AIB waiting time

[Zoidberg]

I wouldn't say a long waiting time reduces the quality of the applicant pool, if anything I would say it increases it.

A long waiting time could be seen as an inadvertent selection method. If someone has to wait to get in then it shows that they want to be there.

In the meantime, they might find a job they enjoy and realise the RN wasn't for them. That would likely happen 2-3 years down the line anyway.

Like I said, if the if the inefficiency of the recruiting process is a problem for you, then the RN might not be for you.

We're a small force and only getting smaller. We're limited to the amount of people we can train a year whilst also retaining the quality of the training.

 

[Waspie]

You're a touchy one. No need to be so defensive. I didn't realise having mildly critical views of the AIB and suggesting that someone having to wait over 2 years, over 730 days to get in is an appalling incitement of the process and shows staggering inefficiency and incompetence. Not neccessarily by individuals who are doing their best but certainly on the process as a whole

I don't know why you're defending it either. A long application process means less applicants applying in the first place which lowers the quality of applicant and then the navy has a shortage of people in certain roles anyway. You should want the process to not take over 2 years. I don't think you realise how many people are turned off by the horror stories they hear of recruitment and how long it takes

No other job takes 2 years from application to start date. Ever other public sector jobs while certainly not quick are significantly less than 2 years. You can add on a bit of time for the medical fair but that still doesn't justify 2 years!

My bold, you thought of binning the RN and going straight to recruitment. Best way to change an inept system is to get stuck in there and do it!!

Obvious answer is if you not happy, look for another job. The financial sector recruits clever university chaps, could be up to five interviews but that over maybe a couple of months if memory serves me correctly.

Anyway, they say good things come to those that wait.

Just out of curiosity, what do you wish to join as?

 

[Lovablesnowman]

I wouldn't say a long waiting time reduces the quality of the applicant pool, if anything I would say it increases it.

A long waiting time could be seen as an inadvertent selection method. If someone has to wait to get in then it shows that they want to be there.

In the meantime, they might find a job they enjoy and realise the RN wasn't for them. That would likely happen 2-3 years down the line anyway.

Like I said, if the if the inefficiency of the recruiting process is a problem for you, then the RN might not be for you.

We're a small force and only getting smaller. We're limited to the amount of people we can train a year whilst also retaining the quality of the training.

A long waiting time reducing the number of applicants is only a good thing if you value applicants based on patience and desire to get in as opposed to things like talent or ability. You should be aiming to cast the widest net possible not gatekeeping by suggesting making applicants wait 2 years to see who's "determined enough". I could maybe understand this if the navy was in a position to turn people away but there's a critical shortage in certain roles. If you lose a single applicant due to the ridiculously long recruitment time you've reduced your talent pool. The long wait time to get in is not something anyone should be happy or content with. It's reducing the number of people applying in the first place and reducing the number of people who actually make it the whole way through. Both of which massively reduce the talent pool the navy gets to pick it's applicants from .

I will also add not everyone can wait 2 years in limbo. A lot of civilian jobs have a fixed contract too. Like the navy private employers don't want to spend 1000s of pounds training you for you to just up and leave after a few months. And a lot of people can't afford to waste 2 years in limbo waiting for the navy to either accept or reject them. 2 years not working your way up the ladder can have serious consequences down the road. It's all well and good for the navy to say if you can't wait 2 years go away but the real world doesn't work like that. Especially for poorer applicants

And what is this nonsense that if you're unwilling to wait 2 years to get in that that somehow equates to you not enjoying service life. Unless navy life involves sitting around for 2 years in limbo I fail to see any connection. And given the fact that most applicants go through a long application process currently and still leave within a few years the strategy of making applicants wait 2 years to get in isn't exactly working now is it?

I take your point about lack of training facilities and that is a treasury issue not a navy one (mostly) but then why not just have a competitive quick process. More people apply but less get in? In any case I was mostly referring to officer recruitment where more applicants isn't a problem as the AIB only passes on the highest scorers to Dartmouth

 

[Lovablesnowman]

My bold, you thought of binning the RN and going straight to recruitment. Best way to change an inept system is to get stuck in there and do it!!

