Do we need to know everything

[busby1971]

This is not aimed at any trade in particular, but does the RAF need to train individuals up to the high levels it currently does.

Is there a requirement for individuals to know about how to do their job away from operations or should we just know what we need know to cope nd make do when we are deployed.

Lets dumb down the RAF, if all you really need to do on ops is tasks A, B or C then why learn the whole trade alphabet, when D through to Z could be done by a contractor.

Would this be the end of the RAF, the rebirth of the next RAF or just another change along the way.

Discuss

 

[Nec Aspera Terrent]

If A, B and C were clearly defined and unchanging tasks then you may have a point.

Unfortunately, mission creep and problems with poorly written contracts would mean that next year, D, E anf F might be added. And the year after that G, H, I and probably J.

And just occasionally, a Q, M or X might be thrown up without being predicted.

We need to have the skills to deal with unexpected eventualities.

Dare I say, "Flexibility is the key to Air Power"?



Sorry.

 

[Plumber]

Yeah then the RAF need not bother having people with skills who can see how the whole thing fits and works together then fix it when it all goes wrong, and because no has any real skills they can pay minium wage.

 

[vim_fuego]

The Americans train a segment of their back end aircrew in a similar way to how you describe...I've had the misfortune to fly with them and observe how the way we do things is far far better and long may it continue...Knowledge is the power to achieve more than the basics and whe the sh!t hits the fan you may need people around you to step up to the mark and outside of their comfort bubble...

 

[Tashy_Man]

Yeah then the RAF need not bother having people with skills who can see how the whole thing fits and works together then fix it when it all goes wrong, and because no has any real skills they can pay minium wage.

They don't pay far off that now........

Crack on.....................DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[3wheeledtechie]

And if BITE testing fails to identify the correct LRU.... just keep replacing it, cos it must be the LRU that's at fault, yeah?








Or finally admit defeat and find someone who's had the benefit of proper training and can fault find the cause. If they haven't PVR'd....

 

[DE Scumbag]

And if BITE testing fails to identify the correct LRU.... just keep replacing it, cos it must be the LRU that's at fault, yeah?








Or finally admit defeat and find someone who's had the benefit of proper training and can fault find the cause. If they haven't PVR'd....

You could always diagnose by stock check.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Short answer, yes. At the top end , we need to move away from subject matter experts so that our day job can continue even when key players are absent/unavailable.

Further down the food chain, I've seen the headaches Rects Controllers/Shift bosses get trying to juggle manpower to allow leave/sport/courses, etc., while having enough suitably qualified tradesmen to support the flying programme.

Even in the shiney world, when only one person in PSF knows anything about CEA, discharges, maternity leave, etc., we cannot provide the service that people need and expect.

 

[DE Scumbag]

In essence the question is one about whether it is a good idea to down skill.

Here's my tuppence worth.

The reason for down skilling is one of necessity driven by the end of the cold war. With the savings successive governments have insisted on making to the defence budget, and the draw down of manpower totals that they have announced, commanders have been challenged to find new ways of achieving the same tasking with less resource.

Manpower figures appear to have been drawn from what the treasury is prepared to pay, not what that tasking is likely to be. So with manpower control totals (MCT) going through the floor, savings had to be made to task. Strangely enough employing contractors at inflated rates of pay is cheaper in the long term than having a body in a uniform; hence more and more appeared on Stations.

Furthermore there is a desire for the MOD to engage with industry to ensure that value for money is optimised. As commercial companies are in the business of making money, the idea would be that industry uses its expertise to drive down operating costs, to achieve better value for money.

Still with me?

With improvements in technology all designed to save on manpower and if you have industry working closely at Stations then there is direct access to SME, and therefore huge savings can be made on training costs.

If the technology was flawless then perhaps this situation could be sustained with no impact felt at the front line, however there is always failures within systems, (whichever trade) that technology alone cannot meet. In depth knowledge is invaluable to deal with these issues, but there will soon be only limited depth knowledge within the Service.

