Wow, critical manning!

[Dave Homewood]

I was just browsing the latest (May 2005) Air Force News which is downloadable from the RNZAF homepage.

This page details the new funding the military is getting, and it details how many personnel are in each Armed Force right now. The RNZAF has 2263 regular force personnel and 146 Territorial Force (mostly band members).

Wow, that is a low figure. I had no idea the level of manning had got so low. I hope the article is correct that they now have enough funding to recruit the personnel they require.

Here's the page(it's a .pdf file)
www.airforce.mil.nz/latestinfo/rnzafnews/files/2005/May/May2005_Page_19.pdf

[Dave Homewood]

Oh, and you'll find the whole issure here
www.airforce.mil.nz/latestinfo/rnzafnews/files/2005/May/IndexMay05.htm

[turboNZ]

It's quite sad really.

I guess in the days gone by, the big draw card was enticing youngsters to be fighter pilots with the Skyhawks and Macchis.
This is not belittling the transport and support aircraft roles, but I reckon new aircraft may do the trick, what with the EH-90's supposed to be on their way.
Also, a young person coming into the RNZAF would be far more excited working with the latest piece of technology.

Just my opinion.

TNZ

[Dave Homewood]

Indeed, but the new choppers won't be arriving till 2009, and with no replacements in site for the Orion or hercules, the only new stuff they have to play with now are the 757's, which aren't even new.

Yes, the Skyhawks, Strikemasters and Macchis were certainly big drawcards for getting people to join up. When I enlisted I was surprised to find that more than half the guys in my Flight at GSTS (the initial training recruit school) had already gone through the selection process at PERSEL trying to get in as Nucks. They'd all failed and been persuaded to join as a ground trade - it was a great levering tool to get mechanics and others into the RNZAF.

No matter how interesting the recent Air Force series was, it was not a huge drawcard compared with the power of the A-4K's

[Bruce]

That is really lean staffing alright - as a ballpark comparison, the University of Waikato where I work has 1200 staff - only half of the entire airforce - I'd say Fonterra would employ more people (come to think of it, most large NZ companies would....). However bear in mind that many services previously carried out in-house are now contracted. Aeromotive, Safe Air and Air NZ now handle most maintenance, even at line level, and without the strike armourers and other specailised trades, at least those that are left are doing valuable tasks - I wonder where I'd be if I had stuck with the airforce?

[Dave Homewood]

Fonterra has MUCH more staff - they are NZ's biggest company as far as what I've been told. I don't know if they include the farmers in that, but since its a huge internatinal empire they'd easily be bigger than the RNZAF without the thousands of farmers.

Half those employed at the university should be fired by the way (not you of course) and the money should go towards something worthwhile.

The RNZAF has axed entire trades and others have merged together since I left - like the General Service Instructors merged with the RNZAF Police and are now called "Air Security". Bit of a scary mix if you ask me.

I know loads were laid off when PTS moved to Ohakea and they contracted to some civilian joint to do the work, which in my opinion is politically irresponsible to say the least. A number of those who lost there jobs got work with the Civvie companies who were contracted I'm told, but when they move/d on the RNZAF then has no idea of the background and trainign of the mechanics working on the planes. And in this country where civil aviation is very slapdash, it worries me.

Safe Air and Air New Zealand, plus many other companies, used to benefit greatly from the natural attriction of the mechanics trained by the RNZAF, especially those who'd done 8 years - a step in the pay scale where you got bonuses f you'd served that long - so people did eight and got out. Those companies could rely on the fact they were getting the best trained aviation mechanics in the country. I wonder what they do now, it must cost them more to train people, surely. I certainly would feel less confident if all my mechanical staff were Polytech trained, or worse, grass roots level small airline trained.

[Bruce]

I agree entirely about the standards of civil aircraft engineering in NZ, there are some extremely good engineers around, but the regulatory environment and financial pressures from management (very few of whom are engineers) does cause me a few concerns. That our essential maintenance of aircraft that should (in theory) be more complex than civilian machines is in thier hands isnt great. The flowback priciple of ex RNZAF techs joining the civil industry (or not) is also a very valid issue, although I have to say that some of the ex RNZAF techs I've come across have great difficulty adjusting to civilian work practices where there arent unlimited spare parts or time and if somethings broken it often has to be repaired rather than replaced (within appropriate limits of course). I dont think that anyone who makes these decisions thought of long term consequences across the entire (and growing) industry. - Whats new though!

[Dave Homewood]

Thanks Bruce. My personal view, and I have discussed this at length with a friend who is both a commercial pilot and aircraft engineer, is that the Government should be taking control of aeronautics full stop.

I believe all pilots and engineers should be trained through a Government sponsored and regualted system, so we do not get these slap dash backyard boys bodging jobs and fiddliing the books. Many small airlines and operators have suffered the consequences of poor engineering standards - usually with fatal outcomes.

I think the RNZAF had a fantastic training system. Rather than wind down, they should have been given more money and a monopoly on training - with all trainees who wanted to work in the civil workforce getting the best training at a cheaper rate than some polytech or apprenticeship. In return they could be ona miloitary reserve in the case of need - which will basically never happen really. The Governemnt would then be satisfied that training was of a high standard (which, if they don't meet the grade, they don't get a licence - unlike tertiary education who allow no-hopers through because they've paid the money).

And money coming in from paying students would help support the RNZAF too. Plus, they should be contracting other country's engineering work themselves rather than contracting work out the other way round. Keep the money coming in, make it a commercially viable enterprise that pays for defence, SAR and other needs for the country.

And lets not forget, it is not only the best aircrew and mechanics the RNZAF trained, other trades like Chefs always attained world class standards too. Their fire crews were also top notch, etc etc... Many decades of training tradition gone.

The thing about the military is you are trained directly by those people who do the job themselves, and you get nothing more, no extra add on courses required like at University. No teachers who've never done the job themselves. And excellent publications for every task so you can never stray from the right course of action. No rules bent, top notch all the way.

[Bruce]

In note in todays waikato Times (Saturday 28 May) that the latest Wings course graduated from Ohakea yesterday. there were a total of FOUR pilots graduated after the 14 month course. How many CT-4s do we have? Four pilots a course barely justifies the operation of them. Its no wonder that staff numbers are dropping, the output from the wings course will barely cover the normal retirements etc....

[Dave Homewood]

I wonder how many started on the curse though, maybe several got the chop.

In the heyday of the early 1990's a Wings course usually started with just 10 students, and often a couple at least would be chopped. Interesting though, there didn't seem to be many students doing the course at that Wise Owl covered in "Air Force" either.