Not even my ego is big enough to think I could make the public sector efficient. Much better and smarter men and women than me have tried and failed.

 

[Waspie]

So the alternative is take 'keen' applicants on. Then demotivate them by having them hanging around with no specific job role. Or misemploy them on menial tasks that has the applicant leave the service because he is not being used to his potential. All this at the cost to the tax payers purse.
Warships have finite accommodations so where would these 'keen' young applicants live. In a corridor!
So either accept the wait or address your concerns to the Director of Naval Recruiting. Pointless bending our ears with your dislike of the system None of us are in a position where we can change any of the current regulations for you. You may meet with some sympathy but I doubt anything will change.

 

[Waspie]

Not even my ego is big enough to think I could make the public sector efficient. Much better and smarter men and women than me have tried and failed.

Now that, I agree with! But the only way anyone will change a system is become part of the system.
Obviously - in a few years!!!! (Sorry - could resist that bit).

 

[Lovablesnowman]

So the alternative is take 'keen' applicants on. Then demotivate them by having them hanging around with no specific job role. Or misemploy them on menial tasks that has the applicant leave the service because he is not being used to his potential. All this at the cost to the tax payers purse.
Warships have finite accommodations so where would these 'keen' young applicants live. In a corridor!
So either accept the wait or address your concerns to the Director of Naval Recruiting. Pointless bending our ears with your dislike of the system None of us are in a position where we can change any of the current regulations for you. You may meet with some sympathy but I doubt anything will change.

The alternative is to take on more applicants quicker but to make it a competitive process. If you're applying for a low priority role instead of being stuck in limbo for potentially years you go up against other applicants in a competitive process. You know like in every other job? Those that fail in their initial chosen role could then try for another higher priority role and see if they can in as that. It will mean some applicants miss out totally but that's life. It's much fairer on the individual applicants as they get a yes or no answer quicker and can plan their lives accordingly and the navy gets higher quality of applicant. As opposed to the current plan of take everyone but then make most wait years to get in. Or even just recruit for roles that are currently needed. The RAF does recruitment like this doesn't it?

I genuinely don't think the navy understands just how many applicants are turned off by the horror stories they hear of recruitment. I know this first hand from friends. The thought of waiting years to get into the navy at the young age most people join is about as appealing as a bucket of cold sick. Seriously look at most other internet forums or YouTube comments or whatever whenever navy or army or RAF recruitment comes up. Someone will immediately supply a horror story of recruitment with others backing him or her up and just like that you've lost more applicants

In any case I was mostly referring to officer recruitment where the number of applicants is irrelevant as the AIB puts forward the top scorers anyway. What's the excuse there then? Why not run more boards? Maybe even in different locations? Or run more simultaneously?

I'm not expecting my comments on an internet forum to start a revolution, Im just discussing things. That is by definition what a forum is for is it not?

 

[Waspie]

The alternative is to take on more applicants quicker but to make it a competitive process. If you're applying for a low priority role instead of being stuck in limbo for potentially years you go up against other applicants in a competitive process. You know like in every other job? Those that fail in their initial chosen role could then try for another higher priority role and see if they can in as that. It will mean some applicants miss out totally but that's life. It's much fairer on the individual applicants as they get a yes or no answer quicker and can plan their lives accordingly and the navy gets higher quality of applicant. As opposed to the current plan of take everyone but then make most wait years to get in.

I genuinely don't think the navy understands just how many applicants are turned off by the horror stories they hear of recruitment. I know this first hand from friends. The thought of waiting years to get into the navy at the young age most people join is about as appealing as a bucket of cold sick

In any case I was mostly referring to officer recruitment where the number of applicants is irrelevant as the AIB puts forward the top scorers anyway. What's the excuse there then? Why not run more boards? Maybe even in different locations? Or run more simultaneously?

I'm not expecting my comments on an internet forum to start a revolution and just discussing things. That is by definition what a forum is for is it not?

