Manning Undershoot Imminent?
 

Just been looking at this https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...port_oct14.pdf

It looks like we are well ahead of the curve to achieve Future Force 2020. I would say we are about 4 years ahead and well past the Interim Force 2015 goals. Looking at the reduction curve, it looks like we'll undershoot next year.

Seeing as we seem to be offering FRIs to lots of different branches and 'golden hellos' to TG4 and Reserves - anyone care to speculate on next year's pay deal and terms of service?

I'm hearing on the jungle drums of an increase in FTRS contract lengths (maybe double their current lengths) and also Home to Duty payments to them as well.

It is after all, a Rumour Network! :}

LJ

1. Well ahead? The object of the exercise is surely to maintain a reducing requirement. Having less personnel than the requirement merely increases the load on everyone else, and probably has a connection to the increased Voluntary Outflow rates (table 12b).

2. There appears to be zero success in recruiting more women or ethnic minorities.

3.. Recruiting Reserve Army squaddies looks to be failing dismally.

The general numbers game could disguise shortages in critical trades. What's the buzz on that one?

From E-Goat
http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showt...es-go-up/page3
Manning of TG4 expected to drop to 75% by next April. That's from Manning. Rumour that PVR wait will increase from 12 to 18 months.

Looking at the reduction curve, it looks like we'll undershoot next year.


Or closer to the profile for FF2030 following next year's SDSR :eek:

Air Cdre and above over manned by 115%. All ranks from Sqn Ldr are also overmanned.

If it's the same as it was, initial manning reviews are handled by Air Cdre's.....

what a co-incidence!

Jayc

Stats can be quite misleading. There are something like 75 Air Commodores in the RAF (for comparison it is the same in the RN and there are about 160 Brigadiers in the Army). Now your 115% is 11 extra Air Commodores over the 75, making a total of 86. When you take into account the size of our manpower that is 0.03% of our manpower that we are overborne by (an example of how stats can mislead!).

However, you need to consider 2 things:

1. Air Commodores are only as good as their next posting. If they do not get a posting on the Air Rank Appointments List (ARAL) then they get a 'blue letter' telling them they are to retire - directed retirement. So getting rid of 11 is quite easy when you no longer need them!

2. We probably need these extras for now with 1-star jobs in the Middle East (ISAF HQs, EAWs, etc...). Don't forget, for every out of area post you need 2x Air Commodores - 1 on work up and 1 doing the job.

So all in all, old fruit, I don't see the 'shock and horror' of 11 extra Air Commodores that can be switched off in an instant (well about 12 months when you bring in their resettlement).

LJ :ok:

I brought this up a few months back in the "Wakey wakey manning" thread.

Before discussing the light blue it's interesting to note the army have reached their 82k manning level and are hurtling south past it! Probably the only element of FF2020 that will happen.....

The light blue seem happy to be still shrinking at over 100 a month. Unless recruitment nearly doubles they too will reach the FF2020 figure of 31500 by next April. All of this is from the MOD manning figures before someone shouts security.

It's a complex beast of established posts no longer needed and unestablshed posts that are manned but on the black economy, mixed with the 1000 or so folks that have left and on ressetlement but still on the books and throughput from training. Mannings job is not easy but they are working to a smaller Air Force plan than SDSR 10 direction. Equally, being at or below your 2020 figure in 2015 in time for the defence review is not really stating your case for more people.

It's already happening.

Don't forget it doesn't actually take much to change that tiny percentage for the worse very easily. Rumour doing the rounds in big building in London last week was 6 air cdres have PVR'd in the last few weeks! If they are some of your best, one has to ask whether they jumped before they were pushed or whether they have no faith in the future of the RAF?

The manning shortfall is even more worrying when you look at some of the other 'levers' being employed - transfer 200-ish previously aircrew annotated posts to 'any' - which of course means if you are posted in to one of them as aircrew, your "flying pay" clock starts ticking - and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).

Leon,

It's 115%! Whether it's 11 or not, it's hardly leading by example and the excuse that the army and navy have equal numbers is tiresome. Sqn Ldr upwards are all over manned, how can this be allowed to happen?

In the same paper of statistics, manning levels in all but a few ranks and trades is in deficit.

But hey, as long as everything is rosey at the top who cares.

Roland Pulfrew wrote: What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?

Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem....

