|
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 11046601)
Haddon Cave.
To all those that ask why we need two Gp Capts it is a result of the fallout from the Haddon Cave report. Someone has to be accountable nowadays and the structure they fit into is the Duty Holder (DH) construct. The Senior DH is CAS. The Operational DH is the relevant AOC. The Delivery DH is a Gp Capt and is usually the Stn Cdr. In simple terms when risks are identified someone has to be the grown up who is responsible for holding that risk and would be the person in court at any subsequent inquest. They need to prove they have taken all meaningful steps to minimise risks. If the Stn Cdr doesn’t have the authority or budget to minimise a risk it gets pushed up the chain. Tornado Collision Avoidance System is a good example of when an identified risk gets elevated due to budgetary restraints. So, when a Stn Cdr has a requirement to be responsible for the risks associated with operating an aircraft it just isn’t possible (argue all you like but I’ll never agree with you) for a non aircrew person to assume that role. Take Coningsby as an example. Would you really expect an Admin Branch Gp Capt to be the person responsible for the safe delivery of Typhoon Operations? When a new risk is identified would that individual have the knowledge and authority to decide how best to manage that risk and ultimately sit in a court of law to defend themselves? The Admin Branch Gp Capt is absolutely capable of running a station but I will never believe that they could be a suitable DDH. Hence the two Gp Capts when required. I realise it’s not a system that existed in the RAF of yesteryear so some people will struggle with accepting it. However, I happen to think that the Air Safety world and the DH construct (despite the initial resistance of everybody!) is a vast improvement on what came before. BV which is why the DH organisation should have a “senior operator” and a “senior engineer” to provide that SQEP to whomever does hold that risk. |
I am being a devil’s advocate here, but surely the question is not; “Can an admin branch Gp Capt make decisions about flying operations?” - the answer is clearly no. But can a flying branch Gp Capt make decisions about the non flying aspects of running a station , given that the whole point of the rest of the station is to support flying operations ? Probably yes, indeed that is how the RAF has run thus far. So, maybe the agenda here is more Stn Cdr jobs for non aircrew, and thus more opportunities for higher rank thereafter. This can be debated but my personal opinion is that very few non aircrew understand how all aspects of the service come together to deliver air power. Maybe a couple of years as a Stn Cdr alongside an Air Wing Commander will improve that understanding or maybe there will just be a power struggle.
|
The event was worthy of note and there was obviously a lot of faffing about to get all the Aircraft in position. So why did these gentlemen not wear their uniforms and give some gravitas to the proceedings instead of turning up in their work overalls?
|
Now there is a Senior Operator, ISTAR Force Commander, OC ISTAR Air Wing, Stn Cdr, Air Commodore AWC (yes I know it’s another unit) and OC BSW. Great opportunities.
|
Originally Posted by Toadstool
(Post 11046917)
Now we have a Senior Operator, ISTAR Force Commander, OC ISTAR Air Wing, Stn Cdr, Air Commodore AWC (yes I know it’s another unit) and OC BSW. Great opportunities.
|
And who gets what quarter.
In the Civi world you can have an accountable manager who knows squat about engineering but it is his responsibility and might not even be in the same building let alone city.. |
Originally Posted by morton
(Post 11046705)
The event was worthy of note and there was obviously a lot of faffing about to get all the Aircraft in position. So why did these gentlemen not wear their uniforms and give some gravitas to the proceedings instead of turning up in their work overalls?
|
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey
(Post 11046932)
I assume you’re referring to No 14 dress? Or perhaps you’re just proving yourself blunt…?
