Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Retention.....

Trending This Week
View More Trending
3wheeledtechie said:
I think its the constant feeling than no one is listening, or that the genuine gripes are being watered down by nest feathering, career seeking middle management by the time they get to the ivory towers. I for one never finished filling in one of them Continuous attitude surveys during my time in. I got halfway, got bored, and decided it was pointless as it wouldn't have any impact anyway.

Believe me if you really want to see a reaction, get your wife or partner (assuming their not in the RAF) to write directly to someone in a position of power. CAS maybe? Point is the wife isn't in the air force (there are some that like to think they are their husband's rank however) and is under no obligation to respect the chain of command to get their concerns, on the impact of policy on their family or the serviceman they're married to, addressed. Be warned it could be a risky strategy, but if the other option is PVR, nowt to lose I say.

I agree with Monty about the artificer scheme, however with all the techies vying to get onto it, it would be oversubscribed. In fact the RAF used to have something similar where they selected a number of Cpls every year to do an HNC at Cosford. The crime of this scheme, was that they poached virtually all these people for engineering commissions.

I think that in conjunction they should restore the status of WOs, so it really is the pinnacle of a non-commissioned career, to the point where the WO is the second most important person on the Sqn.
Click to expand...

Quite so, there are only two ranks I've ever wanted to be in the RAF, one is SAC(T), and the other is WO!!! :PDT_Xtremez_14:
 
3wheeledtechie said:
I think that in conjunction they should restore the status of WOs, so it really is the pinnacle of a non-commissioned career, to the point where the WO is the second most important person on the Sqn.
Click to expand...

So who is the most important person on a Sqn?
 
MontyPlumbs said:
Well I can't speak for the entire air force, but most of the people on the resettlement brief I attended were 5-7 year SACs from all trades (not actually that many from JFH!).

I've also found one of the reasons for PVR'ing amongst juniors is frustration at NOT going OOA (people not going away after being in 8 years - through no fault of their own) I might add.

I think amongst a lot of the younger service personnel, there seems to be a definite feeling we are being let down by the service and that there is more out there in the real world.

This is just my opinion, based on what I've seen thus far and the people I've spoken to.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is the case on 3 Sqn (Typhoon).
 
MontyPlumbs said:
No to be honest, it's not really about the money, I feel adequately renumerated at my current salary and rank. A few ideas spring to mind...



2) Some sort of scheme by which accelerated promotion is available to the best and the brightest (and by this I mean the ones who don't want a Commission). I am, of course, talking about an Artificer scheme for techies (but maybe a similar "fast track" for other trades"). Okay, so you will have earned a "plastic" SNCO rank, but the as an individual you will feel like you have achieved something and been recognised for your skills, attitude and experiences, in short feel "valued".


That's the best way I can explain it I think.
Click to expand...

NO NO NO!! That is why the Harrier force is up sh@t creek, The ability to pass a few exams does not make you a great engineer, just look at the kindergarten that is running around Cott/Witt with P.O and C.P.O. rank on. Sorry to say it but the large amount of clueless F@@ks that are in positions of SNCO's has ruined the Harrier Force.
 
ady eflog said:
NO NO NO!! That is why the Harrier force is up sh@t creek, The ability to pass a few exams does not make you a great engineer, just look at the kindergarten that is running around Cott/Witt with P.O and C.P.O. rank on. Sorry to say it but the large amount of clueless F@@ks that are in positions of SNCO's has ruined the Harrier Force.
Click to expand...

There is a problem when they are placed in situations when they haven't got the experience to cope, but how does one learn if not exposed to said experiences?

Should we all stagnate at SAC and CPL level for years just because there is a mentality that we haven't been in long enough to be a SNCO?

I've met many RN Tiffs, some were excellent, quick learners, natural leaders and generally good engineering professionals, others were absolute rubbish.

On the flip side, I've met RAF SNCOs with 20+ years experience, some were excellent and natural leaders, others were absolute rubbish as well.

Do you see the pattern? Doing a job for years does not neccessarily always make you a better tradesman or woman.