BEagle posted:
"Roland Pulfrew wrote: Quote:
....and what about the extensions to Service to age 60 (which is causing a few more problems than had been anticipated).
What problems would those be? Finding enough people prepared to take the extension? Or something else?

Relying on Dad's Army, more part-time warriors and more mercenaries to keep the UK's creaking Armed Forces going seems to be going less well than They had assumed, it would seem.... "


I am in a situation where I wish to sign on past the age off 55, to enable me to complete 30 years service (late joiner, ground trade), and I was informed several months ago that this would be possible under the revised rules of the NEM.
The announcement was due to be made in Oct but, as is the norm, this has been delayed and the rules regarding Chf Techs (does not affect me) being allowed to sign on past 30 years service (which was due to be announced first) has not yet been released. Looks like it will be too late for me as my exit date is early next year.....


All of this info can be found on the www, so no opsec issues here:


OR (Ground Trades – less exceptions below)




• Initial engagement of 12 yrs.


• Offer EDP (20/40) on promotion to Cpl.


• Offer LOS 30 on promotion to Sgt.


• Offer LOS 32 on promotion to Chf Tech.


• Offer LOS 35 on promotion to FS and WO.


• Offer Mandated End Of Service (MEOS) to age 60, based on


Service need.

golamv,

An IBN was released last week detailing this issue.

Geardown107:

I don't think so - there were over 50 PVR in the 12 months after tranche 2, and I get the impression there is a new flood of PVR /NGR imminent from the ISTAR fleets right now. Combined with no recruiting or training being done for over 4 years, soon we'll be hooking any surplus from Brize /Benson /Odiham and turning them into siggies.

I would suggest that the (future) issue is not going to be purely numbers, but the quality, and most importantly of all the experience of the individuals leaving.

With so much experience gained over the last 20 years in both operations and joint/coalition staff appointments by our personnel, it is those experienced personnel that I see moving onto pastures new. Not only weiry of constant deployments, many (of all ranks) have just had enough of the constant eroding of their terms and conditions (and that is without the full details of NEM known, and the Chancellor's renewed efforts to again review the AFPS in the next Parliament), from what I see as the brightest and best easily sliding across into civvie street. The numbers of people required by the MoD /Treasury may have reduced, but the number of tasks and workload has not, resulting in those left behind invariably doing 2-3 jobs in one job title. Interestingly those that I witnessed leave do not always go into the airlines/rotary industry (one returned to the station only 5 months after leaving with a property portfolio that was maintaining a very nice life style, and another had invested in a well known franchise that had also improved his family's quality of life).

As I approach the Terminal Fix in my career, bound only really by pension and some misguided loyalty to Queen and Country, I look around and I either see a lot of new keen enthusiastic youth, or a disillusioned youth a few years in already planning their exit strategy, or people like me that are either too idle or not bright enough to actually make the jump.

Sadly what I have witnessed is those experienced personnel left, counting down the pension or CEA clock until they leave have lost all of the ethos, enthusiasm and loyalty with which we were so proud. With the belief that the MoD no longer values them, many appear to view their work place as purely a job, where they are always on the look out for an early stack, or dodging work/duties-its not like the city or the private sector where there are often bonuses or they are bound by contracts that include TOIL. No one gives theses older experienced personnel work beyond the bare minimum as they know it will be done with minimum effort, need constant supervision and probably not be on time.

This sets a very poor example to the youth, initially eager and keen, who invariably get lemoned with the work that the more experienced personnel should be getting. FTRS has been seen to make this worse in some places as some view themselves as pseudo civvies service providers with a contract that that they believe prevents them from being involved in the less appealing aspects of service life.

I find it interesting to note that there is much less whinging on Prune these days as the majority of these posters have got the message, if you don't like it then leave. The manners actually have a relatively easy job making the numbers fit the spreadsheets and data bases.

I personally believe that the silent threat though is actually capturing exactly what levels of skills and experience (not just the qualification) of the VO. It may only be a small %, but if that small % is either the most talented or most experienced in their field of expertise then there is a fall (tactical failure?) waiting to happen as the political assumptions of SDSR 10 and FF2020 already seem so out of date.

Oh, really? I spent Christmas and New Year's Eve doing stuff in support of the fire strike, spent some time in Berkshire putting sand in sand bags and have been duty staff on the station as part of the normal out-of-hours manning requirement. I am also not alone with other FTRS mates on the same station.

