TG1 Retention again

Talk Wrench · Mar 28, 2024

Flumpdaddy said:
muttywhitedog you seem rather hung up on titles along with a fixation on belittling the skill sets that the Engineering trades possess. Have you got any actual suggestions to solve retention or do you think disbanding TG1 and passing the maintenance onto the JEngO's and SEngO's is a good idea, after all they all have degrees so can be called engineers despite never picking up a spanner.

In defence of MWD, he was worth his weight in gold whilst serving and you have to be forgiving to a certain degree that the environment he's now in (happily doing his thing) is far removed from aviation and aerospace.

Unless you're in it, the knowledge of aerospace will always skirt around the periphery so opinions based on layman's terms should taken as they are. Explain where necessary.

An example. Last weekend I was explaining to someone that civil aircraft need to weighed after a livery repaint because the paint and lacquer can add an extra tonne or so to an aircraft. If course this was met with disbelief until I asked how much does a five litre tin of Dulux weigh? That person on the periphery now has a little bit of a snippet more of knowledge.

muttywhitedog · Mar 29, 2024

Flumpdaddy said:
muttywhitedog you seem rather hung up on titles along with a fixation on belittling the skill sets that the Engineering trades possess. Have you got any actual suggestions to solve retention or do you think disbanding TG1 and passing the maintenance onto the JEngO's and SEngO's is a good idea, after all they all have degrees so can be called engineers despite never picking up a spanner.

Not at all - but the posts above seem to support my theory that TG1 is full of technicians, not engineers, and its become an ego title, passed through time that someone who changes an item on an aircraft that was designed and built by someone else according to their work instructions is to that role what the guy who changes a part in a washing machine/cooker/fridge freezer all the way up to a nuclear reactor.

Now to the other question. Yes I do have a suggestion, and it is one you will find I have said over and over again. Pay those who work on aircraft in the cold, wind, rain, hostile environments an allowance funded by those who consistently avoid these jobs for roles that a lower paid trade could do. Do not pay it to those who avoid these roles for the comfort of JMLC instructor post, H&S /QA cells etc. Do not pay it to those without a relevant qualification in a current aircraft. Put true engineers (ie those with aerospace degrees) in design and airworthiness posts and again pay them the going rate for their qualifications, and if that needs to civilianise it, so be it. It will be money far better spent than putting someone in there whose last exposure to a fast jet was a Harrier.

I'll brace myself for the standard reply of "we need a break from the front line". If you choose to do that, you'll still be getting paid the same as the guy sat opposite you doing exactly the same job. What makes you think you should get £thousands more for doing exactly the same job?

JPA (if you have it still) has competence pay and this could be added/removed when an individual joins/departs a front line unit. If you are still in, then see if you can find out as to how many of TG1 are currently filling front-line technical posts (ie Sqns), and how many are currently in posts which could actually be filled by a steward, supplier, clerk, or even a correctly qualified civilian. I think you'll be surprised.

I was never precious about my title when in. I joined as an Admin Clerk, became a P&A Clerk, was rebranded as personnel administrator at some point. I was in the Admin Office of my Sqns - thats what it was known as to everyone, including me.. We were the adminers. I didn't big myself and my team up as HR Consultants and would have laughed at anyone who tried.

baconandeggs · Mar 29, 2024

I don't see how it would work in practice. If it's your hobby horse/pet hate fine.

Having to go through every tg1 post depending if they work outside or on a sqn for pay seems bonkers. They'd be loads of roles that don't align, you'd spend ages working at all out. There's plenty that move roles internally without ever moving jpans, for example.

If just a rant over a pint type of thing fair enough I've got the wrong end of the stick.

muttywhitedog · Mar 29, 2024

baconandeggs said:
I don't see how it would work in practice.

Same as it would for PTI when they are posted to a PJI post, or a steward when they are posted to a flying Sqn as an air steward. Run circuits or serve a few pints = standard pay. Teach people to jump out of aircraft or look after the needs of 200+ at 40,000 Ft = more pay,

baconandeggs · Mar 29, 2024

I don't think roles split that neatly in reality.
Rects controller posted to Eng Ops
Sqn training cell posted to Station training cell/eng standards
Docs ctrl posted to Eng records

Do they get a pay rise/cut/stay the same. They can be similar jobs, but on JPA look quite different. There's probably 100 other variations on that.

Spearmint · Mar 29, 2024

baconandeggs said:
I don't think roles split that neatly in reality.
Rects controller posted to Eng Ops
Sqn training cell posted to Station training cell/eng standards
Docs ctrl posted to Eng records

Do they get a pay rise/cut/stay the same. They can be similar jobs, but on JPA look quite different. There's probably 100 other variations on that.

Not to mention the roles in a CAMO or in DE&S where there may be the chance to come up with repair solutions.

Ya know......like an 'Engineer' may well be called upon to do.

muttywhitedog · Mar 30, 2024

Spearmint said:
Not to mention the roles in a CAMO or in DE&S where there may be the chance to come up with repair solutions.

