The Night Mail

[polybear]

After reading some of the above posts (particularly those by @TheQ) there doesn't seem to be too much incentive to join the Armed Forces to this Bear, apart from perhaps getting to play with some nice kit.

 

[Happy Hippo]

I have a friend who is a Captain on an A320.  He was saying that these days most pilots joining the airline will already hold a civil commercial pilot's licence, with a multi engine rating, (for civilians, probably gained on light twins). They also need to have passed the ATPL.  I believe there are slightly different requirements for ex military pilots regarding the conversion of their military licences into civilian equivalents. 

 

Some may recall that the current Prince of Wales worked as an air ambulance pilot for a period of time after leaving the RAF. Despite his experience with SAR flights, he was still required to pass the relevant civilian licences in order to fly commercially.

 

It probably made him the most qualified pilot in the Royal family.  Certainly more so that his younger sibling.

[TheQ]

27 minutes ago, polybear said:

After reading some of the above posts (particularly those by @TheQ) there doesn't seem to be too much incentive to join the Armed Forces to this Bear, apart from perhaps getting to play with some nice kit.

 

There have been many manpower cuts since I left, yet they still can't fill all the posts.

The remaining personnel now are overloaded with work, as all the posts that have been civilianised means there are less personal to do secondary duties, such as gate guard, orderly Cpl, Sgt OC.

When it comes to defending the places, there's no one left after those needed for the main work.

We only ever had one Regiment Sgt on a radar station, no personel to assist in defending.

 

The only benefit was for my trade was very good electronics training, but I can see that going as everyone not on the flight line is now a civilian, the flight line radar personal are basically box changers.

 

RAF Neatishead when I was stationed they had,

About 200 technicians and officers electronics radar,

About 30 technicians and officers comms,

About 30 technicians and officers mechanical,

About 200 scopies and officers, operations,

Then add motor transport, personnel, stores, catering .

So close on 600 personnel..

 

Today the defence of your nation is in the hands of 3 civilians at Neatishead,  the radar tracks are sent elsewhere , and the total number of personnel in that is tiny.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TheQ

[Northmoor]

42 minutes ago, TheQ said:

There have been many manpower cuts since I left, yet they still can't fill all the posts.

The remaining personnel now are overloaded with work, as all the posts that have been civilianised means there are less personal to do secondary duties, such as gate guard, orderly Cpl, Sgt OC.

When it comes to defending the places, there's no one left after those needed for the main work.

We only ever had one Regiment Sgt on a radar station, no personel to assist in defending.

 

The only benefit was for my trade was very good electronics training, but I can see that going as everyone not on the flight line is now a civilian, the flight line radar personal are basically box changers.

 

RAF Neatishead when I was stationed they had,

About 200 technicians and officers electronics radar,

About 30 technicians and officers comms,

About 30 technicians and officers mechanical,

About 200 scopies and officers, operations,

Then add motor transport, personnel, stores, catering .

So close on 600 personnel..

 

Today the defence of your nation is in the hands of 3 civilians at Neatishead,  the radar tracks are sent elsewhere , and the total number of personnel in that is tiny.

You do have to wonder if Neatishead actually ever needed the former numbers?  However many trades have certainly shrunk; I think it was HMS Sultan where I passed through a machine shop with something like 30 milling machines, but they only used 3-4 at one end.

 

As for box-changers, over 20 years ago I was regularly on RN ships where the junior rates didn't know what was inside some electrical or hydraulic control box.  They weren't allowed to open them because the equipment was contractor-maintained and opening them voided the warranty.  Never mind that when they're being shot at and the ship isn't performing as intended, the crew won't know why, so long as BAe Systems are happy, eh Minister?

[Willie Whizz]

Never mind, at least the taxes we pay (under whatever flavour of government) go to fund a wonderfully high standard of healthcare, care for the elderly, state education, transportation infrastructure, social housing, overseas aid to ‘developing countries’ like China, and so on and so forth instead. 

 

Er … oh … mmm. 

[pH]

1 hour ago, Happy Hippo said:

I believe there are slightly different requirements for ex military pilots regarding the conversion of their military licences into civilian equivalents. 