Just Another Jockey - FTRS do not get HTD at present, whereas all other Reserves do. There are a very select few in London or those with a very special case through Manning that get it.

The B Word

B Word,

Apologies if offence caused-not my intent, just a personal observation.

I chose my language carefully by using words like 'some' and 'believe'.

I certainly recognise that in some areas FTRS provides the continuity and experience that appears to be fading from the majority of all 3 Services and is realistically the only solution, but sadly I have also witnessed some that view FTRS as a retirement job where they do not have to get involved with the less appealing aspects of service life or areas that they believe is beyond their 'contract'. Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments.

I most certainly would not tarnish all with the same brush.

MM4

Thanks matey - yes, I can see your 'some' now that my my red mist has subsided! :ok:

On the deployability - any FTRS can choose to deploy at any time (I did this recently). However, as Home Commitment don't get X-factor in their pay (which for me is £7.5k per annum) then the voluntary ability to commit to deployment is welcome. However, don't forget that it is a shortish term contract and so if the FTRS person doesn't volunteer occasionally then the chain of command may be unlikely to renew. Those on Limited Commitment can deploy up to 21 days at a time and up to max of 35 days per annum total (again they can volunteer for more and I know one of the RAFRLOs was well over his 35 days last year). Limited Commitment get 1/2 X-Factor. Full Commitment is the same as a Regular and gets full X-Factor of 14.5%.

As ever, there are wakners in every branch, specialisation or commitment type, but I think you got it spot on - FTRS gives back continuity and experience, which is something that has been missing recently.

B Word :ok:

MM4,

Also, if FTRS do not opt to deploy (which many appear not to), then those of us left just stay in the shrinking pool of deployable personnel for OOA ops and deployments

With respect, FTRS don't choose not to deploy. This is decided by the job spec.

Home commitment = no deployment
Limited. = limited days
Full commitment. = deployable.

Remembering that on HC you are not entitled to any med, dent, housing, etc it would make it difficult to deploy someone who you have no access to their med records.

TN,

For clarity, my point was that FTRS is not the panacea to the MoD's directive to reduce its numbers and then try and balance the books by re-employing the same people on different (cheaper) contracts, either as a Reserve or FTRS.

Not to get lost in the noise is the key point that it is the experience that is/will be missed, not necessarily the pure numbers count.

If FTRS, in any shape or form, manages to mitigate that experience deficit then I personally am for it, but the policy may have a potential long term affect on those left behind and they either become a VO statistic or lose all sense of ethos, loyalty and pride and view it as a job.

The moment one views the Armed Forces as just another job then I fear that there will be trouble ahead, especially if the future situation looks to get worse than better for Service Personnel. If not more with less, it looks as though we will be doing the same, but with less.

First of all I'm not a Tory....

Having got that out of the way, Cable is a politician, and so if his lips are moving....

Also an election is not far away, and the Liberals are painting themselves as having been the "..voice of restraint..." against the evil Tories as a way of separating themselves and preserving their share of the vote.

Maybe there're right. Personally I would look for more impartial information, somewhere like here:

UK Government spending ? real and as % of GDP | Economics Help

The Tories want to reduce government spending as a percentage of GDP, in order to reduce debt. But the sort of figures they are talking about is the % of GDP that the government spent 1999/2000/2001 - were we really that badly off then as a society?

All the parties admit that spending will have to be reduced, it's just how much and how quickly that they argue about.

Personally I wouldn't consider the defence budget to be any safer in the hands of Labour or the Liberals, and especially a Labour/SNP coalition!

Still, vote for who you want, but try to find some solid facts beyond politicians soundbites!!

And if everybody votes UKIP, you'll get UKIP, not Labour.

I fear that my wife is not a farage bride.

I get it totally - we have a deficit that we have to reduce and the majority of the current British population want to ring fence health and education, which will squeeze other departments.

But if politically and financially we have to bite the bullet with a reduction in the Defence budget then politically we should also accept that we cannot afford the Defence roles and tasks that we currently have and the short notice tasks we suddenly sign up for. If we as a nation really are going to make further cuts and ignore what is going on the world then we really will have one option but to become an armed gendarmerie for wars of national survival and concentrate on protecting our borders and internal security only.

