British Army helicopter pilots quit in row over wages

Defence chiefs were urged to drop their bid to recover the wages after 15 attack helicopter pilots resigned

Ryan Wilkinson
Friday 18 March 2016 09:30
Comments
An RAF Apache helicopter
An RAF Apache helicopter

The Army lost some of its most experienced helicopter pilots over a wage error that led the Ministry of Defence to demand they returned thousands of pounds in overpay, according to newly released documents.

Defence chiefs were urged to drop their bid to recover the wages after 15 attack helicopter pilots resigned over the issue that saw servicemen face paying back a total of £829,000.

They raised concerns that the loss of experienced pilots and instructors risked not only impacting morale, but had the potential to threaten the Apache attack helicopter squad's frontline capabilities in Afghanistan.

Around 200 attack helicopter pilots and instructors, around a quarter now retired, received overpayments of up to £30,000 each and faced action to recover the money despite officials accepting it was taken "in good faith".

A June 2014 letter to MoD officials said the Army was "firmly of the view" that the debts were written off due to "compelling" operational reasons, including the fact that he cost of replacing just one pilot far exceeded the total debt.

At the time the document was written it took four years to train an attack helicopter pilot at a cost of £3.5 million. The cost of training an instructor was £8.5 million.

The Army said a decision to recover the pay "must be considered against the significant risks" that losing experienced air crew and senior instructors "would cause to air safety and the longer term costs of training replacements".

It also warned: "The loss of one more Apache qualified helicopter instructor from the operational training pipeline will reduce the trained pilot output to below the level required to maintain frontline crewing ratios."

Senior Army figures were also concerned that they could lose their best and brightest pilots and instructors to the commercial sector.

The rules that governed how pilots' pay was calculated were branded "complicated and contradictory" in the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

They added that administrators had "inconsistently interpreted" the policy over a period of "many years", with some confusion over the system arising as far back as 2002.

There was an assurance that all serving pilots were receiving the correct rate of pay when the document was produced.

Press Association

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in