 

Some may recall that the current Prince of Wales worked as an air ambulance pilot for a period of time after leaving the RAF. Despite his experience with SAR flights, he was still required to pass the relevant civilian licences in order to fly commercially.

I know an ex-Royal Navy helicopter pilot who finished a 16 year commission about the year 2000. He said his flying time was not recognized for the purposes of a civilian licence - he would have had to take and pass a civilian licence course. At that time, the cost of such a course was of the order of twenty thousand GBP, which he could not afford.

[Dave Hunt]

When I started flying training I was issued with a pilot’s watch. When I left after just short of 40 years service I had to give it back.

 

Dave

[newbryford]

1 minute ago, Dave Hunt said:

When I started flying training I was issued with a pilot’s watch. When I left after just short of 40 years service I had to give it back.

 

Dave

 

We're heading to "Four Yorkshireman" territory.................

😀

[Dave Hunt]

Sadly where the services are concerned there is a great deal of scope for four Yorkshiremen. 

 

Dave

[Northmoor]

1 minute ago, Dave Hunt said:

When I started flying training I was issued with a pilot’s watch. When I left after just short of 40 years service I had to give it back.

 

Dave

Now there's an example of truly pointless bureaucracy, the reasons for which are long forgotten.  Was a new recruit seriously going to wear your 40 year old watch?  It clearly had no further use so could have been written off as a consumable associated with end of service.

 

As described in many posts above, there are many examples of servicemen and women being treated shabbily, but there are also many examples of things done for no reason other than, "They've always been done that way".  To be honest, it's not as some believe, a private/public sector argument, it is a function of very large organisations in which waste is easily lost in the day-to-day noise.  I've worked in private sector companies that simply reassigned (quite senior) people who added no value, to projects, so that they were no longer seen as an overhead.

[TheQ]

57 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

You do have to wonder if Neatishead actually ever needed the former numbers?  However many trades have certainly shrunk; I think it was HMS Sultan where I passed through a machine shop with something like 30 milling machines, but they only used 3-4 at one end.

 

As for box-changers, over 20 years ago I was regularly on RN ships where the junior rates didn't know what was inside some electrical or hydraulic control box.  They weren't allowed to open them because the equipment was contractor-maintained and opening them voided the warranty.  Never mind that when they're being shot at and the ship isn't performing as intended, the crew won't know why, so long as BAe Systems are happy, eh Minister?

The radar station did need those numbers, we had 9 radars *** to look after, and were 24 hours 365/6 day manned. So divide those numbers by 4 shifts, plus a fifth  for filling in when people are on leave,  courses etc then the numbers aren't so big.

Now they have two, the tps77 and it's IFF. So you should have about a dozen personal to be 24 hour manned,  not 3 Monday to Friday 8 till 5.

 

I can accept things like personel going, we had to walk around getting signatures and it was all paperwork, now it's all done on computer.

Catering no, that should still be there,  civilian contractors are just there to make profits . Modern radars are mobile, the civilian contractors won't be going out in the field when the balloon goes up...

 

Operators again could be cut down as the radar computers now do a lot of the work, but not as many as they have and having all the operations done on one site? That's just an easy target. 

Stores , etc you need less because the equipment is more reliable and just 2 radars not 9.

 

 

*** Type 84, Type 85, 3* HF 200, 3* SSR 750 and another radar at Weybourne I just can't remember the model of.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TheQ

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, pH said:

I know an ex-Royal Navy helicopter pilot who finished a 16 year commission about the year 2000. He said his flying time was not recognized for the purposes of a civilian licence - he would have had to take and pass a civilian licence course. At that time, the cost of such a course was of the order of twenty thousand GBP, which he could not afford.

A former test pilot  and QFI friend of Dave and myself tried to get a civilian licence and described the CAA as the Flying Prevention Branch.  He gave up in the end

 

Jamie

[polybear]

4 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

Some may recall that the current Prince of Wales worked as an air ambulance pilot for a period of time after leaving the RAF. Despite his experience with SAR flights, he was still required to pass the relevant civilian licences in order to fly commercially.

 

It probably made him the most qualified pilot in the Royal family.  Certainly more so that his younger sibling.

 

Not to mention Daddy....