The politicians cannot have it all and the British public cannot suddenly look to its Armed Forces in a time of need after years of cuts and belief that there is no requirement to have international interests requiring well trained/motivated, rapidly deployable and high readiness forces. Both politicians and British public alike should not be surprised that on the current trajectory it is likely that there will be a future military failure. When Helmand went awry after some early strategic mistakes, eventually the MoD managed to realise and recover the situation. When/if it goes wrong in the future I do not see any depth, resilience, resourced sustainment to enable a similar recovery/re-inforcement/reserve.

A decision needs to be made otherwise I fear another Neville Chamberlain moment in history, but in a multi-cultural, multi-faith, and multi-faceted UK it will be interesting if we could pull off the Blitz mentality and personal sacrifice for any potential war effort for national survival while a proper (Churchillian) leader stepped up to the plate - heaven forbid if it was required.

And just what is the Conservative's policy on defence? I only ask because, and this might just be me being a bit thick or short sighted (both a very realistic possibility these days!), for a party that thinks the defence should be the first priority of government ....

Actually scrap that past point. I think I've answered my own question. On re-reading his speech to the party faithful at the last conference, I thought Mr Fallon had said Defending the country was the first duty of government. He didn't; he said "the first duty of government is to keep Britain safe". And that is most definitely not the same as defending the country being the first duty of government. Defending your home from intruders would be claymores on the front lawn, HMGs mounted on a watchtower overlooking the back fence, big dogs with sharp teeth and a car that explodes if someone tries to pinch it. Keeping your home safe would be making sure the roof doesn't leek, that your little ones don't put the cat in the washer for fun or stick their fingers in the plug sockets, that aunt Mavis doesn't trip over the loose carpet on the landing. Defence and safety, two very different things.

So now I've cleared that up in my own mind, just what EXACTLY is the Conservative policy on defence? I looked and I've looked and I can't find it anywhere (this is probably me being thick). All I can see when I go to the Conservative's website is cutting the deficit. That might be part of keeping us safe, after all we are fortunate enough to have "Prime Minister who puts defence at the top of his priorities. And a Chancellor who understands that strong defence depends on a strong economy." Lucky us.

And then I looked at Conservativehome.com, allegedly the home of Conservatism. The closest I could find to a statement on the Conservative Defence policy was an article slamming the Labour Shadow Defence Secretaries since 2010.

Not to worry I thought, maybe it's still in draft format, what with an election looming - they're titivating it. So I had a look at their Euro election manifesto as a pointer to what might be in their next big manifesto. Errrrrrrrrr. Found it. Page 24 of 28, tucked away just behind farming, fishing and agricultural policy. The key points in the first paragraph on security - note not defence - is on mass migration, poverty and spreading democracy.

I was starting to worry by now. An election round the corner but no hint of any sort of policy put out there to say how they planned to keep us safe and secure for the next 5 years. So I read Mr Fallon's conference speech again in case I'd missed something. Apparently not.

It seems Mr Fallon is keen to take credit for the delivery of a more agile armed forces with lots of hard working reserves (apparently citizens twice over) who will get a new decoration for 10 years service and for fixing the defence budget which means they can spend £164 billion over the next 10 years. Although spent it on what he doesn't say - people, pay, paper clips, hugely wasteful contracts that don't deliver what we need on time? Your guess is as good as mine. But fear not, all is not lost. Mr Fallon is keen to trumpet 7 new hunter killers for the RN, more new fighters, surveillance aircraft and new transport planes for the RAF and 600 new Scout vehicles for the Army.

Erm, sorry to be a pain Mr Fallon, but weren't they nearly all pretty much squared away before your time? In fact how many of those programmes were squared away whilst 'call me Dave' was still campaigning for his seat in Parliament back in 2001? Given all this Mr Fallon, just what is the plan for Defence? I mean you do have one don't you???? And I mean other than pissing everybody off so they leave and then snatching people from the jaws of despair by employing them on the Defence equivalent of a zero hours contract i.e. You want something for nothing.

After all this, I came to the conclusion that Defence is royally screwed and that to get anywhere in the Armed Forces of tomorrow I realistically need to be a Reservist working in J8 Finance. Only then will I have a voice and a role that might actually mean something.

The storm clouds are gathering, and given the current state of the world I have a horrible feeling that Winston's gathering storm could well look like a light spring breeze by comparison if we're not careful.

Crikey, all this vitriol on FTRS!