The problem comes because the MoD is primarily funded for peace time training. So while it's ok to have ex SNECs contracting at MOB what happens when you want to deploy them? They have a choice not to go, and if they do go their salary jumps to astronomic proportions.

Perhaps if we trained a few people as SMEs then they could fill the void, however they would become rich pickings for the civvy jobs on Stations too.

 

[shoutingwind]

YES!!!
otherwise why join the airforce? might as well be a contractor....

 

[Shugster]

Training should overlap slightly in to other trades that you work with.

Then, when the argument, "It's your box! No, It's your PFCU", arises both sides know a little bit more about the system as a whole and not just their bit.

I would have been a much better Rigger with the understanding of Closed loop control and PID systems that I have today.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Big sign not far from me says "Warfighter First".

That implies to me that as long as your shooting skills and ability to generally survive and kill the enemy are up to scratch then it doesnt really matter that you are not very good at the trade you joined up as...

Cue scenario:

Pilot....What do you mean my aircraft is broken and you cant fix it in time for my mission?

Teccy...Thats correct Sir, but I got 100% on my SAT shoot yesterday, and managed level 10.10 and 50 press-ups in my 6-monthly fitness test this morning!

DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Big sign not far from me says "Warfighter First".

That implies to me that as long as your shooting skills and ability to generally survive and kill the enemy are up to scratch then it doesnt really matter that you are not very good at the trade you joined up as...

Cue scenario:

Pilot....What do you mean my aircraft is broken and you cant fix it in time for my mission?

Teccy...Thats correct Sir, but I got 100% on my SAT shoot yesterday, and managed level 10.10 and 50 press-ups in my 6-monthly fitness test this morning!

DT_Xtremez_15:

DT_Xtremez_14:DT_Xtremez_14:" The RAF - 2008" DT_Xtremez_14:DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Tin basher]

SME Subject Matter Expert a dangerous phrase that is actually defined within the pages of the JAP. Yet the term SME means differing things to different people in many different locations. The SME's at my place fulfil a totally different function to the one described as an SME's role in the JAP yet locally they are still termed SME's. As an aside most of our SME's are civvies on a much lower salary than the RAF guys they assist. I have one more than one occasion resisted the attempts of bean counters to "dumb down" trade skills to save a few bucks. Generalisation now but . The idea of a low skill RAF person backed up by high skill (Ex SNCO perhaps) civvies in a bay some where on camp has merit for bean counters. For me the concept falls flat when said RAF bods go out of area and all of a sudden they need to apply the skills they should have but don't because some bean counting individual in a grey suit sitting in an ivory tower has decided it's cheaper to dumb down the knowledge required by a tradesman. Obviously the bean counter never has to go OOA so is totally unaware of the talents and skills needed to function in such a situation. Knowledge is power so give as much as possible to the guys and gals who actually have to do the job and worry about the costs later. As that noted engineer Isombard Kingdom Brunel said "Great things are not done by those who only think of the cost of such things"

 

[DE Scumbag]

SME Subject Matter Expert a dangerous phrase that is actually defined within the pages of the JAP. Yet the term SME means differing things to different people in many different locations. The SME's at my place fulfil a totally different function to the one described as an SME's role in the JAP yet locally they are still termed SME's. As an aside most of our SME's are civvies on a much lower salary than the RAF guys they assist. I have one more than one occasion resisted the attempts of bean counters to "dumb down" trade skills to save a few bucks. Generalisation now but . The idea of a low skill RAF person backed up by high skill (Ex SNCO perhaps) civvies in a bay some where on camp has merit for bean counters. For me the concept falls flat when said RAF bods go out of area and all of a sudden they need to apply the skills they should have but don't because some bean counting individual in a grey suit sitting in an ivory tower has decided it's cheaper to dumb down the knowledge required by a tradesman. Obviously the bean counter never has to go OOA so is totally unaware of the talents and skills needed to function in such a situation. Knowledge is power so give as much as possible to the guys and gals who actually have to do the job and worry about the costs later. As that noted engineer Isombard Kingdom Brunel said "Great things are not done by those who only think of the cost of such things"

My point exactly,