AAC Manning Crisis
 

Slightly random story online, linked below (excuse the source!).

Army's SOS: We need more Apache pilots like Prince Harry for last mission to Helmand | Mail Online

Much has been discussed on here about RAF aircrew manning levels across the various fleets, but rumour has it things are quite a bit worse within the AAC than the story suggests.

Can anyone put any numbers to the current problems? I hear QHI numbers are a particular issue, as with many other places.

Give them to the RAF or the RN - there's plenty of talent to fly them if the Army can't muster it...:ok:

LJ

The reasons for the manning crisis that the AAC is currently experiencing are much more complex.

Flying pay issues - leading to potential serious debt and perceived lack of loyalty from the Corps
Lack of promotion for SNCO aircrew
Herrick drawdown and a certain amount of operational fatigue
Historically dreadful man management
Changes to pensions
Loss of bridging package
Bouyant job market in the Oil and Gas industry

Most AAC pilots that are leaving are doing so because they can get paid more, work less and be treated better elsewhere. Some of those that are left will leave because they have seen how badly those ahead of them have been treated.

It of course doesn't help then people with genuine concerns about their career, family and pay are told "If you don't like it, leave."

Don't know why they need more pilots. Some days they can only muster 3 serviceable aircraft in the UK based Apache fleet.

Still in the donkey-walloping era.....
 

Well it's a tragedy to hear the AAC sorts are being treated so badly. It is my experience that this should be no surprise as the Army heirachy still appears to be in the donkey-walloping era.
Get out of it and join the RAF at least they will mostly treat you as you would want to be treated.
Aircrew tend to be treasured in the RAF, in the AAC they're another statistic and I'm being generous...:ugh:

Still in the donkey-walloping era.....

Another interpretation might be that the Army are soldiers while the RAF are civilians in uniform! :uhoh:

Dundiggin,

I think you may be a little out of touch with the RAF attitude to aircrew. A couple of years ago the AAC was short of experienced instructors (so not much has changed there) and insisted that the RAF honour an agreement it had made and send them an experienced QHI. The RAF didn't bother to seek volunteers, they simply told their most experienced Chinook QHI (and only A1 on type) that he was posted to Wallop to start in 4 weeks time! It came as a bit of a shock to the stn cdr when he PVRd the next working day! Oh, and he only had 4 years to serve to 55. So much for being treasured!

The Cryptkeeper wrote:Funny old thing - loss of a retention incentive has led to loss of retention...:rolleyes:

Genstabler,

If you are ever fortunate enough to be invited to the Officers' Mess at RAF Odiham you might care to have a look in the "Chinook Room". The walls are covered, and I mean covered, with photos of those who have received awards for their actions in the aircraft. Civilians in uniform? Think again pal.

GOT ONE! Target round. Fire for effect.

Haha Genstabler,

I'm splitting my sides at your joke, it's the first time I've heard that one in 30 years as part of world's premier SH fleet! In the late 80's the Army bid for the Chinook fleet and all us aircrew backed the move....we all wanted the redundancy payments to pay for our licenses. To a man none of us was prepared to join the AAC.....and I'm sure their Ts and Cs were much better than they are now!

My old regiment's terms and conditions were not always conducive to a genteel second career in civvy street!

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3912ca0c.jpg

I think Cryptkeeper has scored a resounding DH on the issues. Although a crab, I've worked closely with Corps over the past few years. The flying pay scandal has rocked morale; the guys simply feel that they've been hung out to dry by senior "leaders". Many have jumped into the buoyant offshore world to beat the rush when the SAR crews that don't get SAR jobs go looking.

IMHO they're also shagged out having been hard wired to "surge" on an enduring basis for the past 8 years - more so (I think) than any other force.

The guys have dug out in Afghan and the endless cycle of PDT - the loyalty they should expect in return is lacking. Is it any surprise they're hacked off and leaving?

QED, as I said before, give the airframes to the RAF or RN - they have a better appreciation of airpower than cannon-fodder infanteers and donkey-walloping chinless cavaliary officers that run the Army. Especially as they down-size, the teeny-weeny airways mob will get more and more squeezed to protect 'core' Army capabilities like boots on the ground and tanks.