Take a look at the numbers in the data at the link in my first post. If you look at "Table 4 - Royal Air Force - Trained and untrained strength of all Regular, Full time and Reserve, Service personnel" you will see that FTRS make up just 790 personnel - 210 RAuxAF and 580 Regular Reserve. 790 personnel are around just 2% of the current strength of the RAF and only 260 of these are the non-deployable Home Commitment (HC) which is less than 1%. Like the B Word I was on 'stag' for the fire strikes with a Chf Tech and the local RAFRLO - all 3 of us FTRS working over the Christmas holidays alongside a whole bunch of guys in Air Cmd and SJC(UK) that were also FTRS. I also led a bunch of guys doing sandbagging in Windsor during the floods. So tell me, how is this really going to "tighten the circle of pain" for you?!! You would have been more than welcome to take my Christmas/New Year 'stag' and then I, and the rest of my "mongrels", could loaf about at home with our families!

May I suggest that if you can't take deployments anymore then fill one of the FTRS(HC) posts that are so very hard to fill, with most being advertised twice over a 8 month period until someone suitable comes along? We are still a voluntary organisation, the last time I looked...:ugh:

LJ

Melchett,

I fear the conservative defence policy is to provide whatever capability it is possible to deliver, given the starting number provided by HM Treasury divided by competing single service arguments and multiplied by the square root of the media campaigning on the issue.

I hope that answers your question.

:D well said LJ:D

From a FTRS (HC) person, who has done numerous dets, courses, etc as a reservist and displays considerable more commitment to my job than a large number of the regulars who I work alongside.........

Probably down to said colleagues having their pensions raped whilst reservists typically will have a 75 windfall...

VR...I'm in a better position to comment on them than you are...and I have never met a bigger bunch of lazy bar stewards in 36 years of service...and I've met a few..

Please let's not let this thread degenerate into a Reserve/FTRS versus full timer slagging contest.

As I have said the elephant in the room for the Treasury and MoD when they mutually high five each other on achieving the 'numbers' is the deficit in military experience, corporate knowledge, often gained after many years loyal (operational) service and some very expensive courses.

This includes all ranks from the starred, down to a Cpl I believe, even lower in some trades where niche skill sets are required.

Yes, FTRS and Reserves are mitigating this experience deficit short term with what appears a cheaper and more flexible option to deliver the same effect (in some cases). However, the clock is ticking for those experienced ones left as they count down their pension or wait for kids to finish their schooling.

But with pensions becoming significantly less of a pull factor, continued erosion of terms and conditions, all combined with extra work load as the loss of physical numbers has not been balanced with a reduction in workload (affecting quality and family life), then we will be left hoping that in time of need that the Reserves and FTRS will deploy because there will be very few genuine, experienced, loyal personnel left.

Where as I admit I am short finals for my pension, so it would be mad for me to leave, and I still have pride in what I do (more so now on a local scale, rather than the old days of when I was proud of everything my uniform stood for).

But I have to agree with snippy and my word there are SOME seriously experienced guys that have just lost the whole ethos, loyalty, pride and their fighting spirit-becoming grey men that do very little but just contribute to the manning stats (SQEP and other qualifications). They might have the qualification, but they actually do the bare minimum and view it as 9-5 as far possible, or try and negotiate a shift pattern that ensures a 40 hour week (and in some cases a lot less). Adding absolutely no value whatsoever in mentoring, leadership or really caring about the organisation/team they work for.

This bunch will eventually go on retirement, but as I have alluded to the next generation of potential experience (the young guys, one or 2 tours in) are already planning their exit strategies as there are absolutely no pull factors to keep them in, with many more push factors, both now and about to occur in the next 5 years.

The Reserves/FTRS will provide the first field dressing for this haemorrhaging wound, but it will not provide the cure, and I am not too sure if it will even bridge the golden hour until it is recognised that a long term (strategic!) fix is required.

I suppose we could always go down the US model and if an individual was warned off for a Det/Op they couldn't PVR/VO, and then 3 weeks before the end of their tour warn them off for another one in 18 months time to handcuff them for as long as the manners needed.

Or recognise that we are losing people after tours, so let's just extend tour lengths and really squeeze the juice out of them and their families before they go.

The manning levers available are endless.

Defeated militarily again.

Geardown: I obviously should have been an accountant but the stats seem to show circa 270 folks leaving every month of which half are PVRs. Snag is only 150 per month are joining. Noting a circa 3 month lag in the stats.