You can't blame the RN for all of JFHs current ills. Granted, there have been cases when a Tiff PO/CPO are waaaay out of their depth, but then again, have you never seen an RAF SNCO who's out of his/her depth as well, even with all of the experience?
 
Unfortunatly most RAF SNCO's have got some time in and have seen how it should/should not be done. I have'nt seen many 20 odd years old RAF chiefs lately have you?

Getting back on track I am a young Sgt, been promoted 3 years and have another 4 to 22 years. I love the RAF and have signed on for LOS 30 But what apart from my pension is stopping me from leaving if I am lucky enough to get promoted by 22yrs? A lump sum for sticking with it from 22 to 30 would keep me after all I am due my pension at 22yrs. They could give you a lump equivalent to your pension and be no worse off, They owe you it anyway if you PVR?
 
Webbo said:
So who is the most important person on a Sqn?
Click to expand...

Well if you don't know, clearly you need to get some time in on a proper flying sqn.

NO NO NO!! That is why the Harrier force is up sh@t creek, The ability to pass a few exams does not make you a great engineer, just look at the kindergarten that is running around Cott/Witt with P.O and C.P.O. rank on. Sorry to say it but the large amount of clueless F@@ks that are in positions of SNCO's has ruined the Harrier Force.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, you have to run any artificer scheme the right way. That I would suggest is to select from Cpls with a minimum 3 years in rank, say the training takes 18 months, promotion on successful completion, then accelerated promoted to Chief and beyond with a sanity checks at each rank that the individual is fit. Personally I think they should probably be thrown back in the pot to compete for promotion to WO.
 
Wouldn't that create a surplus of FSs? Once upon a time apprentices got time promotion to Chief. I think it was phased out because when promotion was a gimme all you got was a fist full of lazy wok smugglers.

Also, let's not forget that retention issues are affecting all trades, not just TG1&2.
 
To a certain extent yes, but the problem is how to retain experience, and if you get to FS at roughly the 22yr point its a much more attractive proposition to stay on to LOS30. Tiffys would not necessarily need to be employed in the same way as normal engineers of the same rank. Dare I suggest it might be perfectly normal for a Tiffy C/T or FS to get his overalls on, whether it be in a specialist role such as NDT, or to lead hit teams to tackle dead jets with deep snags.

The key failure in the apo scheme was selecting them on entry IMO. If tiffys were selected as I suggest, on average they would have completed a minimum of about 7 or 8 years service. My view is this is sufficient time to find out if they have the aptitude and for the service to recognise talent. If they've already stayed in that long, correctly incentivised by such a scheme, hopefully the service will retain the very best engineers, and will be able to offer its talented engineers a scheme that competes with the army and navy versions.
 
Last edited:
3wheeledtechie said:
To a certain extent yes, but the problem is how to retain experience, and if you get to FS at roughly the 22yr point its a much more attractive proposition to stay on to LOS30. Tiffys would not necessarily need to be employed in the same way as normal engineers of the same rank. Dare I suggest it might be perfectly normal for a Tiffy C/T or FS to get his overalls on, whether it be in a specialist role such as NDT, or to lead hit teams to tackle dead jets with deep snags.

The key failure in the apo scheme was selecting them on entry IMO. If tiffys were selected as I suggest, on average they would have completed a minimum of about 7 or 8 years service. My view is this is sufficient time to find out if they have the aptitude and for the service to recognise talent. If they've already stayed in that long, correctly incentivised by such a scheme, hopefully the service will retain the very best engineers, and will be able to offer its talented engineers a scheme that competes with the army and navy versions.
Click to expand...

OK, I like where this is going but there are a few THINGS and some STUFF (just for you GT!) that need to be thought about.

Your scheme would effectively create a 2-tier engineering force. What would be the effect on morale for those Cpls not selected for tiffy training, particularly if they've stayed in that long only because they hoped to be selected? How do we deal with that? Will your tiffy Chief be any more than an overpaid Cpl? Could this scheme be adapted for non-engineers? If not, how do we address the same retention issues for those trades?

