AMM's-whose fault is it anyway?

[Blue Van Man]

The main problem with this chronic complaint is the ignorance of the supposedly trained and wise. The AMM's entering service on the whole are enthusiastic, hard working individuals who look to their supperiors for example, leadership and knowledge. In certain respects it is the supperiors who are failing and not the AMM's.

I joined as a mech and when I was a liney on my first tour, I looked to learn from all the techies, I loved the line but I wanted to do what the JT's were doing. People dont change, The AMM's are looking to learn from you, even the JT's. It is the Job of the receiving Sqn to teach the AMM in the process of aircraft engineering via OJT, you should be supporting their progress and satisfying their desires to learn and become like you.

I firmly believe that the product will be far supperior in knowledge and ability than the SAC (T). The amm will have been through a grueling 6month course at Cosford, spent 2 years plus on the line and on trade and then on a 12 month further training course as apposed to a quick 11 month SAC(T) course.

So support these little darlings, If they work hard for you, are enthusiastic and willing to learn then put that tick in the box for a reccomendation for further training and they will be trained further. If you are not happy with them, they are lethargic and economical with effort then DO NOT RECCOMMEND.

But please be assured that, The AMM's during their initial training work a alot harder then any of us did during our training. A lot is expected of them both from a trade perspective and from the perspective of making them an airman. Whne they arrive at your place of work, before you is a person who has worked their nuts (or similiar) off to be before you.

As for the JT who started this thread and all other JT's who read it, your Cpl's and Sgt's are watching you! if all you do is take the **** out of your subordinates and refrain from assisting the less experienced when the need arises, then I would personally deem you unsuitable for advancement. What goes around comes around.

Over and out.

 

[the_boy_wizard]

In my experience, some amm's are rather dense and need a wee bit of guidance, but on the whole are not too bad.

Story: One of the new amm lads was sent out to a jet to recover a book that the nav had left behind (you know the type, full of jockey-jargon). Guess what he came back with..................a piece of cockpit flooring!!!! Oh, how we laughed!!

 

[propersplitbrainme]

In my experience, some amm's are rather dense and need a wee bit of guidance, but on the whole are not too bad.

Would they be any less, er, dense if they were trade mechanics rather than AMMs? Could it be something to do with the individuals rather than the trade scheme they joined under?

 

[wizard]

The main problem with this chronic complaint is the ignorance of the supposedly trained and wise. The AMM's entering service on the whole are enthusiastic, hard working individuals who look to their supperiors for example, leadership and knowledge. In certain respects it is the supperiors who are failing and not the AMM's.

I joined as a mech and when I was a liney on my first tour, I looked to learn from all the techies, I loved the line but I wanted to do what the JT's were doing. People dont change, The AMM's are looking to learn from you, even the JT's. It is the Job of the receiving Sqn to teach the AMM in the process of aircraft engineering via OJT, you should be supporting their progress and satisfying their desires to learn and become like you.

I firmly believe that the product will be far supperior in knowledge and ability than the SAC (T). The amm will have been through a grueling 6month course at Cosford, spent 2 years plus on the line and on trade and then on a 12 month further training course as apposed to a quick 11 month SAC(T) course.

So support these little darlings, If they work hard for you, are enthusiastic and willing to learn then put that tick in the box for a reccomendation for further training and they will be trained further. If you are not happy with them, they are lethargic and economical with effort then DO NOT RECCOMMEND.

But please be assured that, The AMM's during their initial training work a alot harder then any of us did during our training. A lot is expected of them both from a trade perspective and from the perspective of making them an airman. Whne they arrive at your place of work, before you is a person who has worked their nuts (or similiar) off to be before you.

As for the JT who started this thread and all other JT's who read it, your Cpl's and Sgt's are watching you! if all you do is take the **** out of your subordinates and refrain from assisting the less experienced when the need arises, then I would personally deem you unsuitable for advancement. What goes around comes around.

Over and out.