 

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

You do have to wonder if Neatishead actually ever needed the former numbers?  However many trades have certainly shrunk; I think it was HMS Sultan where I passed through a machine shop with something like 30 milling machines, but they only used 3-4 at one end.

 

The last time I was at Sultan** (mid 2017 IIRC) there was mention that a large wedge of the place was likely to become a housing estate.

 

**Bear had the job of assembling kit to become a part of the Gate Guard (a Lynx Mk. 8).

 

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

As for box-changers, over 20 years ago I was regularly on RN ships where the junior rates didn't know what was inside some electrical or hydraulic control box.  They weren't allowed to open them because the equipment was contractor-maintained and opening them voided the warranty.  Never mind that when they're being shot at and the ship isn't performing as intended, the crew won't know why, so long as BAe Systems are happy, eh Minister?

 

A crazy situation - when the kit packs up in the middle of a war then they'll be right up sh1t street.  As a minimum some of the crew should be trained by the Contractor to become "authorised maintainers" in the event of failure.

As for Contractors maintaining kit - if the general public had the remotest Scooby just how much is being charged there'd be uproar.

[Happy Hippo]

I am surprised at this seeming refusal for military hours not to be recognised by the CAA, especially the prices for conversion that have been quoted.

 

A fast jet to Commercial pilot course is listed here:

 

https://acsflighttraining.co.uk/training/military-licence-conversion

 

Also I picked this up  on the PPrune website and I believe it's a copy of an official document and have copied it here for reference.  The comment in the thread is dated back in  July 2002 but the document would appear to contradict the notion that military hours are not admissible when applying for a civilian licence.

 

RECOGNITION OF MILITARY AIRCRAFT TAXYING TIME IN CIVILIAN AVIATION.

My post has amongst its duties the liaison task with the CAA on matters concerning flight crew licensing. Over the last year I have been in correspondence with the CAA trying to gain recognition of taxying time on military sorties.

The normal practice in civilian aviation for recording flying hours is for flight times to include taxying time, and the CAA recognises this total time. Unfortunately, for the military pilot, the MOD only maintains a record of airborne time - these times being inextricably linked with service engineering procedures. The CAA has for many years recognised military flying experience, and they have considered military flying hours to be on a par with those gained in civilian flying. As such. the CAA will accept all the hours in a RAF Flying Log Book when a military pilot applies for a civilian Flight Crew Licence.* Furthermore, the CAA has stated that they would recognise military taxying times if they were recorded accurately, either separately or within the totals of a military log book. While I'm sure that any squadron commander would have been willing to sign for the accurate recording of taxying time in military log books, either separately or as an adjusted total inserted into the spare columns within the log book, few, if any, military pilots have recorded taxying times.

As the average sortie length of military aircraft is under one hour, the percentage increase of including taxying time would undoubtedly be quite large and could be most useful when either trying to gain licences or applying for command within a civilian airline. Many ex - military pilots have approached the CAA for recognition of military taxying time, requesting an allowance when applying for licences. The CAA have always turned down these frequent requests on the grounds that they will only recognise authenticated totals. Understandably, they do not have the time to assess what military taxy times should be and to allocate such an allowance for each sortie. To get around this problem, I have recently received requests from some of our retired pilots that their log books are signed to include taxying time totals. To add an accurate retrospective taxying time total at the end of a service career is very difficult; however, the RAF pilot sponsor within the MOD has agreed that a minimum taxying time should be recognised. While the overall average is likely to be much higher, the MOD could only guarantee that this minimum taxying time would have taken place during each sortie. These minimum taxying time would vary within the aircraft groupings and the suggested allowances are set out below:

Fixed Wing Training Aircraft: 10 mins
Fast Jets: 10 mins
Multi Engine Transport Aircraft: 15 mins
Display Flying 5 mins
Wheeled helicopter - Airfield Operations: 5 Mins
- Field Operations: none
Non Wheeled Helicopters none
Aircraft Carrier Operations none

It has now been agreed that all pilots leaving the service could, if they so wished, have a certificate signed by his/her last Squadron Commander. this certificate could then be inserted into Section 6 of FAF Form 414 - PILOTS FLYING LOG BOOK. While this recognition of taxying time is unlikely to be necessary when applying for licences, it could be of benefit when being assessed for company seniority or when applying for command in those airlines that operate a minimum flying hour restriction.