Thats all that's occurring. Discussion!
You quite obviously have strong views on the subject but it won't change anything in the near future.
TBH, outside of this Covid pandemic. If the RN was to run more boards, and lets say you were successful within weeks of applying. I dare say the wait would still be very long for the reasons I mentioned above. You need locations and ships to 'store' people during the wait.
OR.
Apply for a Warfare Officer or pilot, Navy has enough so your offered a Logistic position!! A store man!!! No thanks, exit stage left. RN has now lost a financial investment. Now to get the job YOU want you have to wait - would it be worth it to get the job you wish. I would say yes. But that's me.
OR
Get applicants in quickly. Spend hundreds of thousands training the officers. Then what?
As I said, the RN has only so many billets on ships. So what do all these highly paid young sirs do?
Imagine your a newly qualified pilot. You join your squadron but due to the fact the squadron only has 8 aircraft and 30+ pilots!! All screaming for hours. Nope - it simply wouldn't work. Skill fade would occur quickly rendering operational effectiveness pretty dire!
Your way, I only see more problems. I can understand your frustration, but you simply have to play with the cards your dealt.
The current way may not be to your liking but it is the hand you have to play at the moment.

 

[Lovablesnowman]

Thats all that's occurring. Discussion!
You quite obviously have strong views on the subject but it won't change anything in the near future.
TBH, outside of this Covid pandemic. If the RN was to run more boards, and lets say you were successful within weeks of applying. I dare say the wait would still be very long for the reasons I mentioned above. You need locations and ships to 'store' people during the wait.

Apply for a Warfare Officer or pilot, Navy has enough so your offered a Logistic position!! A store man!!! No thanks, exit stage left. RN has now lost a financial investment. Now to get the job YOU want you have to wait - would it be worth it to get the job you wish. I would say yes. But that's me.
OR
Get applicants in quickly. Spend hundreds of thousands training the officers. Then what?
As I said, the RN has only so many billets on ships. So what do all these highly paid young sirs do?
Imagine your a newly qualified pilot. You join your squadron but due to the fact the squadron only has 8 aircraft and 30+ pilots!! All screaming for hours. Nope - it simply wouldn't work. Skill fade would occur quickly rendering operational effectiveness pretty dire!
Your way, I only see more problems. I can understand your frustration, but you simply have to play with the cards your dealt.
The current way may not be to your liking but it is the hand you have to play at the moment.

Yeah it's a good discussion. At least you're polite and mannerly unlike that other man/woman

However you totally misunderstand my argument. Currently the navy accepts basically everyone but then makes people wait potentially years to actually get in. This means you lose applicants along the way and it has a massive chilling effect on applicants joining(and I cannot emphasise this enough)

My way would be to rapidly speed up the process but make it competitive and inform the applicants of this. You may not get in in the role you applied for. How competitive a role is depends on how many new recruits are needed in that role and how many recruits have applied. If a recruit fails to get into their first choice they can try their second choice and so on. If they don't like the role they get stuck with they can leave. Indeed they may just simply not be good enough for any role. But thats life. This would all occur before joining and any significant financial investment by the navy .This would get rid of the problems of long wait times for certain roles and help alleviate the problems of manpower in others all while increasing the overall number and standard of applicants.

I'm not saying take in everyone quite the opposite.

As for officers I'm not sure what your point is. Take on the same number of officers but run more boards and thus reduce the frankly horrific waiting times. Again this would increase applications and massively increase the standard of officers. This is what we want is it not? Far better for the board to have 1000 applicants in front of them and 300 places to allocate rather than having 600 applicants and 300 places no?

The navy has been dealt a bad hand due to its very limited budget. I do get that. But it's also not playing it well.

 

[alfred_the_great]

The alternative is to take on more applicants quicker but to make it a competitive process. If you're applying for a low priority role instead of being stuck in limbo for potentially years you go up against other applicants in a competitive process. You know like in every other job? Those that fail in their initial chosen role could then try for another higher priority role and see if they can in as that. It will mean some applicants miss out totally but that's life. It's much fairer on the individual applicants as they get a yes or no answer quicker and can plan their lives accordingly and the navy gets higher quality of applicant. As opposed to the current plan of take everyone but then make most wait years to get in. Or even just recruit for roles that are currently needed. The RAF does recruitment like this doesn't it?

