Nimrod Review

[Ex-Bay]

So, with the blood of these 14 service personnel alone on their hands, we are treated to the usual crocodile tears and mealy-mouthed empty platitudes from the snivelling, self-serving individuals whose primary duty was to ensure their safety, as far as humanly possible, in times of conflict. Ainsworth in particular is deserving of our utter contempt for trying, amidst all the fury being directed at him and his cronies, to claim in interview that defence spending has been increased under the Larbour government. At a time when public attitudes towards politicians is measured by degrees of loathing and disdain rather than by what they believe they have done for us, this mendacious, useless sh1t should be sacked immediately; in any other line of work he would have been already.

Here Here.

 

[Weebl]

It's the confusion caused, and the hard work needed, to change from any existing system to any new system, that you have to be aware of.



"There is no change, even for the better, without hardship"
(Percy Verance - 18:40)


Lots of new training, Lots of new lectures, Lots of new paperwork, Lots of pain, Lots of anger, Lots of distrust, Lots & Lots of frustration.

BUT IT CAN GET BETTER.

But if they are changing things for the better, and in the direction postulated by the Haddon-Cove report (which is pretty much the way we want to go) rather than just changing things because they can, then they will have the support of the rank and file as well as the SNCO Cadre.

I have only a few reservations, and as always they revolve around the amount the MOD will listen to and act upon this report. Not in the little ways by making new posters and setting up new systems of work without funding or training (in other words, the lip service they have used in the past) This needs fundamental change in the attitudes displayed from the very top.

Don't tell us to do something and then fail to give us the tools needed. Tell us to do something and fully support us while we do it.

 

[insty66]

Chapter 19 is very interesting as it addresses Shortcomings.

I would like to emphasise 19.34.20, not only is it a ringing endorsement of everything good about RAF technicians, the first two sub-paras in particular. Unfortunately I think it they are our biggest (peacetime) weakness too.

BTW Hats of to the inspired leaders up there.

I think those parts are an extract from the Capability Health Check

 

[BillyBunter]

This needs fundamental change in the attitudes displayed from the very top.

.

This is my biggest fear, it will all be about change and promises and things that will take so long to implement to make things for the better. I just fear the powers at the ivory towers will just do things to save there pensions and jobs and do nothing to help the front line where things really need changing or we will loose the RAF.

I really hope we get change and nothing better than shocking changes at the top to set the tone, I cross my fingers in hope

 

[Tin basher]

But if they are changing things for the better, and in the direction postulated by the Haddon-Cove report (which is pretty much the way we want to go) rather than just changing things because they can, then they will have the support of the rank and file as well as the SNCO Cadre.

Change a much misused word. Change if it's for the better will always get my support, change because we can change maybe not. On to many occasions things have been changed because somebody has had the authority to impose such a change, which is totally different to someone who has the knowledge to implement such change. Perhaps now after this damning report we can get away from focus groups and bean counters, distance ourselves from words like business model, customer, lean, budget constraints and focus once again on things like safety, airworthiness, professionalism, standards, integrity, pride, concsience(Spelling). In essence get back to doing it right and counting money after rather than the other way round.


A quote from Isombard Kingdom Brunel

"Great things are not done by those who think only of the cost of such things" .

And he was an engineer of some repute.

 

[Rigga]

My largest fear of the H-C review is the implementation of the MOD STABILITY regime before the changes required, to fix the mess created by Gordon and Bliar, are put into place.

There is a case, however, for having to properly evaluate the need and benefit of any desired changes before the hardship of doing the change.

Most people dont just go out and buy a car. They justify the need for it and budget for it, before signing the contract.


"Simplicity" - a recommendation of H-C

 

[Tin basher]

There is a case, however, for having to properly evaluate the need and benefit of any desired changes before the hardship of doing the change.

Absolutey spot on. Unfortunatley some of our leaders do it the other way round and by then it's to late

 

[8:15fromOdium]

With apologies to Mr Masher:

24.2.5 The dilution of engineering training by ‘multi-skilling’

Now can we return to the engineering trade and training structures of the late 80s?

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

With apologies to Mr Masher:

24.2.5 The dilution of engineering training by ‘multi-skilling’

Now can we return to the engineering trade and training structures of the late 80s?

The civvy world gets on fine with multi skilling and if it had been introduced properly, would add flexiblity in what a units manpower can achieve.


However 3 to 7 week theory courses were never going to do it and the belief that you could chop a squadrons manpower by half by doing it, was total delusion.

 

[duffman]

BB what were the meeting like the HC when you were at Kinloss?

Multi skilling in HC report said it made almost no diffence to a/c availability rates. People felt they didn't have the time to teach those from the other trade. I think it hugely underestimated how long it would take to get people up to speed, people working away from a/c and in single trade bays etc. Multi skilling started around 2003(?) and will finish next year. How many feel that they are truely multiskilled, and for how many was it just penned up? I know some who had the whole of the practical side signed up a matter of days.

 

[monobrow]

How many feel that they are truely multiskilled, and for how many was it just penned up? I know some who had the whole of the practical side signed up a matter of days.