I have looked into the legal aspects of the above proposal and have been advised that so long as the 'notional' and approximate nature of these taxying times is not concealed, and that there is no representation that they are actual times, there should be no legal obstacle. Furthermore, I have recently written to British Airways, British Midland Airways, Excalibur Airways, Virgin Atlantci Airways, Airtours and Monarch Airlines Ltd asking their opinion, and all have no difficulty in accepting an adjusted flying total that includes taxying time for military sorties.

I am not, as yet, sure that the CAA will accept such a notional formula, or indeed whether they need to. If an airline was prepared to recognise in part of their company policy, this method of enhancing military flying hour totals when assessing seniority or offering commands to the ex-military pilot, it would probably be no concern for the CAA. That said, having now received the civilian sector's approval of this proposal it will undoubtedly add weight to the argument when approaching the CAA.

While CAA recognition has yet to be gained, you may wish to have the enclosed certificate endorsed before you leave the service. I hope this MOD recognition of taxi time will be of use to you if you pursue a new career in civilian aviation.

Signed xxxxxxxxxx
Squadron Leader
for Group Captain Training Policy

Enclosed:

1. Taxy Time Certificate.


Summary for .........................................................
(...................) to (........................)

Date:
Sig:
Appointment:


AC Type Sorties flown Taxi allowance TOTAL
............. ..................... ...................... ..........
............. .................... ...................... ............
............. .................... ..................... ............
............. .................... ..................... ............
GRAND TOTAL .................... ..................... ............
____________________________________________________
 *Not the originator's bold/underlining.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Happy Hippo

[iL Dottore]

Why is it that I get the impression that if the Army, Navy, RAF, Police, NHS etc. manage to function (barely in some instances) it’s NOT because of the relevant Ministry but despite the relevant ministries…

 

One really wonders where the money goes. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that for ever £ spent on the front line, ££££ is spent on the ministries/administration areas. 
 

There seems to be an awful lot of anecdotal evidence showing that government - at whatever level - and ministries are neither efficient, effective or wise in spending public money..

 

In reading some of the anecdotes posted on RMWeb, one sometimes wishes that AI could be put in place to replace humans in the <Department of [fill in the blank]>  I suspect they would do no worse, and probably do better, than humans (and wouldn’t leave top secret & sensitive documents on the bus/tube/train, either…)

[jamie92208]

It's very difficult for people outside parts of the public sector to understand the processes and eve ore so for those at the interface between the service and the Whitehall Mi is try.  The latter are always do I atednby the Treasury and often cannot understand that many services need tbe kept goi g just in case.  Examples would be the vetinary service during a big Foot and Mouth outbreak. , the amphibious warfare cadre in the Royal Marines, or trained casualty bureau personnel in a police force.  They may not get used more than once in 30 years but they are vital when the fertiliser hits the rotating object.  All those three examples that I've given were under threat of abandonment when the fan started up.  Mike Clapp's book about the Falklands war is very illuminating.  I once had a long conversation with a recently retired vet during a model railway sow and I can't remember when a casualty bereau was last excersised.  Most of the bods in the ministries have no idea. 

 

As to the personnel  needed to keep a 24/7 operation going I agree with Q's analysis except that we used to work on a ratio of 5.5  : 1 to allow for sickness, training and abstractions for major enquiries court etc.  Thus to keep say 24 officers on Patrol in Pontefract Division needed 2 help desk staff 3 patrol sgts, 1 at each station, a custody Sgt plus gaoler, an Inspector and numerous specialist staff such as comms people firearms etc.  Multiply that by 5.5 and the costs get quite high.  I had control of about 5%.%

 

Jamie

 

 

[The Johnster]

1 hour ago, iL Dottore said:

 

There seems to be an awful lot of anecdotal evidence showing that government - at whatever level - and ministries are neither efficient, effective or wise in spending public money.

