Aircrew Sustainability
Aircrew Sustainability
Taken from the latest RAF Personnel Bulletin:
400 aircrew annotated posts seems like a huge number to soak up by other branches. I can see FTRS aircrew taking over at UAS's etc but are we going to replace all those in HQ staff appointments with adminers??
We have insufficient Regular aircrew, especially pilots, to fill all of the flying and flying-related ground posts; moreover, this manning gap will endure over the next decade unless remedial action is taken. To mitigate this issue we are undertaking an Aircrew Sustainability Review which will be conducted in 3 discrete phases.
Phase one, to bound the issue, has already been completed with the reporting of recommendations to the AFBSC in December 13. We have agreed to delete or reapportion around 400 aircrew-annotated posts over a 6-year period to either non-regular aircrew or other branches, and to introduce the requirement for all aircrew posts to be prioritised in their order of importance to remain as aircrew annotated. This prioritisation has the added benefit of ensuring that the number of aircrew posts filled by Regular aircrew in the future will be directly related to the prevailing Regular strength.
Work to establish the prioritised list and identify which posts should be deleted or reapportioned (Phase 2) is at a very early stage and is being taken forward by the Manpower Requirements team. This phase will involve discussion with the key stakeholders (including the capability owners) and any recommendations challenged through red teaming. This work will consider, amongst other things, the requirement for the majority of operationally focussed appointments to be filled by Regular aircrew and the contribution that the other Services should make to filling aircrew-annotated staff appointments.
In the final stage of this work we will look to model the impact on aircrew strength of the NEM, the new pension scheme (AFPS15),MFTS, and other changes, such as longer tour lengths, and assess if and what type of retention incentives may be required to improve aircrew return of service.
Phase one, to bound the issue, has already been completed with the reporting of recommendations to the AFBSC in December 13. We have agreed to delete or reapportion around 400 aircrew-annotated posts over a 6-year period to either non-regular aircrew or other branches, and to introduce the requirement for all aircrew posts to be prioritised in their order of importance to remain as aircrew annotated. This prioritisation has the added benefit of ensuring that the number of aircrew posts filled by Regular aircrew in the future will be directly related to the prevailing Regular strength.
Work to establish the prioritised list and identify which posts should be deleted or reapportioned (Phase 2) is at a very early stage and is being taken forward by the Manpower Requirements team. This phase will involve discussion with the key stakeholders (including the capability owners) and any recommendations challenged through red teaming. This work will consider, amongst other things, the requirement for the majority of operationally focussed appointments to be filled by Regular aircrew and the contribution that the other Services should make to filling aircrew-annotated staff appointments.
In the final stage of this work we will look to model the impact on aircrew strength of the NEM, the new pension scheme (AFPS15),MFTS, and other changes, such as longer tour lengths, and assess if and what type of retention incentives may be required to improve aircrew return of service.
Sounds to me that even more aircrew will be needed for Manpower Review, Red Teams and any other HR bullsh!t they come up with in the meantime.
In any case, I would suspect the Red Team interactions would consist of
Red: "Why don't you...?"
RAF: "There's no budget for that. It's not policy. (Insert your favourite management excuse here)."
repeat ad infinitum
May I suggest what the Chivenor crowd came up with for the Robson Report (twenty years ago review of same problem)
They just asked for great wads of cash, on the basis that significant changes anywhere else were nigh on impossible given the bureaucracy, so just make sure the bucket of cash is heavier than the bucket of sh!t.
In any case, I would suspect the Red Team interactions would consist of
Red: "Why don't you...?"
RAF: "There's no budget for that. It's not policy. (Insert your favourite management excuse here)."
repeat ad infinitum
May I suggest what the Chivenor crowd came up with for the Robson Report (twenty years ago review of same problem)
They just asked for great wads of cash, on the basis that significant changes anywhere else were nigh on impossible given the bureaucracy, so just make sure the bucket of cash is heavier than the bucket of sh!t.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Who wrote that management tosh?
Stakeholders, capability owners and WTF is red teaming????
Speak in plain English you morons.
Stakeholders, capability owners and WTF is red teaming????
Speak in plain English you morons.
I'm sorry but this is a complete crock of sh**e. Allowing the reapportionment of 400 aircrew annotated posts will only serve to further undermine the aircrew branch. There has to be a very good reason why any number of those posts have been aircrew annotated in the past; that usually comes down to a necessary skill set, level of specialist knowledge and intuitive understanding of certain issues. Those skills do not come from inventing a new branch or just removing the aircrew annotation! 
I am afraid that this all links to the fact that the RAF (and RN and shortly the British Army) are already too small to do what we are being asked to do. As General Nick said at RUSI last night:
The only thing I would change is the ending, which really should have read: "I would identify the RN and RAF as being beyond its critical mass in monpower terms". This 400 reannotation is proof positive that [elements of] the RAF are already beyond critical mass!! 