It's not impossible, and I can see this idea developing along similar lines to the TG4 career structure. I don't know how successful that is viewed within their trade.
 
more ranks?

more ranks?

True Blue Jack said:
It's not impossible, and I can see this idea developing along similar lines to the TG4 career structure. I don't know how successful that is viewed within their trade.
Click to expand...

Depends what day of the week it is to which structure, if any, we have.

In the olden days the techie trades had a longer lifespan going through the extra ranks that we had, hence why the TECHIE pay was partly justified as you could get to FS in another trade faster 3 steps than a techie 5 steps. There was less of the dead mans shoes than the rest of the trades seemed to have.

If we had extra ranks then we would all be happy cos we would all be promoted every few years and we would all stay in, not just the charity chasers!
 
True Blue Jack said:
Your scheme would effectively create a 2-tier engineering force. What would be the effect on morale for those Cpls not selected for tiffy training, particularly if they've stayed in that long only because they hoped to be selected? How do we deal with that? Will your tiffy Chief be any more than an overpaid Cpl? Could this scheme be adapted for non-engineers? If not, how do we address the same retention issues for those trades?

It's not impossible, and I can see this idea developing along similar lines to the TG4 career structure. I don't know how successful that is viewed within their trade.
Click to expand...

No, an artificer scheme is for engineers. TBH I have no interest in the non technical trades. However no reason why it should be limited to TG 1 & 2, why not have a ground engineering or telecomms eng version. There can only be an scheme for advanced promotion where there is first a need for a major leap in technical skills in a certain field, and secondly which requires real extra effort on the part of the individuals undertaking training to fulfill that need, over and above normal courses, such as Q courses. I see no such requirement in majority of shiny trades, but I could be wrong.

Currently GE or crew chief training IMO requires such an effort, and I think that seasoned Cpls should be allowed onto these courses and promoted (subject to passing IMLC later) on successful completion. Would probably lead to better return of service from them, as they'd have more years left to serve.

As for morale, its far better than the old apo or DE schemes as everyone has equal chance to compete for it. Some people may decide they don't need the extra hassle, and opt not to be considered, exactly as they do currently in the other 2 services.

As far as TG4 goes, roughly half or less wouldn't think it'd gone that well, I'd wager...:PDT_Xtremez_31:
 
3wheeledtechie said:
I see no such requirement in majority of shiny trades, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be called an artificer scheme for non-techies, but some form of accelerated promotion for the brightest could be worth thinking about. I'm still not sure how it would work in practice - a good engineer/chef/scribbly does not necessarily make a good leader or manager.

Perhaps another way to look at this would be to introduce a scheme similar to the professional aviator scheme the growbags have. That way, you could opt to remain a liney for your whole career, you wouldn't get promoted but you would continue to get pay increments.

The requirement for something to be done is more urgent in the 'shiny' trades than in the techie world. I realise you have retention problems as well but you are not as critically undermanned as some others (Gnr, Fftr, Pers Admin).
 
3wheeledtechie said:
No, an artificer scheme is for engineers. TBH I have no interest in the non technical trades. However no reason why it should be limited to TG 1 & 2, why not have a ground engineering or telecomms eng version. There can only be an scheme for advanced promotion where there is first a need for a major leap in technical skills in a certain field, and secondly which requires real extra effort on the part of the individuals undertaking training to fulfill that need, over and above normal courses, such as Q courses. I see no such requirement in majority of shiny trades, but I could be wrong.

Currently GE or crew chief training IMO requires such an effort, and I think that seasoned Cpls should be allowed onto these courses and promoted (subject to passing IMLC later) on successful completion. Would probably lead to better return of service from them, as they'd have more years left to serve.

As for morale, its far better than the old apo or DE schemes as everyone has equal chance to compete for it. Some people may decide they don't need the extra hassle, and opt not to be considered, exactly as they do currently in the other 2 services.

As far as TG4 goes, roughly half or less wouldn't think it'd gone that well, I'd wager...:PDT_Xtremez_31:
Click to expand...

I think that would be a safe bet:PDT_Xtremez_15:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top