LJ

PS. I like the teeny-weeny mob and I'm sure the crabs/fisheads would welcome them to their respectively more techno-phillic Services. Hell, we'd even take the ginger one!

Although Genstabler was on a fishing Recce, he did make a fair point. The Army has soldiers, some of whom fly. That was made very clear to me at Leighton House where I made it clear that I only wanted to fly. Guess who never got selected (OK, not the only reason).

Apart from QFIs, there is, I recall, an expectation that Aviation is deployed pretty well forward, in commensurate living and messing standards. How many Light Blue would welcome that beyond novelty? I can't think of many Dark Blue.

You need to get out more - you might hear it for a second time pal!
:)

One would assume the Army hierarchy to a man are Pongoes in the true sense of the word and simply look at the AAC as an add on to their main force and a damned expensive one at that, no wonder the AAC feel hard done by.

Then one would assume wrongly.
The AAC are a teeth arm and a very important one to the combat team, battle group or formation. One of the advantages of manning many of the pilot posts with officers and SNCOs from other arms and corps on attachment is that there is consequently a width and depth of experience of Army aviation throughout the whole Army.
Those soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a preponderance of them, are very appreciative of the direct and indirect support provided by Hawkeye and do not consider them an expensive add-on.
Bugger! I have risen to my own bait! :{

Wrong target
 

Very quickly this has turned in the a light blue vs brown bun fight, should you not be targeting the real cause of the problem........ The chronic underfunding of the UK armed forces and those who are responsable ?

I hope you don't think that my serious Post was intending to do that. I was trying to make the point that, to a soldier, a Helo is just another weapon for the task. The driver is still a battle ready soldier (unless I've been wound up again). In the same way, a WAFU driver is foremost a sailor and the Cab's just another weapon in the ship. WAFUs are not soldiers. The Air Force, on the other hand are neither soldiers nor sailors and neither should they be. Military training is something for Basic and the odd continuation stuff in service.

The point I was trying to make is that if people wanted to grub about in the mud or rough it in the middle of bumf**nowhere, they'd join the Army. If you want to take your chance in a moderately well appointed steel coffin, one joins the Navy. If you just want to fly without all the other embuggerances, one joins the Air Force. There is nothing wrong with that and, to me, it is eminently sensible.

Unless you change the primary function of the AAC, why would most people of the Blue persuasion want to go anywhere near it? I'm a blunty and interested.

GBZ

If you are still serving, I suggest you seek out some SH mates and ask them about their way of life. I spent a great deal of time under canvas, occasionally had the luxury of a disused hangar and from time to time Hotel Boeing was my bed for the night. I joined to support the Army.....the infanteer is a hero of mine and I could never do what he does but I was delighted to take him where he needed to be...and bring him back. My conditions were nothing like what he had to put with but I certainly haven't led the Life of Riley you suggest. BTW, I never minded the accommodation, it was all the unnecessary sh1t that my own commanders invented that made my life a misery!

To return to the original point, the AAC's heavy outflow of helicopter pilots is inevitable given the nature of the beast. Unlike the RAF and RN, the Army does not need officers for the majority of its drivers airframe slots. They are therefore taken by very bright and competent young SNCOs.

Whereas an officer pilot can expect and aspire to a full and rewarding career on return to regimental duty after a flying tour, this is not the case with most SNCO pilots. After commanding an aircraft and operating on an equal professional footing with senior officers, it is not an attractive prospect to become a grunt again and lose flying pay. Therefore, most who cannot transfer to permanent AAC or who are not considered suitable for commissioning in their own regiments will leave and look for a rewarding job in civvy aviation.

Even if a SNCO transfers to AAC permanent cadre, there is very limited scope for career advancement so when the embuggerances outweigh the attractions they will leave for greener fields.

If the Army wants to retain these highly skilled pilots it needs to rethink their career options, Ts and Cs and rewards, especially flying pay. These will not necessarily resemble those of the RAF and RN equivalents, because they are not equivalent.

Genstabler,

While I agree with the majority of your post I'm not sure of your recent experience with the AAC. SNCO pilots do not (and have not for quite some time) go back to their original Corps or Regiments after a tour with the AAC. On completion of CTT on whichever aircraft type they are automatically re-badged to the AAC and therefore have a full career - that is not the reason why it is haemorrhaging SNCO aircrew.

