TNAG-0063-FCO40-99-Defence-extra-costs-arising-from-the-internal-security-situa-1968 — Page 42

CONFIDENTIAL

We feel that it would be correct and acceptable to go back in time rather further than

Clearly the majority of those pilots wa have proposed when drawing up the charge.

However we now serving on overseas loans did receive their training in the '50s.

It is obvious that (with the guld be unhappy about going as far back as 1952/53.

ception mentioned in paragraph 5 below) we could not contemplate a scale of charges

borrowing countries, or your for the leenees which varied with length of service

Thus our charge must reflect department, might demand the cldest and cheepeat pilots: the whole range of loaned personnel including those for whon foreign or Commonwealth Governments pay directly (such as those loaned to Muscat who tend to be fairly recently trained pilets); we also need to make some allowance for all the refresher and con- tinuation training which the pilots.trained long ago will have received on more sophisticated aircraft during their flying career.

base

We have concluded therefore that

we should take 1955 as the year (although it may be possible for the

There is also the consideration that charge to remain at this level for some years).

I should add however for 1955

we do have a figure available £1,500 for a pilot. that, so far as we can tell at the moment, we do not have still the detailed caloula- tions leading up to this figure although no doubt they followed the same principles as were later used for the £5,050 calculation in 1960 and which we could explain to you

If we had felt it right to go back beyond 1955 I think in more detail if you wished.

I should say that we do not appear to have any records of previous calculations and thus we would have had great difficulty in providing a figure which the Finance Branohes of both our departments would be happy with.

5.

Thus, in conclusion we are prepared to reduce our charge from £5,000 to 23,500 per annum. At the time of writing I do not have a now figure for the few navigators whom we loan but I would expect that our previous £3,670 would be reduced in a broadly sindlar propertion. I should mention that we must reserve the right to ask for a different (and very likely much higher charge) if, as does not happen anywhere at the moment, a pilot were to be loaned specifically to fly an aircraft only very recently introduced into service with the RAF itself and for whom we would clearly not be receiving appropriate reimbursement if we charged at the 1955 rate.

6.

We should be glad to attend e peeting to agree a final version of the explamtory note and to discuss Hong Kong. I ar. afraid that I myself shell be away for the next three wacks. May I suggest that you contact R. 0. Ward here to rake the arrangements. I am copying this letter to Mayne,

Jours sincerely,

Ohrack

AENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL