DAAvn: Why?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Magic_Mushroom, Jun 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Chaps,
    Could somebody please explain to me the purpose of DAAvn?

    As I understand it, when JHC was formed the RAF and RN moved all their SH/Jungly staff posts under the JHC umbrella. However, seemingly the Army retained the majority of their DAAvn posts AND created additional ones at JHC. Is this a correct assumption? If so, is it a desire by the AAC to retain parity with DRA, DInt etc?

    Please don't lower the tone of any discussion to inter-service point-scoring stupidity. This is a genuine question from a non-rotary guy who struggles to understand why DAAvn continues to exist.

    Grateful for your thoughts,

  2. I can't answer that question?
  3. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    Not actually true I'm afraid MM. I'm no great fan of DAAvn as an institution but its core role is meant to be very different from that of JHC. The Arms & Service Directors (of which DAAvn is just one) exist to look after special to arm matters, such as individual training, standards, career progression and of course a subject dear to our heart - regimental matters!

    JHC, as part of the LAND, exists to train units for operations. These are then deployed through PJHQ, etc. The AAC/REME/RLC posts that make up JHC actually came from Avn Branch LAND rather than being duplicates of those that exist in DAAvn.

    In TLB terms, DAAvn works through ACGS to CGS whereas of course JHC is part of CinC LAND's empire ....

    Of course there is quite a bit of duplication, the distinction between individual & collective training is a little articificial, the two organisations have historically got on very badly and A&SDs are probably not going to survive for much longer anyway. No-one doubts that JHC is a big success and I hear that DAAvn may look to be slightly more proactive than they may have been in the past ........ so watch this space!
  4. Thanks for that BCO,
    I was just trying to work out in my own mind exactly where they fit in given some frustrating recent shenanigans where DAAvn and JHC each produced parallel staffing on a project. Each was unaware of the others involvment and each made differing recommendations! It sounds like DAAvn equates very roughly to the RAF SH Force HQ in terms of standardisation etc.

    Career management wise, I understand that the Army run corps specific 'grading and shading' activities and I guess this may be one of DAAvn's tasks. As a crustacean, I struggle to understand that particular concept as our equivalent is done centrally at PMA (now ACOS Manning) at Innsworth (soon to be High Wycombe).

    One final dumb question: how many guys are in DAAvn?

  5. Might disagre with some element of that statement. As a layer of command above 16 AA, JHC is and remains shambolic in providing any Div level command or direction. Indeed they fail at every junction to champion their own Bde's issues and in most instances 16 AA C2 go it alone when dealing with MoD or PJHQ.
  6. DAAvn also holds the recruitment side of the AAC.
  7. Watch this space M-M :wink:
  8. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    My experience is a little out of date but it sounds as though some things haven't changed!

    JHC is not a Div HQ and the staff very weak on anything not related to Avn. Their perception of 16 Bde 'issues' largely revolves around flying hours rather than WMIKs and that is how they treat them.

    By contrast, 16 Bde are largely uninterested in their Avn and unwilling to obey the CoC. Having said that, at least in my day they had the decency to go via LAND rather than direct to MoD/PJHQ! It would be interesting to see how the airborne element of 16 AA Bde would react to being a part of a divisional CoC where such behaviour would be very heavily stomped on.....

    BTW you might like to ask successive CinC Lands how they rate JHC?
  9. I'm interested in how the structures described above stand up to the move of LAND when it happens. Us Light Blue have seen mucho in the way of 'streamlining' and 'leaning' with the combination of our Cmds. For example, the Branch and Trade specific aspects in the RAF are handled at SO2 & SO1 level.
  10. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    There is a certain amount of confusion going on here as it's like trying to equate apples and pears.....

    MM - Equating the DAAvn role to SH standards isn't a good comparison. For instance DAAvn is responsible for three/four separate trades (pilots, signallers, MT/refuellers and crewman/ADG), a large number of equipment types used only by the AAC, some very specialist policy (Avn medicine + tactics) , G1 policy, plus a whole raft of regimental matters. Thus it combines stuff that is done by a raft of centralised RAF agencies.

    There is however areas where there is a large degree of overlap with JHC - particularly in the field of Equipment Capability. I suspect that is where you have experienced duplication?
  11. BCO, I understand the G1/regimental aspects and accept my poor comparison to an RAF FHQ.

    However, at the risk of becoming pedantic, what aviation medicine is specific to AAC platforms as opposed to RAF SH or RN Cdo assets? I would also question why DAAvn is involved in tactics. That's what AWC is there for and is another area where recent duplication has taken place. DAAvn seem at times to actively avoid involving AWC in tactical development despite the presence at Waddo of AAC Avn SO2s for that very purpose. It's almost as if they consider it an Air Force Warfare Centre rather than an Air (ie Joint Air) Warfare Centre. This has certainly been an issue when efforts were being made to produce a Joint Helo Tactics Manual.

  12. Not that it helps much, but glad to see I am not alone in thinking JHC is a waste of space.
  13. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    Are you suggesting that our structures lack coherence!! Imagine that .....

    All 3 BH operators (Army, RAF, RN) have different standards for a range of things including med, currency, NVG, etc and this is clearly barking. I can see the argument for yellow or grey helicopters but green ones should all have the same rules. The problem is .... whose!

    In terms of the AWC, I suspect that DAAvn worry that it isn't the right place to develop tactics for platforms that predominantly operate as part of the LAND SOM ...... perhaps it would be better if the RW element of the AWC decamped to Warminster?
  14. BCO,

    You may have hit the nail on the head and I probably am being naive! Always hacks me off that JHC has not managed to coordinate such things as crew duty rules etc.

    AWC-Fleet coord seems to work! What we really need is of course a colocated JOINT Warfare Centre but I'm sure there are examples of my service doing similar things!!

    Anyway, thanks to everyone for their inputs. I better now stop asking difficult questions before BCO bans me from ARRSE!

  15. Just to clarify though, I wasnt suggesting that JHC is useless, far from it, more that if it is to sit in the ORBAT and command Bde's then it should be manned and resourced to do so, and be expected to weigh in on issues that affect its subordinate formations.

    I fully accept that it is Avn centric and 16 AA are the problem children of any formation (including LAND I humbly suggest!) But if we saying that we accept that JHC cannot or will not exercise their legitimate command authority over the Bde then perhaps they should be removed from their orbat in a functional sense, which returns us to the question of JHC or DAAvn to be capbadge lead of Army Avn, as there would appear to be considerable duplication in some areas.

    For my 1/2p, central control on all military rotary assets has to be the way forward every time, but centralised in one HQ not 2.