I feel I can speak with a little authority on this subject because I have very recently left the Corps as a WO2 A2 QHI on Apache after 24 years in the Army (16 of those with the AAC) and I have seen monumental changes in the organisation, professionalism and ethos of the Corps and I have to say I do not regret one minute of my time in the Mob. Those RAF and RN who have worked alongside us will hopefully agree that the days of the Officer's Flying Club are long past.

Those that have not worked with us seem (from what I can see) to still see us a Souix pilots from the 1960s!! I went through my pilot course with RAF and RN and this theme of jointery has continued throughout my career with little room for willy waving - I respect the other two services immensely and hope that respect and affection is mutual.

The notion that the RAF and RN are the only people who understand aviation battle space (as touted by some on this forum) is a condescending nonsense - I would wager that you're average AH pilot has a thorough understanding of airspace and has spent considerably longer in the overhead supporting the troops on the ground in Afghanistan and delivered more ordnance than your average fast jet pilot. This is not "arrogance" "boasting" or "willy waving" (and is not meant as such) but a simple fact. Even on a quiet tour of Herrick most crews can expect to engage the enemy on a regular basis (sometimes even daily). This is without taking into account the "classic" warfighting role of the Apache (intergration with fast air, SH, airspace, deep strikes, EW etc etc) which is the "bread and butter" of Army Aviation not to mention the assymetric hybrid operations such as Ellamy. If you think I'm being defensive then if you saw your colleagues denigrated in the manner I see so often on PPrune then I suspect it would not sit well with you either?

The proposed flying pay clawback has completely destroyed the trust that my generation of pilots had in the system and the Corps has essentially shot itself in the foot. Those that can leave are leaving, those that are time barred will probably leave as soon as they are able. As I mentioned in my previous post this is not the only reason for people leaving but the straw that broke the camel's back for most. When you are in your 40s and have a family, mortgage, children et al to worry being hit with a huge debt when you have done no wrong and the system is so complex and flawed that they are still trying to sort it 18 months after the initial (incorrect) assumptions does not encourage people to stay.

Add to this poor promotion prospects (compared to our Groundcrew, REME and former colleagues in other Corps), extremely poor career management (for the most part - there are exceptions), changes to terms and conditions with little or no explanation or justification, a fundamental lack of respect for abilities and experience and (until very recently) constant deployment cycle it's not difficult to see why some have had enough and are happy to go elsewhere.

The majority of my peers agree that they have never seen it so bad - the problem for the Corps is that my peers ARE the experience and the enablers (QHIs, AIs, Wpns Officers etc). The younger SNCOs are seeing what is happening and many of them are leaving too - for them there is no bridging but changes to pensions and the prospect of slow promotion, non-operational old school living under a basha soldiering which quite frankly many of them are not up for anymore.

I am fiercely proud of my friends and colleagues that remain in the Corps but I am disgusted by the way they are treated and I fervently hope that things change for the better and soon. I'm also acutely aware that we are not the only Force to have these problems.

I can only speak from the experience of me and my SNCO friends - I have not even touched on the reasons for the Officer Corps leaving in droves either.....

As someone who is currently looking to explore the NCO pilot route in the near future this does make for a bit of concerning reading.

In short, could someone give me a rundown as to what has happened to flying pay for AAC pilots?

Cryptkeeper

Thanks for putting me right with your excellent, balanced and informative post. You are right in assuming my experience is out of date. Though I still have many AAC friends, I am now well behind the power curve.

It is a sad state of affairs and it is difficult to understand how it was allowed to come about. Massively incompetent management and leadership that is destroying an outstandingly professional and effective organisation. Betrayal is not too strong a word.

Best wishes for your new life!

+1 for what

Greenbrownvisitor

wrote. If not too detailed and thread hijacky. Ta.

CG

BBC thinks the RAF have taken them over already:

BBC News - RAF Apache helicopter makes emergency landing in Maryculter field

Correction!
 

BBC News - Army Apache helicopter makes emergency landing in Maryculter field

BBC must have heard the cries of outrage!! ;)

Strange how things have changed since Op Banner days when every green helicopter (Jungly/RAF) was called an "Army Helicopter" by media outlets various.