 

I suspect this is true of any large adminsistration; they become inefficient beauracracies.  A squiz at the writings of that 17th century diarist bloke regarding naval expenditure suggests that this is not a new problem, and the size of the admin and government part of the operation was a lot smaller then.  Large industrial and commercial concerns suffer in the same way, but the problem is worsened by being subject to the profit motive, the need to keep the investors off their backs (I suppose this can be regarded as equate to keeping the electorate off the government's back, but of course only applies to Parliament, not the Civil Service. 

 

We live in a complex society in which it is difficult to fairly apportion resources, responsibility and accountability accurately or efficiently, a price we pay for the benefits of moving away from hunter-gatherer economies.  We can't even devise a socio-economic system that can fairely and equably distribute wealth, and the most efficient way of creating it, capitalism, is highly wasteful as it depends on competition, which always creates more losers than winners...  It might be that it could be better done by AI, but then nobody'd be accountable at all, nobody human anyway!   Of course, AI, once established in all countries, would soon agree with each other/it's collective global self that defence spending is pointless waste and spend the resources differently; humanity can't afford wars, which anyone with an ounce of common sense has been saying for many centuries...

 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by The Johnster

[monkeysarefun]

2 hours ago, polybear said:

 

 

As for Contractors maintaining kit - if the general public had the remotest Scooby just how much is being charged there'd be uproar.

As a defence contractor into my 26th year of a 6 month contract and with a 2.5 yr extension granted last week,  just shut up, ok!?!!!??!

[newbryford]

1 minute ago, monkeysarefun said:

As a defence contractor into my 26th year of a 6 month contract and with a 2.5 yr extension granted last week,  just shut up, ok!?!!!??!

 

Are you building a time machine?

[monkeysarefun]

3 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Are you building a time machine?

Didn't you ask the same question in 2034?

[newbryford]

5 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Didn't you ask the same question in 2034?

 

No - I asked it at 1546

(BST)..

Edited June 1, 2023 by newbryford

[Happy Hippo]

We had a somewhat shortened Trayne Klubb this morning as Gordon had to go and stock up at the butchers.

 

However, he managed to get on with sorting out the packing and ballasting at the end of the scenic sections, whilst I building the new enlarged facia for the control panel.

 

We also started on the  bedding in process for various buildings to avoid the dreaded black line.

 

I now have to add a water tower base to the growing list of building bases to be made up from the foam sheet.

 

Back on the retaining wall scribing this evening.  No peace for the wicked!

 

 

 

[polybear]

 

3 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

One really wonders where the money goes. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that for ever £ spent on the front line, ££££ is spent on the ministries/administration areas. 

 

Let's see now.....

A bag of 100 13A Domestic Mains Fuses?**  Six Hundred Quid to you, Sir (and that was in the mid-90's).

**Yes, just like wot you'd buy in Woolies - if they still existed...

 

or.....

A Canvas Haversack** for storing and carrying cables.  Cost?  £1600...in the late 1980's....

That's without the cables (the expensive bits) by the way.

** Made from three pieces of canvas sewn together in the simplest way possible, with a 1" webbing shoulder strap and two 1" webbing securing straps.  Oh yes, and a part number stencilled on the front.

[PMP]

On 27/05/2023 at 20:25, SM42 said:

 

You seem to misuderstand my point about the income stream.

 

 

I've had a quick  read of the Airport Act section 63 and 64 and it states byelaws don't cover the access roads. It states they are covered by the road traffic acts as are most areas the public has vehicular access to

 

The airport parking partner, doesn't care about the airside operations that are mainly covered by the bye laws.

The public side is far more lucrative  

 

If they really didn't want you to stop on the access roads to collect or drop off then why use double yellow lines?

Road markings which any competent motorist knows means no parking,

but

you can board and alight passengers, even leave the vehicle to assist a vulnerable or mobility impaired passenger.  

You can load goods providing there are no loading restrictions and blue badge holders, in the absence of a loading restriction can park for up to three hours

 

All that is allowed under section  63 / 64 and arguably Luton's byelaws . ( section 1.5a) as it is permissible under road traffic laws

 

The parking operator says no stopping, putting up signs you need to stop to read and uses the byelaws as a threat to get money out of those acting lawfully as indicated by the road markings ( legally recognised signs)  

 

If they did prosecute the byelaws, they get nothing. The Crown gets it, so no profit for the parking operator.