Sorry to spoil your plans old boy but not been a JT for yrs now!
The original+amended post is not about the individual, but the scheme. As stated before I have worked with both the lazy and the hard working, and yes your right vote on the 6000, but someone else might want to bring that thread up.
As for Amm's being better than sac(t)'s did they not try to learn from others? would you be knocking them? as you say be careful you never know whose watching!. lol

P.s I thought the whole point of the goat was so you could discuss these things without you being watched and deemed unsuitable for advancement!!!

DT_Xtremez_26:

 

[airframe doctor]

AMM's on the trade desk............

AMM's on the trade desk............

In my experience, some amm's are rather dense and need a wee bit of guidance, but on the whole are not too bad.

I think TBW has hit the nail right on the head with that comment. Whilst the majority of them are keen to undertake some form of trade education, I find that they give up far too easily. I don't know if its a knock on effect from their training, being told what their primary role is and not to do anything else (NOT a dig at the Tossford boys here) but I sometimes get the impression that they feel that by not actually doing the job just watching somehow the knowledge & skills will somehow be transferred to them.
For example, during a Tonka w/sweep snag all the meaty stuff was sorted with just the wirelocking to be finished, AMM 1 was instructed on how to wirelock the 2 hyd unions. Now this wasn't a particularly difficult task, good access etc but the reply I got was "phew thats impossible that". After informing AMM 1 that this particular fault was pretty common & that if it was that impossible why weren't their loads of other Tonka's sitting around unable to be fixed??? Fair play to the guy he cracked on with the wirelocking and to be fair made a pretty good job of it. Later on during the independent check another piece of wirelocking was discovered to be antilocked (incorrectly routed for the non techie types), incidentally this particular piece of wirelocking wasn't disturbed during the original fault just happened to be in the vicinity of our area of work, so this needed to be sorted too. To give AMM 1 some more practise he was instructed to re-wirelock these unions too. After looking at it for what seemed like an eternity, he said so which way should it be then??? The opposite to the way it currently is was the reply, this he didn't appear to grasp so the wire had to be snipped to give him a blank canvas to work with & again eventually he did a good job.
Now I don't want to come across as if I'm slagging this guy off, I'm not, he's a decent guy pretty hard working most of the time, a little encouragement is needed at times because there is a lack of urgency on occasion to work but overall has the potential to become a good techie.
The point I'm trying to make is should we forget about giving these guys any form of OJT and just let them get on with Flight Line duties, let then undertake the Technicians Course and start training them up then??? With the lack of manpower & spares everywhere, aircraft getting older, the un-serviceability rate on the increase due to a sometimes unrelenting workload, is it time to take the hit and just stop trying to train these guys up???

 

[Blue Van Man]

Sorry to spoil your plans old boy but not been a JT for yrs now!
The original+amended post is not about the individual, but the scheme. As stated before I have worked with both the lazy and the hard working, and yes your right vote on the 6000, but someone else might want to bring that thread up.
As for Amm's being better than sac(t)'s did they not try to learn from others? would you be knocking them? as you say be careful you never know whose watching!. lol

P.s I thought the whole point of the goat was so you could discuss these things without you being watched and deemed unsuitable for advancement!!!

DT_Xtremez_26:

I am talking from the perspective of the hanger floor, not the goat! If so called superiors are going out of their way to be unhelpfull rather than assisting these little darlings then that would, I hope ,be noticed by their superiors.

I still maintain that the AMM carreer path will produce better tradesmen in the long run. It is not that different from the old Mech-fitters course-Nco route that we subscribed to.

 

[airframe doctor]

Which scheme did you sign up to???

Which scheme did you sign up to???

I am talking from the perspective of the hanger floor, not the goat! If so called superiors are going out of their way to be unhelpfull rather than assisting these little darlings then that would, I hope ,be noticed by their superiors.

I still maintain that the AMM carreer path will produce better tradesmen in the long run. It is not that different from the old Mech-fitters course-Nco route that we subscribed to.

Of course it all depends on what Mech scheme your on about. Obviously I don't know your own career history, which is why I am replying to your post.