But ... when it’s Grobag handover time, with airframes in the background, No. 14 Dress (I assume that’s the correct term) may well be appropriate. Possibly better than No. 1 HD in an office shaking hands with cheesy grins towards the camera, with Sqn Silver/Standards displayed in the background briefly before being returned to safe storage. I wish I could think of an intermediate setting. |
I still think they missed a trick on the paint scheme, I realise that the white is there for temperature control et cetera, but with a minor tweak they could have added the lightning flash similar to the VC 10 at the front end as you’ve got the colours there, white grey and blue. And that would’ve made it an RAF scheme as opposed to looking just like a cast off American aircraft.
|
Employ CEOs
Why not look externally for people to run Stations? Half the idiotic decisions made by Gp Capt rank could be avoided by someone with business sense and acumen. An engineer, aircrew or logistics senior rank has no more idea on how to run a Station than an area manager for Tesco or Wilco.. in fact they have more of a proven record than any SO to run a budget and keep things efficient and managed at the correct level.
At times the RAF seem to take management as an experiment for the ****test idea. Note I cannot use the word leadership, because it’s seemingly a conceptual idea so far. |
Just to throw a little grenade into the argument trench of the positives of non-Aircrew running stations - “cos they know what they’re doing, as they’ve been doing it for years”.
The replacement Stn Cdr in the link above is an IntO. How much training does an IntO get over above that of Aircrew? [I’ll give you a clue... none] The other thing that hasn’t been bottomed out. The Stn Cdr is the CO - ie. they (note gender neutral NutLoose - as officers aren’t all “he/him” these days) are the top of the pinnacle for discipline on station. So when Aircrew need sanctioning under QR1027 for failure to get or attain Combat Ready, how is the CO going to do this when it requires Aircrew in the chain to do this (the top of that chain being the CO)? This is the problem with all this change at the moment, it’s so poorly staffed, rapidly rushed in as a so-called “sprint” and mainly comes from the 3-star’s and 4-star’s fag packets. The 2nd and 3rd order effects are just missed... Detail? Bzzzzzzzz! That’s for someone else to sweep up after I’ve done my 2 year stint... |
Originally Posted by popeye107
(Post 11047041)
Why not look externally for people to run Stations? Half the idiotic decisions made by Gp Capt rank could be avoided by someone with business sense and acumen. An engineer, aircrew or logistics senior rank has no more idea on how to run a Station than an area manager for Tesco or Wilco.. in fact they have more of a proven record than any SO to run a budget and keep things efficient and managed at the correct level.
At times the RAF seem to take management as an experiment for the ****test idea. Note I cannot use the word leadership, because it’s seemingly a conceptual idea so far. No Thank You... |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 11047049)
Oh great, outsource it some nameless face brought in from industry for profit? That’s worked really well for things like “Pay as you Starve” or “Defence Housing Executive” hasn’t it. The best thing about using your own people is that they are invested in the problems - it is likely affecting people they have known for years, and so they really care about the outcomes. Some of the best COs and Stn Cdrs I have ever had knew the majority of the people on their station as they had all progressed together over the years. Parachute someone in to manage it will lead to a similar disaster to any of our current outsourced services.
No Thank You... You appear devoted to an organisation that thinks nothing about spending £90,000 on electric scooters. That’s a successful idea, cannot wait for the press to tune into that one. |
I don’t know, in the grand scheme of things £90k is peanuts. Probably an hours flying time in a F35 at full cost. So, you have a bunch of personnel that get an opportunity to have a bit of quirky fun on an electric scooter on the station (as these aren’t allowed on public roads), potentially rubbing off some of the virtues of greener transport, and also see how effective they are.
Or we could all be whiny gits, harrumphing into our bath sheets in our whicker chairs because someone else has got a better deal. Sometimes we need to take a bit of ownership of our problems, be positive, and not wait for someone else from outside to come and save us (hint - they won’t). :cool: |
B word, when I was mentioning He, it was simply because the two people involved are male, I do recognise that their are female senior officers as well and rightly so, it was just I was in the thought realm of the present and future staff.
. So when Aircrew need sanctioning under QR1027 for failure to get or attain Combat Ready, how is the CO going to do this when it requires Aircrew in the chain to do this (the top of that chain being the CO)? This is the problem with all this change at the moment, it’s so poorly staffed, rapidly rushed in as a so-called “sprint” and mainly comes from the 3-star’s and 4-star’s fag packets. The 2nd and 3rd order effects are just missed... Detail? Bzzzzzzzz! That’s for someone else to sweep up after I’ve done my 2 year stint.. |
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 11046601)
Haddon Cave.