Easy to fix with more intake potentially. Retaining SQEP much harder. Also I should imagine ups and downs in recruiting will cause troughs and peaks (mostly troughs) of SQEP in years to come.

Maroonman4..pretty much a nail/head comment:D

Team of civvies?

Yup, apparently so...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...it-starts-work

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-of-defence--2

Working well, isn't it? Good job that some of these consultants aren't being paid between £1500-£3000 per day, then...allegedly! :cool:

LJ

Levene ref 11a.
The Department should reduce the size of the senior cadre of Defence
and the management levels below it. To enable this, the Department
should review all non-front line military posts from OF5 (Captain / Colonel
/ Group Captain) and civilian posts from Band B (Grade 7), to determine
the need for the post, whether it needs to be civilian or military, and
optimum management structures.

This has clearly not been implemented despite stating The Liability Review complete in Apr 13.

...or unless you simply want to express an opinion, ask a question, comment on another post or anything people do here. No one here is under any requirement to fix the MoD's manning nightmare, but plenty are posting excellent, informative and informed thoughts. Thank you for that.

I think egdg is shouting at me with those six exclamation marks.

Of course retention is critical and it is here where much of the issue lies, especially loosing too many of the wrong people. But people do leave, 10% a year give or take, it's always been thus. So, ensuring you recruit the right quality and quantity of people must happen. The scores for entry have been dropped in the past and that's not good, perhaps that's when egdg joined?

long time lurker, first time poster. for those of you that are no longer serving, are significantly above the "coal face" or are otherwise on the periphery I would like to contribute my two penneth... things have never been so bad morale-wise. and not in the "another weekend sdo" "but I've never really wanted to do the c course" or "shouldn't we get paid more" way they have ever been. the rot has truly set in spurred on in my opinion by widespread contractorisation (and its work to rule offshoots), worsening and lengthening deployments, non-optional fundamental changes to return of service and chronic fear of budgets, risk aversion and political correctness in senior officers. make absolutely no bones about it - with very, very, few exceptions everyone in the jo cadre has considered, if not planned, an exit strategy. in my opinion it is about one full tour away from collapse. the litmus test for me is the number of sqn uncles/pa spiners/3rd & 4th tourists packing up shop with very little notice in the very recent past having been tipped over the edge by things that are, in isolation, minor but are the proverbial straw to the camel's back. when young(ish) fg offs and flt lts see these guys check out via the junta office they start wondering whether they want to be in that position in 20 years time or whether one of the, now numerous, alternatives are a better answer.

Thanks LJ,

Really informative, thank you for the links. As a JHC wokka mate, under Army TLB I found the whole JFC/enabling chapter very interesting, but with regards to this thread then Para 13 - People was worth a read on what this body of wisdom recommended a few years ago. Notably the paragraph copied below on specialist functional areas:

d. Defence should place greater emphasis on recruiting or developing people with the right skills and expertise, particularly in professional or more specialist functional areas.

It is not an ego trip when I genuinely believe that those involved with aviation are professional and specialised, both operators and those required to fly a desk.

At the risk of asking a rhetorical question, the obvious question is why this pretty simple recommendation has not only been ignored in the air environment, but the original issue identified appears to be exasperated?

Selatar,

You miss the point my friend - of course if a VO rate of say less than 15-10% then decision makers will not be that concerned. Even if in professional and specialist areas the VO rate is currently below the manning trigger levels, there appears absolutely no recognition that in the next 5 years the numbers may look absolutely fine, but the experience levels and true definition of SQEP will not. Why should those currently involved in manning worry about the next 5 years as they will be onto their next posting, and as long as they keep day to day business ticking along then not only are they very busy themselves, but also understandable if they don't put their head above the parapets or attempt to quantify exactly what the issue is/will be and more importantly how to resolve long term to avoid future 'boom and bust' manning levels and requirements.

As long as everyone is aware of this risk, then I am sure SQEP matrices and posting requirements, qualifications and experience can all be compromised to ensure a bum in cockpit or at a desk. Not tieing staff posts to aviators is a good example of where the 'E' of SQEP as non aviators is missing 'mitigated' by their Service 'air awareness' or having completed induction training or a specialised course prior to assuming the role.

But the MAA cannot then bleat about its concerns of lack of SQEP or we do experience military failure, procurement and/or airworthiness errors.

No such thing as a free lunch, you don't get something for nothing, you reap what you sow and all the other cliches out there!