If your on about the Mech/Mech & Mech/Tech scheme that was introduced around 91/92 then yes there are similarities, Mech/Techs were awarded a FT course(dependent on attitude, assessments etc) after approx 18 mths. Which I agree is similar to todays AMM's being awarded a Technicians course approx 18 mths to 2yrs after completion of their initial training.



If you are referring to the old style single trade mechs, A Mech A, A Mech P & the single trade Avionic mech's (before the 3 Avionic trades were amalgamated) then the similarities are fewer. This scheme, forgive me if I'm wrong here was introduced early to mid 80's, thus replacing the old style FLM's.

Before the Mech/Mech, Mech/Tech scheme was introduced single trade mech's took considerably longer to gain a FT course (7 yrs in my case, which at the time was a pretty standard length of time across all trades) and due to the length of time spent on operational Sqn's, 2nd Line Maint etc the experience levels of theses tradesmen was significantly higher than those of the Mech/Tech's. This levels of experienced gained by individuals on the pre Mech/Tech scheme was clearly evident.
The main difference being was that as I previously stated was that Mech/Tech's were awarded a FT course approx 18 mths after completion of initial trade training providing that they basically kept their noses clean and reached the minimum standard expected of them, there seemed there was no minimum level of experience that had to be gained before a FT course was undertaken.
I'm not saying that everyone, including myself on the old scheme was perfect, but having that extra experience & having to earn our FT places (even though the majority of us felt like we were being screwed over) certainly helped us deal with & we could relate to the FT course a lot more than our Mech/Tech friends, especially when they were posted in as new, fresh faced JT's.

In my opinion the reason why the FLM to Technician scheme worked so well in the 80's was that quite simply they were a completely different generation, working under completely different circumstances.
Back then there was considerably more manpower, aircraft and the role of the Air Force was miles away from what it is today. This was also before political correctness had reared its ugly head & the Playstation Generation wasn't born. Having had the privilege to work alongside some former FLM's and early old style mech's I can remember that if you ****ed up they let you know about it and you would certainly make an effort not to **** up again. DT_Xtremez_28: There are too many distractions for todays young recruits and they are given the option to go home once they have finished their normal duties and not to undertake trade work ( a management failing I know).
If the AMM scheme is to work a lot more emphasis needs to be placed on training these guys up correctly before they go back to Tossford, not 2hrs a week as that does nobody any good. After all in 5 yrs or so these guys will be expecting to be NCO's (another common phrase all too common nowadays"I should be promoted in X years"....no-one should ever expect promotion).

 

[wizard]

I am talking from the perspective of the hanger floor, not the goat! If so called superiors are going out of their way to be unhelpfull rather than assisting these little darlings then that would, I hope ,be noticed by their superiors.

I still maintain that the AMM carreer path will produce better tradesmen in the long run. It is not that different from the old Mech-fitters course-Nco route that we subscribed to.

In reply mate I stand corrected. Your right I fully agree with you, everyone deserves a shot and to be shown how to do jobs and not just in their own trade ethier. If you believe someone is good enough to be taught a job then no one should stand in there way, how else do you learn?
DT_Xtremez_21:

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

Fair point me old! I see what you mean trenchDT_Xtremez_19: .

Wizard???????????

Wonder where I've heard that before?????DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Blue Van Man]

Airframe Doctor.

I was the old style A-mech, later a-mech A like you. I was a mech for 6 years also, now the reason we were mechs so long is, if you remember, the ending of the cold war, draw down, mavr's and so on. The forces were thrown almost instantaeously in to confusion. The result was that there were no promotions for years, I think I remember there being 1 fitters course for riggers in 1992!! and then redunduncies.

Previous to us, mechs were getting their fitters courses much sooner and they had time promotion, which on occassions led to complete nob eds getting their tapes. I remember being on my mechs course and talking to a worshipfull SAC on his fitters course and he had been out of training for just 18 months.

So you see, the process hasn't really changed from those days, these lads wil come good. the problems with AMM's currently are born from the management of various units not taking the time to correctly identify what their obligations are to these new breed, subsequently the AMM's are taking many of the line managers for a ride! I hear stories from the squadrons every day about how the AMM's are useless and can only do the line! incorrect, they are supposed to be rotated through all 4 trade desks ( well 2 now with MS) obviously forgetting the bomb eds.

