. The specialization is slowly being nibbled away
Was it really ever given anything solid to work on anyway? Most of the good posts still Ops Spt (Any) but filled by FC or ATC with better career aspirations due to bigger footprint. Seen it in practice.
Was it really ever given anything solid to work on anyway? Most of the good posts still Ops Spt (Any) but filled by FC or ATC with better career aspirations due to bigger footprint. Seen it in practice.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting to see according to the advert for the LUAS Deputy OC and CFI that it's not essential to already be a pilot, merely "desirable" ...... 
Presumably if you aren't already one they'll teach you...?
Presumably if you aren't already one they'll teach you...?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain the requirement for FTRS QFIs?
With the extremely limited amount of QFI posts in the Service, surely it is essential that we cycle as many young, full-time pilots through them and back to the frontline?
I find it beyond belief that we still seem to foster a culture whereby quite a number can stay in 22 Gp for a long, long time whilst watching instructional experience and understanding on the frontline diminish.
With the extremely limited amount of QFI posts in the Service, surely it is essential that we cycle as many young, full-time pilots through them and back to the frontline?
I find it beyond belief that we still seem to foster a culture whereby quite a number can stay in 22 Gp for a long, long time whilst watching instructional experience and understanding on the frontline diminish.
Can anyone explain the requirement for FTRS QFIs?
But since the lunatic Marston report
and the subsequent wholescale dumbing-down of the UAS scheme to the level of some glorified air cadet scheme, the reverse is true. You will note that the scouser UAS advert refers to 'the' QFI - as in the only one - required to work a 45-50 hour week, plus all the associated niff-naff and triv., including CCS anf RAFFT. No doubt the 'range of secondary duties' includes sticking a broom up ones ar$e and sweeping the crewroom floor?They really couldn't have made the advert sound less appealing if they'd tried.
Originally Posted by BEagle
.....and the subsequent wholescale dumbing-down of the UAS scheme to the level of some glorified air cadet scheme.....
If you weren't, then I'll dismount from my horsey.
I suspect there will be more adverts for FTRS on UAS's this year.......