I genuinely don't think the navy understands just how many applicants are turned off by the horror stories they hear of recruitment. I know this first hand from friends. The thought of waiting years to get into the navy at the young age most people join is about as appealing as a bucket of cold sick. Seriously look at most other internet forums or YouTube comments or whatever whenever navy or army or RAF recruitment comes up. Someone will immediately supply a horror story of recruitment with others backing him or her up and just like that you've lost more applicants

In any case I was mostly referring to officer recruitment where the number of applicants is irrelevant as the AIB puts forward the top scorers anyway. What's the excuse there then? Why not run more boards? Maybe even in different locations? Or run more simultaneously?

I'm not expecting my comments on an internet forum to start a revolution, Im just discussing things. That is by definition what a forum is for is it not?

Which is mainly what happens.

The delay in application was previously caused by the medical contract for recruitment by a 3rd party. That has now changed.

With a fixed, periodic inflow, what else would you? I imagine those who are waiting nowadays are those who've passed AIB but below the threshold for their branch.

 

[alfred_the_great]

I've got plenty of Ratings who've joined in well under a year.

Those who waited are those applying for small branches or had medical issues.

 

[Waspie]

Yeah it's a good discussion. At least you're polite and mannerly unlike that other man/woman

I thank you for that. I'm not normally called polite!! Some users think I'm damn rude but simply confuse a different opinion as argumentative. Not so. It's usually mums I fall out with!!! They want the best for their son/daughter and I can't understand why it's mum fighting little Jonny's battle.

Thank you for the chat, I have a better understanding of the frustrations of the waiting. Good luck and I do hope it eventually works out for you.

 

[Lovablesnowman]

I thank you for that. I'm not normally called polite!! Some users think I'm damn rude but simply confuse a different opinion as argumentative. Not so. It's usually mums I fall out with!!! They want the best for their son/daughter and I can't understand why it's mum fighting little Jonny's battle.

Thank you for the chat, I have a better understanding of the frustrations of the waiting. Good luck and I do hope it eventually works out for you.

The world would be a much better place if people remembered you can disagree with someone and still remain civil and not take it personally.

 

[Lovablesnowman]

I've got plenty of Ratings who've joined in well under a year.

Those who waited are those applying for small branches or had medical issues.

I get that not everyone has a long wait and this is a good thing. But loads do have a stupidly long wait which is both bad for the individual being stuck in limbo and bad for the navy as the quality and quantity of their applicant drops. It just seems strange to me to have a situation where some roles are massively oversubscribed and hence the long waits and some are short of manpower. There is an obvious solution there as I've outlined above

In any case initially I was referring to an officer applicant who has been waiting for over 2 years since his initial application. There's no reason why the navy can't put on more boards. Unless they're really that strapped for cash? I was told a 7 month wait (roughly) for the AIB on top of all the medical and the inevitable delays which I don't neccessarily blame the navy for. I know how negligence works and I get why the navy is ultra cautious. More boards would help individuals and improve the quality of officer as the board has far more applicants to choose from. I do get why there's some delays. I know some delays are inevitable with how training works. I do get that. But the delay for officer applications in particular is ridiculous

 

[alfred_the_great]

You want more applicants to apply for the same spaces? Because? I’ll be honest, with the very odd exception* I’ve never had a problem with the quality of individual who reaches the frontline (or those I’ve met over the years at BRNC). The problem comes in getting people to accept that spending years at sea, living a peculiar lifestyle, is worth it.

Those branches that have shortfalls tend to have them due to barriers to entry (mainly medical prerequisites, hand-eye co-ordination, STEM or Medical Degree). Those branches that are well subscribed (RM and Logistics) have lower barriers to entry.

I’m not sure how you get someone who doesn’t make the grade for Logs suddenly becomes a competitive Weapon Engineer applicant.

*And they were very “odd”...

 

[Lovablesnowman]

You want more applicants to apply for the same spaces? Because? I’ll be honest, with the very odd exception* I’ve never had a problem with the quality of individual who reaches the frontline (or those I’ve met over the years at BRNC). The problem comes in getting people to accept that spending years at sea, living a peculiar lifestyle, is worth it.

Those branches that have shortfalls tend to have them due to barriers to entry (mainly medical prerequisites, hand-eye co-ordination, STEM or Medical Degree). Those branches that are well subscribed (RM and Logistics) have lower barriers to entry.