Ya know......like an 'Engineer' may well be called upon to do.

Could they not consult with those actually doing the work on a daily basis instead of asking someone with perfectly manicured fingernails who hasnt spannered for years? Maybe even employ 1 x CAMO/DE&S on every flying unit to be the liaison. They dont all have to work in Bristol - we have teams and zoom these days.

Spearmint · Mar 30, 2024

muttywhitedog said:
Could they not consult with those actually doing the work on a daily basis instead of asking someone with perfectly manicured fingernails who hasnt spannered for years? Maybe even employ 1 x CAMO/DE&S on every flying unit to be the liaison. They dont all have to work in Bristol - we have teams and zoom these days.

The CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Maintenace Organisation) will be based at the same main location as the aircraft. Usually (in my experience) staffed by regulars and FTRS. The EA (Equipment Authority) or PA (Platform Authority) will usually be based at ABW apart from the LDT (Lightning Delivery Team) which is Marham. I'm not sure on PTs (Project Teams - old money for PA) for the likes of our Large Aircraft or Rotary.

Liaison wise on unit there are FSEs / FSRs (Field Support Engineers / Reps) which will typically be employed by the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) and are an intermediary for uniform to use first before referring upwards to the PA or EA.

dctyke · Mar 30, 2024

muttywhitedog said:
Not at all - but the posts above seem to support my theory that TG1 is full of technicians, not engineers, and its become an ego title, passed through time that someone who changes an item on an aircraft that was designed and built by someone else according to their work instructions is to that role what the guy who changes a part in a washing machine/cooker/fridge freezer all the way up to a nuclear reactor.

Now to the other question. Yes I do have a suggestion, and it is one you will find I have said over and over again. Pay those who work on aircraft in the cold, wind, rain, hostile environments an allowance funded by those who consistently avoid these jobs for roles that a lower paid trade could do. Do not pay it to those who avoid these roles for the comfort of JMLC instructor post, H&S /QA cells etc. Do not pay it to those without a relevant qualification in a current aircraft. Put true engineers (ie those with aerospace degrees) in design and airworthiness posts and again pay them the going rate for their qualifications, and if that needs to civilianise it, so be it. It will be money far better spent than putting someone in there whose last exposure to a fast jet was a Harrier.

I'll brace myself for the standard reply of "we need a break from the front line". If you choose to do that, you'll still be getting paid the same as the guy sat opposite you doing exactly the same job. What makes you think you should get £thousands more for doing exactly the same job?

JPA (if you have it still) has competence pay and this could be added/removed when an individual joins/departs a front line unit. If you are still in, then see if you can find out as to how many of TG1 are currently filling front-line technical posts (ie Sqns), and how many are currently in posts which could actually be filled by a steward, supplier, clerk, or even a correctly qualified civilian. I think you'll be surprised.

I was never precious about my title when in. I joined as an Admin Clerk, became a P&A Clerk, was rebranded as personnel administrator at some point. I was in the Admin Office of my Sqns - thats what it was known as to everyone, including me.. We were the adminers. I didn't big myself and my team up as HR Consultants and would have laughed at anyone who tried.

You do realised that in the 90’s jmlc instructors did an outdoor two day exercise every three weeks throughout the year. I worked on harrier sqns for 8 years doing field exercises but never got so cold and wet as a amlc instructor. (Far too much standing around observing)

muttywhitedog · Mar 31, 2024

dctyke said:
You do realised that in the 90’s jmlc instructors did an outdoor two day exercise every three weeks throughout the year. I worked on harrier sqns for 8 years doing field exercises but never got so cold and wet as a amlc instructor. (Far too much standing around observing)

Cool.

In the 90s, the Sqns I was on (which included both HR Consultants and Engineers and a few aircrew) deployed on ops for 2 months out of every 6.

Rigga · Mar 31, 2024

A CAMO doesn’t need to be in the same locale of any aircraft. Many civvy CAMOs are based 100’s of miles from their base maintenance centres. I know of one lady who is the CAMO for several UK-wide helicopter operators, including small fleets, and all working from her home office in Norfolk. The most important thing for her tasks of managing maintenance programs and, in many cases, sourcing spares and raising the actual work cards to be sent to maintenance organisations, is contact with a Type qualified CAT C Engineer, which is legally required. She is self-employed and is contracted out to manage the CAMO functions of up to 15 aircraft…a very lucrative job.

As with all levels of Life: If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Also, if you pay everyone the same - imagination, competitiveness and ambition all wither with complacency.

The difference in training between civvy and Mil Techies is gi-normous. Many civvy LAEs (and unlicensed ex apprentices) can also use a three-axis milling machine, lathes, grinders, etc, and build mods/components for (Part 21G) Production companies (No licences needed there, just the ability to read a drawing). The pay they get is commensurate for the variety of tasks they can and could do for anything on or around aircraft. To reverse paraphrase the Navy advert: If you can fix a plane - you can fix ground equipment or rebuild your kitchen, etc.