 

[wgaf]

Airframe Doctor.

I was the old style A-mech, later a-mech A like you. I was a mech for 6 years also, now the reason we were mechs so long is, if you remember, the ending of the cold war, draw down, mavr's and so on. The forces were thrown almost instantaeously in to confusion. The result was that there were no promotions for years, I think I remember there being 1 fitters course for riggers in 1992!! and then redunduncies.

Previous to us, mechs were getting their fitters courses much sooner and they had time promotion, which on occassions led to complete nob eds getting their tapes. I remember being on my mechs course and talking to a worshipfull SAC on his fitters course and he had been out of training for just 18 months.

So you see, the process hasn't really changed from those days, these lads wil come good. the problems with AMM's currently are born from the management of various units not taking the time to correctly identify what their obligations are to these new breed, subsequently the AMM's are taking many of the line managers for a ride! I hear stories from the squadrons every day about how the AMM's are useless and can only do the line! incorrect, they are supposed to be rotated through all 4 trade desks ( well 2 now with MS) obviously forgetting the bomb eds.

BVM I agree with a lot of what you're saying but out on the sqdns we don't have enough manpower to just put these amms' onto the desk. This would entail using experienced JTs' and mech techs on the line seeing jets off while we teach the amms' how to be techies, something which I believe they are supposed to be taught by the proffesionals when they achieve FT. Whilst I am sure that a lot more people than you seem to believe give the amms' as much help as they can when they get out into the real world, it is not actually our job to instruct these lads and lasses in how to become a techie, this job should start at Cosford and should be enhanced on the front line. IMHO the biggest complaint is the standards coming out of Cosford just aren't high enough. This I believe is due to many things;
Insufficient time in training.
Possibly a generation thing, wether people like it or not kids today do not seem to be prepared for hard work the same way that we were before.
Possible lack of discipline during training?
Could it even be a lack of instructor abilities?

 

[Blue Van Man]

BVM I agree with a lot of what you're saying but out on the sqdns we don't have enough manpower to just put these amms' onto the desk. This would entail using experienced JTs' and mech techs on the line seeing jets off while we teach the amms' how to be techies, something which I believe they are supposed to be taught by the proffesionals when they achieve FT. Whilst I am sure that a lot more people than you seem to believe give the amms' as much help as they can when they get out into the real world, it is not actually our job to instruct these lads and lasses in how to become a techie, this job should start at Cosford and should be enhanced on the front line. IMHO the biggest complaint is the standards coming out of Cosford just aren't high enough. This I believe is due to many things;
Insufficient time in training.
Possibly a generation thing, wether people like it or not kids today do not seem to be prepared for hard work the same way that we were before.
Possible lack of discipline during training?
Could it even be a lack of instructor abilities?

WGAF.

I do not know what level you work at on your squadron, but, and no disrespect here, I am hoping not NCO level. You see you are very mistaken in many areas with your assessment of the AMM career/training path. I will attempt to clarify it here:

The job of cosford is to train these young, enthusiastic airman. They are trained to be just that airman, at the same time they are INTRODUCED to aircraft and their associated systems and instructed on saftey issues. It is now a breif overview which lasts 6 months. Addionally they are afforded time with the force development staff. When these airman leave Cosford, they have been instructed and assessed on their performance as an airman and on their suitability to be trained as a technician, This training starts on the Sqn. It is the duty of the Sqn's to train the AMM's in the various aspects of the trades by utilising methods such as OJT. If the reporting officers find that the individual is suitable for advancement then he gives the 6000 a recommended tick in the box, the individual is then selected for further training and on completion of this training he is deemed a technician.

So you see, the vast majority of the AMM's trade training is, and should be conducted on his parent squadron, this is an area of the AMM career path many are not aware of, When they have finished on the line, they should be allocated to a trade desk, where practicable, to learn their trade under 100% supervision, NOT given the option to stay if they want to.

