Pilot FRI
Thread Starter
Pilot FRI
Well it is a rumour network ........
Lots of people leaving / PVRing or fed up.
What are the chances of an FRI?? Wishful thinking perhaps?
Lots of people leaving / PVRing or fed up.
What are the chances of an FRI?? Wishful thinking perhaps?
Something is going to have to happen as the Oficer Aircrew Sustainability Review is a crock of crap. Run by blunties to make jobs for blunties, by shedding some of the traditional ground posts for aircrew to blunties - wait until that all unravels! 
With fewer rear-crew aviators that tradionally took up the strain for such posts, the level of expertise will fall quite quickly and retention of what little we have left will at some point become a priority.
B Word
With fewer rear-crew aviators that tradionally took up the strain for such posts, the level of expertise will fall quite quickly and retention of what little we have left will at some point become a priority.
B Word
.............
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.
With a process that long and convoluted, you get half way through it and another SDSR comes along which changes your force structure sufficiently that you pretty much have to start all over again......
A bit like the Forth Road Bridge.
A bit like the Forth Road Bridge.
I think you will find that the bean counters have realised that sufficient pilots will be retained whatever strictures are imposed! Furthermore, said bean counters are now in control. I blame the very senior aircrew officers who, over the last three decades, have allowed the rot to fester in their individual quests to ascend the greasy pole. Just my opinion.
OAP
OAP
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.
and other changes, such as longer tour lengths
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 48
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those longer tour lengths that see good hard working lads shunted from pillar to post, so that a bluntie may be posted 6ft away from their old desk for another 3 year?... 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Here and there
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The saddest part of this whole thread is the paucity of replies. I genuinely sense that a great many of our pilots, both experienced and junior, have given up. They seem to be either walking away, or working on a plan to walk away.
One might argue that we have been here before - many times. However, I sense that this time things are different. The organization is at its smallest ever at a time when the external market is looking for staggering numbers, simply not seen before. A smaller organization, with smaller margins, we are exposed to 'strategic shock' of losing numbers that we could afford in previous decades.
Match that against the capacity of our training system and I think we've sleepwalked into some worrying times. There is certainly no way we can generate the mass of baby pilots that we could 10-15 years ago - we don't have the numbers of training aircraft or QFIs.
The harsh reality is that if we can't put the plug in, and can't turn the taps on, the level of bathwater will drop. I derive not one ounce of enjoyment from watching it unfold.
One might argue that we have been here before - many times. However, I sense that this time things are different. The organization is at its smallest ever at a time when the external market is looking for staggering numbers, simply not seen before. A smaller organization, with smaller margins, we are exposed to 'strategic shock' of losing numbers that we could afford in previous decades.
Match that against the capacity of our training system and I think we've sleepwalked into some worrying times. There is certainly no way we can generate the mass of baby pilots that we could 10-15 years ago - we don't have the numbers of training aircraft or QFIs.
The harsh reality is that if we can't put the plug in, and can't turn the taps on, the level of bathwater will drop. I derive not one ounce of enjoyment from watching it unfold.
Bloodhound
Can't help agreeing with you on the paucity of replies.
In my humble opinion, when it comes to the FRI question the answers are always the same:
An FRI is a quick, temporary fix.
It doesn't fix the longer term issues.
It's expensive.
There's no money in the pot.
Those that want to leave are going to leave anyway.
Unfortunately, the RAF is now about to reap the rewards of its penny-pinching by becoming a victim of market forces. Other organisations are starting to pay more, invest in cadet schemes etc.
I await with interest.
Can't help agreeing with you on the paucity of replies.
In my humble opinion, when it comes to the FRI question the answers are always the same:
An FRI is a quick, temporary fix.
It doesn't fix the longer term issues.
It's expensive.
There's no money in the pot.
Those that want to leave are going to leave anyway.
Unfortunately, the RAF is now about to reap the rewards of its penny-pinching by becoming a victim of market forces. Other organisations are starting to pay more, invest in cadet schemes etc.
I await with interest.
Hey, get off the blunties.....................however, a constructive thought from a former pilot, later a blunty...........how many ground branch guys and girls around who have earned a brevet in an earlier life - might they form a "middle ground"? Just a thought
I thought that originally the whole point of the Ops Support branch was to release more aircrew back to flying jobs? So this isn't actually a new problem.
The RAF doesn't help itself in most cases - it used to be that things like extensions to service had to be as the result of a specifically written business case, and had to be approved by at least Gp Capt level - I don't know if that's still the case.
The RAF doesn't help itself in most cases - it used to be that things like extensions to service had to be as the result of a specifically written business case, and had to be approved by at least Gp Capt level - I don't know if that's still the case.
LJ - I was a pilot in my first career, Admin Sec then admin in my second. but I hope I brought to my second career the experience of the first, so (I hope) worked with an understanding of operational and aircrew issues. But then it was a long time ago!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble opinion, when it comes to the FRI question the answers are always the same:
An FRI is a quick, temporary fix.
It doesn't fix the longer term issues.
It's expensive.
There's no money in the pot.
Those that want to leave are going to leave anyway.
An FRI is a quick, temporary fix.
It doesn't fix the longer term issues.
It's expensive.
There's no money in the pot.
Those that want to leave are going to leave anyway.
Speaking as a PAS front line pilot, I have a PAS RoS of 5 years of which I have just over 2 years left. Any FRI I might be offered in order to convince me to stay past 43 would have to be huge, not because I'm especially distraught over my pay (although I don't think we paid enough), but simply because it would have to offset so many things that are wrong with the service when compared to the airline industry.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not just aircrew who are walking...
Offering MEOS (service till age 60) to Sqn Ldr Engineers has just created a five year block on promotion for good JEngOs so they are walking...
Good logistics personnel are in demand outside let alone our engineers. Just ask JHC about their ac availability rate and their engineer retention issues.
FRIs for aircrew may convince a few to delay their decision but it needs to convince the many not the few. But there won't be much point to an aircrew FRI if there are no jets/ cabs on the line to fly!
I suspect the system's response to this will be too little too late and they will be looking back at the crisis still wondering why people left...
N_1
Offering MEOS (service till age 60) to Sqn Ldr Engineers has just created a five year block on promotion for good JEngOs so they are walking...
Good logistics personnel are in demand outside let alone our engineers. Just ask JHC about their ac availability rate and their engineer retention issues.
FRIs for aircrew may convince a few to delay their decision but it needs to convince the many not the few. But there won't be much point to an aircrew FRI if there are no jets/ cabs on the line to fly!
I suspect the system's response to this will be too little too late and they will be looking back at the crisis still wondering why people left...
N_1