I’m not sure how you get someone who doesn’t make the grade for Logs suddenly becomes a competitive Weapon Engineer applicant.

*And they were very “odd”...

Of course you want more applicants. You want more applicants for every role. More applicants means better quality actually getting in. Is this contested?

Fair enough for the medical branches **** knows how you'd convince more people with medical degrees to join the navy. More money obviously but that's not really the navys fault it's given a smaller budget than required

However there are loads of people with engineering degrees. And loads of them would be interested in joining the navy. And it shouldn't be particular hard to convince a few more of them to apply. You'd only need a couple of hundred extra officer applications in shortage roles a year to fix the manpower issues correct? That's hardly an impossible task. One way of doing this might be to not put them through years of waiting to get their chance at the AIB for example. As I said I know first hand the wait to get in turning off several people

And none of what you've said has really answered my initial point of wondering how a 2 year + wait to get in as an officer can possibly be justified

 

[Pats Nation]

I’ve had to wait almost two years for a start date and it hasn’t put me off, I appreciate we all have different views and opinions.

But surely the people who can’t make the best of it and are not willing to wait 1-2 years to get a place for what would potentially be a very fulfilling 20-30 year career just aren’t ready or don’t truly want to be part of the Navy.

Instead they would rather pick out the potential flaws in the recruitment process rather than do what I have done and just accept it is what it is you either want it or you don’t.

 

[Zoidberg]

And none of what you've said has really answered my initial point of wondering how a 2 year + wait to get in as an officer can possibly be justified

What it comes down to, in my opinion, is this:

We're fixed in the number of people we can train a year. We have plenty of applicants and even have enough people joining. What we're lacking is people staying in the RN. We simply cannot keep up the training to match the outflow

Strength of British military falls for ninth year

The government is accused of "running down" the military, as figures show a further drop in numbers.

www.bbc.co.uk

Quarterly service personnel statistics: 2020

UK service personnel statistics on strengths, requirements, intake, applications and outflow, by service for 2020.

www.gov.uk

When it comes to recruitment, it needs more people to facilitate it. I don't know how many people work at the AIB, but let's say 15 or so. That's 15 people that are taken out of their primary roles to go and do that job. To add more locations you'd need to take another 15 or so for each one which only adds to the operational manpower burden, people getting frustrated that they're doing more back to back deployments and then leaving, further compounding the issue.

The same with a training establishment. The more recruits you have, the more infrastructure you need and the more staff and resources. Military training staff, medical staff, civilian support staff, money.

Civilian companies are also more likely to bring people in, trained, and ready to work within a couple of months. An AET, for example, takes around 15 months to become fully qualified and even then you can't call them experienced.

We also have people consistently leaving due to either retiring or PVR. The numbers, from what I understand, are set about a year in advance. If, for example, the personnel outflow for a branch doubles on what is expected then that branch will have to be prioritised. It's not a case of "we've had someone leave, recruit their replacement".

 

[alfred_the_great]

There aren’t enough STEM graduates in the UK - the RN is not alone in a shortfall in applicants. Given that even 20 years ago quite a few of them were being grabbed by the financial industry (that can pay silly money) or into bleeding edge tech firms, I can’t imagine it’s much different.

200 Officer “applicants” - what do you mean by this? 200 extra at AIB, 200 to medical (noting some fail), 200 to sift or 200 making an expression of interest via the website? ARRSE has some fairly good numbers on what that actually means, but 200 to AIB = c20,000 looking at the website (IIRC).

Given that the people we have in Service are good enough, why would we waste time and money in actively attracting too many people? There is a fine line of diminishing returns.

Finally, I’m not sure how true it is we’re falling short in recruiting in the main. I’ll check when I’m back at work, but everything I know relates to retention - in particular at the 4-6 year point.

 

[Zoidberg]

Finally, I’m not sure how true it is we’re falling short in recruiting in the main. I’ll check when I’m back at work, but everything I know relates to retention - in particular at the 4-6 year point.

I'm not sure we're too far short of what we require. We're averaging a 5-6% deficit in the total trained strength across all ranks and rates, significantly lower than the army and the RAF.