Can I also say that your comment on these 'Kids' not knowing what hard work is compared to us, This is just not true, sure there are differences between them and us, but the world has changed enormously in a very short period of time, but ,back to your comment, The AMM's work much harder during their 6 months at Cosford than we ever did. FACT. In fact I doubt there are many in the RAF who did work as hard as these lads and lasses do. Their work load is enormous in comparrison and when they get to you the first thing they are going to need is a little bit of leave.

 

[Captain Slog]

it is not actually our job to instruct these lads and lasses in how to become a techie, this job should start at Cosford and should be enhanced on the front line. IMHO the biggest complaint is the standards coming out of Cosford just aren't high enough. This I believe is due to many things;
Insufficient time in training.
Could it even be a lack of instructor abilities?

Before you start blaming the Instructors at Cosford for the standard of training the AMM receives, I strongly suggest that you get your facts right. I totally agree with you that the Squadrons are very short on manpower which restricts the amount of time that can be spent on training the AMM’s with trade knowledge and experience and yes, they will receive a very intense period of training when they return on their FT course. I know this to be the case as I have spent the last 15 months as a member of the team who have been developing the Mechanical Course.

However, I find your off-hand comments about the ability of the Instructors totally offensive. There have been several posts recently about instructing being an easy life, “those who can do and those who can’t teach” and other such ridiculous, blasé comments. I kept out of them as most of the comments were from people who are either wind-up merchants or are ignorant of the current training structure in the RAF.

The AMM course was Leaned, to reduce the amount of time given on trade training, something that a lot of instructors, myself included, were against. One of the reasons given for the reduction was that the Units wanted the AMMs as soon as possible to increase their manpower on the Squadrons and therefore, free up the technicians form Flight Servicing duties so there was more available for aircraft maintenance and fault rectification.

So before you go casting the blame on a subject you obviously have little knowledge about, get your facts right. It is does not help to form a good relationship between those at the “Sharp end” and those of us in the background who are trying our best to support you when all we get is yet again, another set of ridiculous, barbed comments cast in our direction.

 

[wgaf]

WGAF.

I do not know what level you work at on your squadron, but, and no disrespect here, I am hoping not NCO level. You see you are very mistaken in many areas with your assessment of the AMM career/training path. I will attempt to clarify it here:

The job of cosford is to train these young, enthusiastic airman. They are trained to be just that airman, at the same time they are INTRODUCED to aircraft and their associated systems and instructed on saftey issues. It is now a breif overview which lasts 6 months. Addionally they are afforded time with the force development staff. When these airman leave Cosford, they have been instructed and assessed on their performance as an airman and on their suitability to be trained as a technician, This training starts on the Sqn. It is the duty of the Sqn's to train the AMM's in the various aspects of the trades by utilising methods such as OJT. If the reporting officers find that the individual is suitable for advancement then he gives the 6000 a recommended tick in the box, the individual is then selected for further training and on completion of this training he is deemed a technician.

So you see, the vast majority of the AMM's trade training is, and should be conducted on his parent squadron, this is an area of the AMM career path many are not aware of, When they have finished on the line, they should be allocated to a trade desk, where practicable, to learn their trade under 100% supervision, NOT given the option to stay if they want to.

Can I also say that your comment on these 'Kids' not knowing what hard work is compared to us, This is just not true, sure there are differences between them and us, but the world has changed enormously in a very short period of time, but ,back to your comment, The AMM's work much harder during their 6 months at Cosford than we ever did. FACT. In fact I doubt there are many in the RAF who did work as hard as these lads and lasses do. Their work load is enormous in comparrison and when they get to you the first thing they are going to need is a little bit of leave.

Right, lets get a few things sorted. Yes I do work at NCO level and I would consider myself a lot more aware of what is required and what is POSSIBLE on a sqdn than an instructor at Cosford. Whilst the powers that be at Cosford, and I include the instructors in this, walk around with their heads in the sand thinking they are supplying us at the coal face with a superior product, the problems that we encounter at the coal face will continue. From your posts I presume you are a Cosford instructor, as such it is your job to supply us on the front line with personnel who we can then mold into decent enough mechanics to send back to Cosford for the instructors to then turn into the future techinicians. It is YOUR jobs, not mine, to ensure these people have enough BASIC knowledge to be able to come onto a sqdn and be receptive to what we show them. We, on sqdns, are not instructors, we simply do not have the time or manpower to overcome the shortcomings that the RAF have given these lads and lasses in training. There are several AMMs on my shift and while there are good there are also some shockers, these should have been weeded out at training and this is a fault of the systems and the instructors.