Many moons ago I was taken from B to A (Ballykelly to Aldergrove) in an AAC Sioux. My pilot, and Captain, was an extremely professional, competent operator, as you would expect from 666 Squadron.

This charming, delightful and skilful pilot was a Corporal - from the Catering Corps!

I have oft wondered which potentially lucrative career path he chose to follow in Civvy Street.
;)

Speaking as a recently promoted civvy, who spent 23 years in the light blue, mainly on the Chinook Force, I have nothing but praise for the AAC who I think have been treated appallingly; not in a way they deserve at all.


I remember trying to get into Nad Ali with an urgent re-supply in very low light and poor weather when the EF decided we needed some 7.62 hasteners. All of a sudden the AH escorting us 'Christmas Tree'd' over the green zone to draw their fire whilst we got on the ground. Muchos respect.


Regardless of background, cap badge or platform - the AAC deserve a better deal.

Ballykelly to Aldergrove by Sioux. Must have been about at the limit of its range! What fun flying though. Handed over to 666 at Topcliffe. Good lot. Happy memories (sigh)!

Repeating somebody else's question. What are the T&Cs and the furour about Army Flying Pay?

Could it be this:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ery-plans.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...les-again.html

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...disparity.html

In a nutshell:

Army Flying pay of the 90s and early 00s was a complex beast (Crewmen, P1, P2, the 4 year rule etc etc) very different to the other services mainly due to the fact we had JNCO pilots and crewmen. It was also open to interpretation for whichever pay clerk was dealing it at the time.

So, for example, a Cpl crewman who had achieved 2nd tour crewman flying pay who then qualified as a pilot would go onto 2nd tour P2 pay and progress through the increments, then on qualification as an Ac Comd he would then go onto P1.

P2 was scrapped back in 2001 and so an even larger disparity arose between guys who had potentially qualified and served at exactly the same time but would be on different rates of Flying Pay according to how the rules had been interpreted at his/her unit.

Fast forward to the advent of JPA and everything was supposed to have equalled out with some people even marking time on rates of pay before progressing. This happened for some but not others.

Fast forward to October 2012 (post service complaints from those disgruntled that their peers were still ahead of them on FP) - AAC initiates investigation, further misinterprets all the different interpretations of the "rules" and decides that the vast majority of aircrew who qualified in the 90s and early 00s had been overpaid and a potential clawback was announced. This ranged anywhere from £2000 to ..... wait for it..... £38,000 for one unfortunate individual.

The investigating team had incorrectly calculated the debts and those amounts have increased, decreased, increased again, are inclusive of tax, are not inclusive of tax.

Hey presto - vast majority of SNCO and Officers from that era alienated and then told to lump it. The rest as they say, is history.

And it's only very recently have they realised the scale of the disaster - a relatively minor amount of money to recover from a group where no fraud has been committed but who cost a very large amount of money to train and will be quite difficult (in the short term) to replace.

This is the short version. :)

Thank you for that. I can see the reasons now. I presume those that made the decisions were not aircrew.

Sadly the advice came in some cases from Staff Officers who had been in receipt of full 3rd rate flying pay but not flown for 20 years! So what did they know.

Home goal I'm afraid.

Cryptkeeper - I absolutely agree. My take is that the problem the other services may have - particularly Army - is a lack of flying background at the very highest levels.

So when - ineveitably - fiscal push comes to financial shove post Afghan drawdown, an Admiral will usually favour something that floats (or sinks!) over something that flies, while a General may tend to favour something on the ground over something in the air when scarce resources are being allocated.

Until recently, we light blue had a comparable problem, in that something fast, noisy and pointed would always win over slow, noisy and rotary! With our current very senior management, that may of course change.

We will soon see ..........

Teetering head posted:

"Cryptkeeper - I absolutely agree. My take is that the problem the other services may have - particularly Army - is a lack of flying background at the very highest levels".

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9a6ad2f6.jpg

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1843ab4c.jpg

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1eae8236.jpg

http://i1367.photobucket.com/albums/...psd239ccb3.jpg

A question I asked on ARRSE - do the AAC still do the AAC Senior Officer's Pilot Wings course?