 

Amazingly when the byelaw threat ( which you could argue is an offer to ignore an alleged criminal offence in exchange for cash )  doesn't work, it suddenly becomes a contractual issue. 

Instead of 6 months to take action, they now have 6 years

 

The airport operator  probably has little to do with the whole process. 

 

I agree, anyone who leaves a vehicle in a security sensitive area, or doesn't move on when asked by an airport official or police is asking for trouble and deserve everything they get.

If they don't want you to stop, use red lines, not yellow and sign it accordingly. 

 

They could even make the proper pick up areas more attractive so no-one feels the need to avoid paying a ridiculous amount for 10 minutes parking.  Even provide an area not directly outside the terminal but say a short ( maybe  covered ) walk away to get the traffic away from the terminal environs.

Luton in this respect is pretty good, if a little pricey

 

To be honest, I quite like Luton Airport. It has what I consider a very mature attitude to those who bring income ( passengers) its way, which is more than can be said for  some other airports.

It's one reason  I'm prepared to drive there rather than use my nearest 

 

Long may it continue at Luton and let them not race to the bottom. 

 

I've highlighted the most relevant part here. The airport operator is key in the whole process, I don't know why you're referencing parking partners, thats a complete red herring, they do not in my experience have anything to do with the set down/drop off or the control of vehicles within the by-law areas. Parking partners deal with what ever section of car parking they've got a commercial agreement to do. The control of the terminal roads and immediate environs in my professional experience (20+ Yrs) of airport operations are normally a cross over between airport security, airport operations and airport car parking team, emphasis on airport not any sub contractor. Their remit is to ensure the safe and efficient working of the vehicle access both airside and landside and by-laws are part of that toolset. Don't forget emergency access is always required and clear paths need to be maintained, another key reason for the enforcements.

 

No one has mentioned not being able to drop off or pick up in designated areas, what you can't do is park or leave vehicles unattended, they will (in my experience) be removed very quickly. Most airports do have red routes and have done for a good few years, Luton being one of them and OTTOMH BHX, EMA, HUJ, LPL, LGW LTN GLA LBA LHR STN, BRS,  all have them, so there's no excuse whatsoever. The reason for charging for those immediate terminal drop off areas is efficiency, environmental and safety, you only have to look at airport numbers to see why that path has been taken and why it has to be a significant rate, which discourages to a degree people using those areas. In the UK most terminal areas are historically very space restricted, so there has never been the space for the volume of traffic we see today.

 

As I posted earlier by-laws are enforced by the airport companies and local authorities and police, they've never had anything to do with the airport finance in terms of receiving revenue from those fines, in exactly the same way as any other breaches of airport by-laws, eg pollution fines. 

[Flying Fox 34F]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

I suspect this is true of any large adminsistration; they become inefficient beauracracies.  A squiz at the writings of that 17th century diarist bloke regarding naval expenditure suggests that this is not a new problem, and the size of the admin and government part of the operation was a lot smaller then.  Large industrial and commercial concerns suffer in the same way, but the problem is worsened by being subject to the profit motive, the need to keep the investors off their backs (I suppose this can be regarded as equate to keeping the electorate off the government's back, but of course only applies to Parliament, not the Civil Service. 

 

We live in a complex society in which it is difficult to fairly apportion resources, responsibility and accountability accurately or efficiently, a price we pay for the benefits of moving away from hunter-gatherer economies.  We can't even devise a socio-economic system that can fairely and equably distribute wealth, and the most efficient way of creating it, capitalism, is highly wasteful as it depends on competition, which always creates more losers than winners...  It might be that it could be better done by AI, but then nobody'd be accountable at all, nobody human anyway!   Of course, AI, once established in all countries, would soon agree with each other/it's collective global self that defence spending is pointless waste and spend the resources differently; humanity can't afford wars, which anyone with an ounce of common sense has been saying for many centuries...

 

 

I believe that all the evidence required to prove how out of touch Government departments are, just refer to episodes of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.

I once met a certain PM.  It was clear immediately that once out of the Parliamentary fish bowl, he was completely lost!

 

Paul