 

[Hu Jardon]

Before you start blaming the Instructors at Cosford for the standard of training the AMM receives, I strongly suggest that you get your facts right. I totally agree with you that the Squadrons are very short on manpower which restricts the amount of time that can be spent on training the AMM’s with trade knowledge and experience and yes, they will receive a very intense period of training when they return on their FT course. I know this to be the case as I have spent the last 15 months as a member of the team who have been developing the Mechanical Course.

However, I find your off-hand comments about the ability of the Instructors totally offensive. There have been several posts recently about instructing being an easy life, “those who can do and those who can’t teach” and other such ridiculous, blasé comments. I kept out of them as most of the comments were from people who are either wind-up merchants or are ignorant of the current training structure in the RAF.

The AMM course was Leaned, to reduce the amount of time given on trade training, something that a lot of instructors, myself included, were against. One of the reasons given for the reduction was that the Units wanted the AMMs as soon as possible to increase their manpower on the Squadrons and therefore, free up the technicians form Flight Servicing duties so there was more available for aircraft maintenance and fault rectification.

So before you go casting the blame on a subject you obviously have little knowledge about, get your facts right. It is does not help to form a good relationship between those at the “Sharp end” and those of us in the background who are trying our best to support you when all we get is yet again, another set of ridiculous, barbed comments cast in our direction.

Ding Ding Round 3 - here we go again

Dear Captain Slog & the rest of you from Cosford with bruised ego's

Airframe Doctor, wgaf, Wizard et al are all entitled to their opinions - and do you know what?

Well seeing as how these are the guys who are managing and working with the AMM graduates on a daily basis then the rest of us have got very little right to criticise or doubt what they are saying.

If there is any "fault" with the AMM's then it is our Lords and Matresses who failed to put in place sufficient manpower at the frontline to take these young people on to the next level.

As for someones opinion of an individuals abilities - take a chill pill for Fekks sake take a look into your own past - weren't the other shift always a bunch of lazy handbagging bast@rds?

When you were at Scampton on V's weren't Waddo the sad fekkers?

When I was instructing I knew how good/bad I was an instructor and quite frankly I couldn't give a sh1t what anyone but my students thought.

Hu

 

[wgaf]

Before you start blaming the Instructors at Cosford for the standard of training the AMM receives, I strongly suggest that you get your facts right. I totally agree with you that the Squadrons are very short on manpower which restricts the amount of time that can be spent on training the AMM’s with trade knowledge and experience and yes, they will receive a very intense period of training when they return on their FT course. I know this to be the case as I have spent the last 15 months as a member of the team who have been developing the Mechanical Course.

However, I find your off-hand comments about the ability of the Instructors totally offensive. There have been several posts recently about instructing being an easy life, “those who can do and those who can’t teach” and other such ridiculous, blasé comments. I kept out of them as most of the comments were from people who are either wind-up merchants or are ignorant of the current training structure in the RAF.

The AMM course was Leaned, to reduce the amount of time given on trade training, something that a lot of instructors, myself included, were against. One of the reasons given for the reduction was that the Units wanted the AMMs as soon as possible to increase their manpower on the Squadrons and therefore, free up the technicians form Flight Servicing duties so there was more available for aircraft maintenance and fault rectification.

So before you go casting the blame on a subject you obviously have little knowledge about, get your facts right. It is does not help to form a good relationship between those at the “Sharp end” and those of us in the background who are trying our best to support you when all we get is yet again, another set of ridiculous, barbed comments cast in our direction.