This could be a seperate thread on it's own!!! I was briefed on leckie systems and signed up as X500. My day to day job at the time was LITS which was what I did day to day until I left for an Avionics bay and from there I have gone outside of trade. Me attaining my X500 was some 4 years ago now and not once has it been put to use!! I could however be posted into a leckie bay

DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Rigga]

Although I believe H-C has it "right-on!" in his report - I don't believe that multi-skilling is the sole reason for engineering dilution (and I know you wont like that statement)

The reason for engineering dilution is the way multi-skilling was imposed on a reduced force with low standards of training (not the low standard of teaching) produced by restricted funding.

When I did my engine licences it took a year of self-study and asking sumpies how the "oil heaters" worked - it was just "another component" to me. And I believe that all the NCO ranks MAY be able to assimilate easier for that reason. Unfortunately, the more junior ranks may not assimilate as easy to start with, though they have time on their side for experience growth.

However, trainees coming out of the box may be worst off by possibly not having a 'good' trade colleagues or managers.

I dont know - but I also believe that the standard of training for raw recruits may be of a 'lesser' value than those trained before 2000 - again, due to funding cuts.

- AND I AM just guessing!

Tell me I'm wrong...

 

[duffman]

This could be a seperate thread on it's own!!! I was briefed on leckie systems and signed up as X500. My day to day job at the time was LITS which was what I did day to day until I left for an Avionics bay and from there I have gone outside of trade. Me attaining my X500 was some 4 years ago now and not once has it been put to use!! I could however be posted into a leckie bay

DT_Xtremez_42:

That's the problem there is such a wide variety of posts off a/c that one trade is enough to suffer with skill fade.

 

[sumps]

One of the things I have noticed about “ multi-skilling” is the differences (from a heavies point of view) that one has to go through dependent on what type of training you received on joining the RAF.

The Appo's have had to do an extra module (on CD) in electrics. The FT & DE's have had to go to Cosford for 3-5 weeks to receive classroom/workshop based training in another area of mechanical systems. Yet the FT/DE does not receive the supposed extra electrical training that the Appo' is deficient of.

How then can the RAF say that all is equal and treat people so, if they haven't been trained to an equal standard in all areas? On paper this still puts a divide within the heavy trades.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

With apologies to Mr Masher:

Now can we return to the engineering trade and training structures of the late 80s?

Although I believe H-C has it "right-on!" in his report - I don't believe that multi-skilling is the sole reason for engineering dilution (and I know you wont like that statement)

The reason for engineering dilution is the way multi-skilling was imposed on a reduced force with low standards of training (not the low standard of teaching) produced by restricted funding.

When I did my engine licences it took a year of self-study and asking sumpies how the "oil heaters" worked - it was just "another component" to me. And I believe that all the NCO ranks MAY be able to assimilate easier for that reason. Unfortunately, the more junior ranks may not assimilate as easy to start with, though they have time on their side for experience growth.

However, trainees coming out of the box may be worst off by possibly not having a 'good' trade colleagues or managers.

I dont know - but I also believe that the standard of training for raw recruits may be of a 'lesser' value than those trained before 2000 - again, due to funding cuts.

- AND I AM just guessing!

Tell me I'm wrong...

Don't think you are mate.

 

[duffman]

One of the things I have noticed about “ multi-skilling” is the differences (from a heavies point of view) that one has to go through dependent on what type of training you received on joining the RAF.

The Appo's have had to do an extra module (on CD) in electrics. The FT & DE's have had to go to Cosford for 3-5 weeks to receive classroom/workshop based training in another area of mechanical systems. Yet the FT/DE does not receive the supposed extra electrical training that the Appo' is deficient of.

How then can the RAF say that all is equal and treat people so, if they haven't been trained to an equal standard in all areas? On paper this still puts a divide within the heavy trades.

Because it's cheap and easy and draws a line under it. No-one wants to look back over xx years and look at the exact differences. The divide isn't there in the RAF's eyes so it doesn't excist, most appos would c/t by now anyway. In most cases this means sitting in an office somewhere, FS and WO are exempt from multi skilling.

 

[monobrow]

I dont know - but I also believe that the standard of training for raw recruits may be of a 'lesser' value than those trained before 2000 - again, due to funding cuts.

I honestly couldn't comment on this as I was trained 2000 - 2001 at Cosford. Of course I would say that my training was adequate as I found no knowledge shortfall at the sharp end once on a Squadron. I also found myself posted underneath a good SNCO who took the time to show me where the books were and more importantly in my eyes, made me sit with the books and investigate what the guys were going to change as they went to confirm it. I think this kind of start to someones career has helped me later on down the road.

I have in the past refused to sign job cards and also showed my Cpl in the book why we weren't about to change a box for the 15th time in 19 sorties and why we would change the component that fixed the snag... Is that down to the level of integrity that had been rammed home through 14 months of training? (SAC(T) training by the way...)

Then came self supervision. In some ways it worked... For a fairy to go and do birdstrike checks at a landaway, it was not a big job and retained a supervisor at the MOB. However it was quickly realised what it measnt could happen...