To all those that ask why we need two Gp Capts it is a result of the fallout from the Haddon Cave report. Someone has to be accountable nowadays and the structure they fit into is the Duty Holder (DH) construct. The Senior DH is CAS. The Operational DH is the relevant AOC. The Delivery DH is a Gp Capt and is usually the Stn Cdr. |
AtG
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11046688)
the problem with that line of thinking is that the flying types are also accepting responsibility for things they have no SQEP in - infra risks in particular.
which is why the DH organisation should have a “senior operator” and a “senior engineer” to provide that SQEP to whomever does hold that risk. Health and safety at work laws exist in the same way and many senior managers have to take responsibility for things that are beyond their remit. For instance if any employee died at work because a fire exit was blocked, then someone can be prosecuted as a result. The manager/owner/executive in that case will not have been an expert on fire safety but there are many checks and balances to assist them. The world of flying does sit apart from all of those things because of its very nature. Could you really expect a non-flyer to understand enough about the operation of aircraft to articulate themselves in court? BV |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11046983)
I still think they missed a trick on the paint scheme, I realise that the white is there for temperature control et cetera, but with a minor tweak they could have added the lightning flash similar to the VC 10 at the front end as you’ve got the colours there, white grey and blue. And that would’ve made it an RAF scheme as opposed to looking just like a cast off American aircraft.
Originally Posted by popeye107
Why not look externally for people to run Stations?
:hmm: Thereby missing one of the purposes of Command. What would some parachuted-in civvie bring to the party? A complete lack of understanding of the role, purpose, ethos of the military. :ugh:
Originally Posted by Nutloose
Why can’t o/c Ops do that as a Wing Commander and the Staish oversee it, after all the o/c Ops should be of a higher rank than the majority of aircrew on a Sqn, but here is a suggestion, one assumes that these cases are few and far between, why not have your “Group Captain” centralised somewhere covering these cases for the whole of the RAF instead of one on each station.
|
Duty Holders
One other thing to consider is that the further up the chain you can push the responsibility of a duty holder the better in my opinion. I would hate to be the person in the dock after an accident and, luckily, I am never likely to be. Gp Capt seems like a sensible starting point in my mind.
BV |
popeye107
Oh dear Popeye, I think you have just revealed the small mindedness and pettiness that B Word was getting at. £90,000 is peanuts in that it is indeed about the full cost of flying combat air fast jet. Further, it is a tiny proportion of the defence budget of £42Bn. It is roughly 0.000002% of that budget, which I would also call peanuts. As for hitting the press, then it is already there. The Daily Mail and MSN ran it 3 days ago. No massive outcry. The real truth of this is that roughly £1,000 has been spent per scooter for their through life support (including supply, repair, servicing, safety equipment, etc...). It means that a 52-seat shuttle bus is no longer required to shuttle personnel between their living quarters and plans of work. They also now have a faster means of moving around the HAS site independently too - these sites are big and bicycles have been used in the past for similar purposes. Obviously a bunch of eScooters are better for the environment than a big diesel bus that belches all sorts of nasties into the atmosphere too. You seem to stooping to the depths of the politics of envy and mud-slinging seen from Her Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Commons. It’s all a bit pathetic, really, and I enjoyed Penny Maudant calling out Angela Rayner about it yesterday. NutLoose It looks like you misunderstand the powers of a Commanding Officer (CO), that are vastly different to a Officer Commanding (OC), and how there can be only one CO. Have a squint at QRs and then you will understand how powers of discipline works and that ‘job sharing’ command for discipline is not the way to do business. I agree with B Word’s points, in that often the ‘bright ideas club’ fail to understand the nuances of those bright ideas and we go from bad to worse in the name of ‘improvement’. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.