RAF C130 Increase in Crews
 

Interesting article in Janes that links the increase in RAF C130 crews to a recent accident and overstretch in the force. https://www.janes.com/article/93817/...n-c-130j-crews

UK Royal Air Force (RAF) chiefs have approved an uplift of aircrew and supporting engineering resources for their C-130J Hercules tactical airlift fleet in response to an accident report into the loss of an aircraft in the Middle East in August 2017, which highlighted personnel shortfalls as a factor in the incident.

In-year funding to increase C-130J crews from 20 to 28 was approved by RAF Air Command on 26 September 2019, according to a UK Freedom of Information (FOI) release sent to Jane's by the command's secretariat at RAF High Wycombe on 20 January.

Funding to sustain the additional crews to the C-130Js' out-of-service date of 2035 was approved by Air Command on 23 October 2019, according to the FOI response.

"The funding for both [items] came on line immediately on implementation," said the Air Command Secretariat, which added that both decisions "were approved by Air Command Director of Resources within the overall Air Command delegated budget".

So, am I correct in thinking that this is a 40% increase in the crew/task ratio? If not, what is the task/crewing effect in real terms? It makes me laugh to remember the old crewing ratios and the total disregard of unit/individual work levels by Group. No effort ever made to manage crew workload until we had crews maxed-out on flying hours. The cure? "You are to avoid crews reaching GASO max flying hours by very careful manipulation of individuals tasking to keep as many crews as necessary at just below the rolling maximum- to avoid wasteful rest periods"
Effect? Many crew constantly bubbling just-under the max hours limits but none allowed to trip over into the mandatory rest period. Remember, Leave could be banned/denied but, mandatory rest could not be! :mad:

OAP

Rest periods only seem wasteful until a tired person writes off an aircraft...

Well done to whoever pushed for this.

There was a large gap between the accident and implementation. Presumably, in that period, if not before, the effect of being short-handed was recorded as a risk.

Are DE&S project teams still allowed (required?) to step in and fund, temporarily, such posts as risk mitgation, pending (in this case) Air Command approval?