Party Animal
Hate to tell you this, but of the 2 or 3 pilots on each UAS, all bar the Boss will be FTRS already. All the AEF flt cdrs are FTRS and quite a few of the EFT QFIs are FTRS. I've lost track of where we stand with the Tucano, Hawk, King Air and DHFS sqns, but there was quite a smattering of FTRS (or civilian) pilots in there already; this is only going to get worse under MFTS.
PS. Where did you find the quote from? I don't remember having seen a Manning Bulletin in years
I am afraid that this all links to the fact that the RAF (and RN and shortly the British Army) are already too small to do what we are being asked to do. As General Nick said at RUSI last night:
...the dawning reality is that, even if we maintain the non-equipment budget in real terms, rising manpower costs raise the prospect of further manpower and activity cuts. Unattended our current course leads to a strategically incoherent force structure: exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it. ... We are not there yet; but across Defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms
Party Animal
I can see FTRS aircrew taking over at UASs
PS. Where did you find the quote from? I don't remember having seen a Manning Bulletin in years
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 19th Dec 2013 at 14:19. Reason: To add the PS.
PS. Where did you find the quote from? I don't remember having seen a Manning Bulletin in years
RP,
Agree with you completely. If:
is already the case, then that just makes things worse!
P.S. We missed you yesterday at the M.
Agree with you completely. If:
Hate to tell you this, but of the 2 or 3 pilots on each UAS, all bar the Boss will be FTRS already
P.S. We missed you yesterday at the M.
I am related to a man who was the chief aircrew poster about 30 years ago. He reckoned the aircrew requirement followed a 7 year cycle and was almost always 180 degrees out with aircrew numbers, and that this had been the case since 1918.
Plus ca change!
Plus ca change!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 77
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't usually respond to posts on current issues, or political stuff, but I have to ask- what does " to bound the issue, ",or 'red-teaming' mean- paradigm shift, stakeholder, think-outside-the-box, collegial I've got but... Thinks: maybe they meant 'red herring' oh, and if they're short of "uncles", would they consider 'grampas' ?? 
oh, and if they're short of "uncles", would they consider 'grampas' ??
Wander00 - my relative reckoned it was a consequence of the time in post of Defence Ministers and VSOs. Neither of these has changed much since 1918. By the time a programme gets established, in comes someone else with different priorities - and the expense is always a factor.
What a mess.
Nice to see that they have identified the true issues:
But have consigned these to:
When bleeding to death the application of direct or indirect pressure to the wound should be the first thing you do, not the last…
Nice to see that they have identified the true issues:
...NEM, the new pension scheme (AFPS15),MFTS, and other changes, such as longer tour lengths, and assess if and what type of retention incentives may be required to improve aircrew return of service
...the final stage of this work
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRAIN CRASH COMING.......
Sadly, all I see round the corner (if it's not happening already) is an ALMIGHTY train crash ahead.......
There used to be a balance between operations (okay when there wasn't a war being fought, the front line), training (flying) and career progression (ground tours).
There was also a critical mass. This is essential to prevent burn-out of your front line, rotation between roles and to allow for rapid surges. eg. QFI's being recalled to ops as happened in OP CORPORATE.
Now with increasing use of civilian's/ex-military pilots being employed at UAS, BFT, MTFS, and now the civilianisation of SAR we are dining in the last chance saloon. With the RAF, FAA and AAC shrinking where will the next generation of current QFI's etc. employed by the likes of SERCO & BABCOCK come from? With the airlines looking to recruit new pilots will there be any ex-service pilots interested or young enough to fill the vacancies that will start to appear when the current ex-service aircrew retire?
The training pipeline gets turned off all too easily to save money in the short term but is very difficult to turn on again. As we will no doubt find out only at considerable cost.
MB
There used to be a balance between operations (okay when there wasn't a war being fought, the front line), training (flying) and career progression (ground tours).
There was also a critical mass. This is essential to prevent burn-out of your front line, rotation between roles and to allow for rapid surges. eg. QFI's being recalled to ops as happened in OP CORPORATE.
Now with increasing use of civilian's/ex-military pilots being employed at UAS, BFT, MTFS, and now the civilianisation of SAR we are dining in the last chance saloon. With the RAF, FAA and AAC shrinking where will the next generation of current QFI's etc. employed by the likes of SERCO & BABCOCK come from? With the airlines looking to recruit new pilots will there be any ex-service pilots interested or young enough to fill the vacancies that will start to appear when the current ex-service aircrew retire?
The training pipeline gets turned off all too easily to save money in the short term but is very difficult to turn on again. As we will no doubt find out only at considerable cost.
MB
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm!
As usual the wheel comes full circle and I bet if you pull out the PA'd file establishing the Ops Support bunch you will read it was because we didn't have enough aircrew to fill all the slots required and we needed to prioritise etc etc
Ca plus ca change ca plus ca mem chose (with apologies to Mr Forster my French teacher)
Bet you wish you didn't get rid of all those Navs in the redundancies eh?
Ca plus ca change ca plus ca mem chose (with apologies to Mr Forster my French teacher)
Bet you wish you didn't get rid of all those Navs in the redundancies eh?