I realy couldn't give a damn if you are offended by my comments. I have made those comments from what I have seen and what I have experienced. The fact that they've upset your sensibilities is neither here nor there. There is far too much of a "don't blame us" culture from Cosford, the bottom line is trainees come from Cosford to the sqdns and many of them are not upto standards, not all many of them are extremely good. When you speak to them about their training it makes interesting listening, many of them comment on the instructors at Cosford and contrary to what you seem to believe not all their comments are in the positive. So stop taking offense at valid comments from someone who has experience nd has talked to these AMMs on an almost daily basis (shift allowing) and have a look a little closer to home to see how standards at your workplace can improve.

 

[Blue Van Man]

Right, lets get a few things sorted. Yes I do work at NCO level and I would consider myself a lot more aware of what is required and what is POSSIBLE on a sqdn than an instructor at Cosford. Whilst the powers that be at Cosford, and I include the instructors in this, walk around with their heads in the sand thinking they are supplying us at the coal face with a superior product, the problems that we encounter at the coal face will continue. From your posts I presume you are a Cosford instructor, as such it is your job to supply us on the front line with personnel who we can then mold into decent enough mechanics to send back to Cosford for the instructors to then turn into the future techinicians. It is YOUR jobs, not mine, to ensure these people have enough BASIC knowledge to be able to come onto a sqdn and be receptive to what we show them. We, on sqdns, are not instructors, we simply do not have the time or manpower to overcome the shortcomings that the RAF have given these lads and lasses in training. There are several AMMs on my shift and while there are good there are also some shockers, these should have been weeded out at training and this is a fault of the systems and the instructors.

WRAG.

I seem to have hit a nerve. The NCO comment should not have been included granted but you seem very uneducated on the new stream of technician. I no longer teach the trade aspects but spent most of my trade teaching time on the AMM course. Since the first day it has been reduced in time and content by the 'bigger pay packets' to satisfy the changing circumstances of the RAF.

You are quite right when you say that it is our jobs to ensure they have the correct level of basic knowledge when you receive them, and trust me, the instructors do work very hard to ensure this is the case, but that level of knowledge is dictated to us by those 'bigger pay packets'. Nobody said that we were 100% happy with that level of knowledge but while we have had to adjust to that set of circumstances the duty of the squadrons and typically the nco's, especially corporal, have either misunderstood the message or not bothered to apply it.

We are all busy. it is not always possible to achieve your every goal but I think we all owe it the AMM's to help them achieve their goals. They didn't ask for this, the best we can do is put on the senior hat and help.

You say you have some good and some bad AMM's, well bugger me! I am sure you joined and graduated with direct decendants of Frank Whittle, albert einstein and sir isaac newton!! Likw the AMM's today, I joined with some good and some not so good, but all who are still in have made it to SNCO level, we all got here through training, learning, experience and above all from leadership and example. You are now that example that they aspire to be!

 

[sheddweller]

Its seems peculiar that people who teach at Cosford aren’t aware of the pressures out on the squadrons – surely most instructors have been techies before they were given the unenviable task of trying to teach the latest generation of non-strivers? When manning levels now only allow time to do the most essential of jobs how can the guys on the line possibly have time to give these AMMs 100% supervision? Presumably this OJT is going on at the same time as the beleaguered NCO is also trying to get his existing techies X500’d and the last of the NVQers, or whatever other "continued training" is going on, signed up to boot?
Now I know that very few people would want to be sent against their will to be an instructor at Cosford and I also know that it can be extremely infuriating if people are slating your end product, but at the same time at least the guys at Cosford are actually employed as instructors – those guys on the shop floors are employed as line managers and techies and yet are doing the instructing as well – surely everyone can see that’s yet another load to slow down aircraft servicing?
The AMM idea is definitely a noble one - starting out as a liney and then specialising in a trade is without doubt better than sitting in the AVCO and being told “yes you’d just love to be a leckie/rigger etc” (whatever was undermanned that week) and then discovering 18 months later that perhaps it wasn’t the best choice. But this isn’t the right Air Force to start it in – 10 years ago when there were spare bods floating about all over the place (you remember – there was sports afternoons and everything back then….) maybe then there was the slack but not now.