I got sent to work on a primary flying control system with Chf Tech health and safety to do the indies. Suddenly I'm in a bit of a "What the ****" moment. I don't feel confident that the bloke doing the indies can remember 10(?) years ago to when he last did them or wether I should be doing this in the first place! Look in the 2(R)1 and all it said was I can't do Harm as self sup. Turns out that the work didn't need doing and the BITE passed. Big sigh of relief!

I can't really comment on the advent of multiskilling or the AMM's either as I was more of a spectator than a participant.

 

[Weebl]

Although I believe H-C has it "right-on!" in his report - I don't believe that multi-skilling is the sole reason for engineering dilution (and I know you wont like that statement)

I see nothing wrong with that statement. The major reason for Engineering dilution in the RAF today is the AMM trade stream. I see new AMMs coming out of Cosford all the time, they are, in the main good lads and if they were trained as Engineers instead of being rammed through a course designed to teach them not very much then I am sure this dilution would not be happening, I am not bashing the instructors, i am bashing the people who wrote the course and think pushing people out of a sausage factory is the way forward. We all said when the AMM was mooted it would cause Engineering standards to drop, now I have people coming to me asking why one of my AMMs has yet again missed something on a servicing, well, it is because they are not trained properly and the focus in their training is on the wrong things. We are having to finish the training of these people, while they are posted in as replacements for Technicians. Then, when we get them right, they are gone again.

The reason for engineering dilution is the way multi-skilling was imposed on a reduced force with low standards of training (not the low standard of teaching) produced by restricted funding.

I disagree with this however. Yes, the Multiskilling course was a joke, how can I do a Sooty course in 7 weeks that took a Sooty nearly a year, same as Sooty to Rigger, however in the main the 'legacy' tradesmen have taken the lead on any major jobs and have not allowed the standard to drop. I am struggling to think of one incident where a 'Rigger' Heavy has fixed an engine to a lesser standard then a 'Sooty' heavy would have done, and vice versa. The dilution is down to contractorisation. Plain and simple, they thought we were all going the way of the AMM, with the big stuff being picked up by Civvies. The RAF has farmed out bays, along with anything it sees as not deployable. This means I have Cpls who have never carried out an airframe repair or stripped a component down into it's constituent parts. We are expected to do less because the bays and civvies are supposed to pick up the slack. Yet more 'Value for Money' idea's from people treating the military of this country as a business.

When I did my engine licences it took a year of self-study and asking sumpies how the "oil heaters" worked - it was just "another component" to me. And I believe that all the NCO ranks MAY be able to assimilate easier for that reason. Unfortunately, the more junior ranks may not assimilate as easy to start with, though they have time on their side for experience growth.

Pretty much agree with this, not a lot extra to say.

However, trainees coming out of the box may be worst off by possibly not having a 'good' trade colleagues or managers.

Now this is where the AMM, who has been back on a trade course and now passed out as a Heavy or Light should have an advantage, They were never a Rigger or a Sooty, they have always been a 'Heavy' so they should, if the training is right, be better off. I honestly cannot answer truthfully either way, I have not had somebody who has been through the whole system and come out the other side come work with me yet.

I dont know - but I also believe that the standard of training for raw recruits may be of a 'lesser' value than those trained before 2000 - again, due to funding cuts.

- AND I AM just guessing!

Tell me I'm wrong...

Can't.

 

[Get Tae]

Guys I think you are digressing and missing the point somewhat (I could be wrong). The dilution of engineering expertise he is mainly on about was when we went through the period on NLS where it seemed everyone was PVRing and leaving the service.

Every week there was a leaving beer call for guys that had a collective Nimrod experience sometimes into the three figure years service between them.

At that point we had the highest PVR rate of ANY unit/sqn in the RAF.

Those who were left behind will remember the CAS WO come striding into the crew room and ask what was wrong. Many folk pointed out lack of manpower, spares, aircraft continually u/s, constant OOA etc etc only to be told by said CAS WO, and I quote word for word "well if you dont like it you know where the door is"

That was the infamous night when a whole shift of fairies slammed the PVR forms in.

If you treat folk like that expect a backlash.

Thats experience dillution right there.

 

[Weebl]

Guys I think you are digressing and missing the point somewhat (I could be wrong). The dilution of engineering expertise he is mainly on about was when we went through the period on NLS where it seemed everyone was PVRing and leaving the service.

Every week there was a leaving beer call for guys that had a collective Nimrod experience sometimes into the three figure years service between them.

At that point we had the highest PVR rate of ANY unit/sqn in the RAF.

Those who were left behind will remember the CAS WO come striding into the crew room and ask what was wrong. Many folk pointed out lack of manpower, spares, aircraft continually u/s, constant OOA etc etc only to be told by said CAS WO, and I quote word for word "well if you dont like it you know where the door is"

That was the infamous night when a whole shift of fairies slammed the PVR forms in.

If you treat folk like that expect a backlash.

Thats experience dillution right there.

Pfft, how can that possibly be experience dilution. They were all replaced by AMMs, thus keeping the numbers balanced.

A brand new recruit who is not trained to do anything other than flight servicings is an ideal replacement for somebody with years of Engineering experience.