 

[Blue Van Man]

Its seems peculiar that people who teach at Cosford aren’t aware of the pressures out on the squadrons – surely most instructors have been techies before they were given the unenviable task of trying to teach the latest generation of non-strivers? When manning levels now only allow time to do the most essential of jobs how can the guys on the line possibly have time to give these AMMs 100% supervision? Presumably this OJT is going on at the same time as the beleaguered NCO is also trying to get his existing techies X500’d and the last of the NVQers, or whatever other "continued training" is going on, signed up to boot?
Now I know that very few people would want to be sent against their will to be an instructor at Cosford and I also know that it can be extremely infuriating if people are slating your end product, but at the same time at least the guys at Cosford are actually employed as instructors – those guys on the shop floors are employed as line managers and techies and yet are doing the instructing as well – surely everyone can see that’s yet another load to slow down aircraft servicing?
The AMM idea is definitely a noble one - starting out as a liney and then specialising in a trade is without doubt better than sitting in the AVCO and being told “yes you’d just love to be a leckie/rigger etc” (whatever was undermanned that week) and then discovering 18 months later that perhaps it wasn’t the best choice. But this isn’t the right Air Force to start it in – 10 years ago when there were spare bods floating about all over the place (you remember – there was sports afternoons and everything back then….) maybe then there was the slack but not now.

I totally agree with you and yes we have all been 'out there'. I think I have stated already that this ammended career path was born from the need of the squadrons and dictated to us by higher authority. There are many instructors who are extremely frustrated with the lack of time we have with the AMM's, afterall, everybody, well most want to do a good job.

We are aware that this is not a perfect scenario given how busy this Airforce is, instructors want to instruct and operational line managers want to get the aircraft in the air. however, today we all have to adapt to an ever changing environment with ever changing demands.

My point to all of this is that people from the Squadrons are whining that the AMM's are not up to scratch, and that Cosford instructors have failed, when it is the job of Cosford to make some precautionary checks and educate in the world of the aircraft engineering arena and for the squadron personnel to assist these trainees with progression. Not my rules someone elses. If I had my way we would cut down on FD training and spend that time more productively teaching young airman to be techies. Having said that, even back in my day as a mech, you weren't fully trained when you left Halton. You left with a good grounding but learnt your trade on aircraft or in the bays. If you were good enough you made it to Halton or later Cosford to do a fitters course, so it isn't very much different, we had a little more knowledge and spent much more time as a mech but that was because there were no promotions for nearly 5 years.

So Have things really changed that much?? my answer..perhaps, but only because we are a smaller ,busier and changing organisation. The idea of the MECH to TECH is very similiar.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Calm down everyone, there appears to be a lot of 'point missing' going on here.
Yes, the instructors at Cosford have been on squadrons before and are only too aware of the frustration and pressure. I recall one night shift at Lyneham when my only manpower was myself and a Cpl. But thats irrelevant to whats going on today.
Believe it or not it is not the two or three banana instructor (or even us civvies heaven preserve us DT_Xtremez_30: ) who decides what to teach our tradespersons - its your very own trade sponsor folks. They decide at a high level what goes in the syllabus, although admitedly we flesh the higher objectives out with detaul. It is they who decide how long the bods are in training, and trust me they want it to be as little time as possible. They decide to change the entry scheme and how the technicians career should progress. They, if necessary, reduce the entry standard to get more people into denims.
I suggest, as I did earlier, that the frustration with the limitations of the AMM is caused by a co-incidental lack of technician manpower with which to properly supervise them as the trade sponsor intended when they designed the system. I'm sure those of us who recall working in the era of FLMs never seriously cussed their lack of trade ability because, back then, there were plenty of mechanic and technician tradesmen to cover the work.
We do try really hard to get a good quality product out to you guys, but just like you we are often working with one hand tied behind our backs. And trust me, if you think the standard is poor NOW (when most instructors are still ex-service, wait to the jokers and bean counters from Metrix/Qinetic with their CBT take over.
"Wirelocking Cpl?" "How the heck do I do that with a computer mouse?" DT_Xtremez_32:

In short, we feel your pain (well not literally, but we didn't invent the system.