There was a time not too long ago, when the majority of Eng O’s only qualified through getting an A Level in English, passing an entrance exam, and Cranwell teachings of mechanics/electrics - and had nothing else behind them. I remember a JT getting his Mech Eng Diploma and being more professionally qualified than our OC Eng. Please also remember that most RAF ‘Engineers’ (Officers) are in certificates and titles only and only ‘manage’ admin duties on Squadrons. They are hardly experienced in maintenance matters and are unable to make headway in civvy companies due to their attitudes. ’Techies’, on the other hand, have thrived in Civvy Street becoming good managers and practical leaders in the industry. Many ex-service staff are employed by the CAA even now (though the money is better out in the real world!)

Flumpdaddy · Mar 31, 2024

muttywhitedog said:
Not at all - but the posts above seem to support my theory that TG1 is full of technicians, not engineers, and its become an ego title, passed through time that someone who changes an item on an aircraft that was designed and built by someone else according to their work instructions is to that role what the guy who changes a part in a washing machine/cooker/fridge freezer all the way up to a nuclear reactor.

Now to the other question. Yes I do have a suggestion, and it is one you will find I have said over and over again. Pay those who work on aircraft in the cold, wind, rain, hostile environments an allowance funded by those who consistently avoid these jobs for roles that a lower paid trade could do. Do not pay it to those who avoid these roles for the comfort of JMLC instructor post, H&S /QA cells etc. Do not pay it to those without a relevant qualification in a current aircraft. Put true engineers (ie those with aerospace degrees) in design and airworthiness posts and again pay them the going rate for their qualifications, and if that needs to civilianise it, so be it. It will be money far better spent than putting someone in there whose last exposure to a fast jet was a Harrier.

I'll brace myself for the standard reply of "we need a break from the front line". If you choose to do that, you'll still be getting paid the same as the guy sat opposite you doing exactly the same job. What makes you think you should get £thousands more for doing exactly the same job?

JPA (if you have it still) has competence pay and this could be added/removed when an individual joins/departs a front line unit. If you are still in, then see if you can find out as to how many of TG1 are currently filling front-line technical posts (ie Sqns), and how many are currently in posts which could actually be filled by a steward, supplier, clerk, or even a correctly qualified civilian. I think you'll be surprised.

I was never precious about my title when in. I joined as an Admin Clerk, became a P&A Clerk, was rebranded as personnel administrator at some point. I was in the Admin Office of my Sqns - thats what it was known as to everyone, including me.. We were the adminers. I didn't big myself and my team up as HR Consultants and would have laughed at anyone who tried.

I agree that in the RAF we are employed as technicians, the give-away is in the trade titles e.g. A Tech M/Av and Gen Tech M/E. I think when I joined I was Eng Tech AV so its always been Technician. I’m also a B2 licence holder which is described on the CAA and .gov websites as an Engineering Licence and I had to fill up a CAP 741 Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Log Book to provide evidence to gain said licence. I exercise the privileges of the B2 Engineer licence within the RAF so am I a Technician or an Engineer? I personally don’t care so long as I’m being paid for the work I do and ultimately it doesn’t matter what title the bod fixing things is given if they aren’t staying around to do the fixing.

Unfortunately within the UK there is no protected status for the title of Engineer so it’s widely abused but I don’t think that’s relevant to the current retention issues.

I quite like your suggestion regarding pay adjustment but wouldn’t want to be the poor sod that had to figure out which jobs were worthy of the extra pay against those that weren’t. Manning also have enough issues filling some of those jobs which wouldn’t be made any easier finding volunteers for if it comes with a pay cut. Try and pull service need combined with a pay cut and see how that works out. Not many people get released from TG1 for out of trade roles these days anyway.

Pushing further civilianisation might be a quick fix but those vacancies are usually filled by blue suiters leaving the RAF, unsurprising given they are usually already qualified and experienced.

I have also heard a rumour of increasing the use of sponsored reservists on Sqns in an attempt to plug gaps but the only way any civi contractor could fill the vacancies quickly is to poach from the RAF so wouldn’t really help.

Breaks from front line were usually a tour in AMF or the bays. Both of which have been heavily civilianised already and in my experience the civies are getting paid more. I don’t think the money saved by cutting a couple of peoples pay at Halton would go far in uplifting everyone else within TG1. As a former adminer you would have a good appreciation of the numbers of personnel in TG1 as a whole and I can’t imagine there is that big a proportion hiding in out the way roles but if I get chance I might have a look for the data.

Rigga · Mar 31, 2024

Flumpdaddy said:
I agree that in the RAF we are employed as technicians, the give-away is in the trade titles e.g. A Tech M/Av and Gen Tech M/E. I think when I joined I was Eng Tech AV so its always been Technician. I’m also a B2 licence holder which is described on the CAA and .gov websites as an Engineering Licence and I had to fill up a CAP 741 Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Log Book to provide evidence to gain said licence. I exercise the privileges of the B2 Engineer licence within the RAF so am I a Technician or an Engineer? I personally don’t care so long as I’m being paid for the work I do and ultimately it doesn’t matter what title the bod fixing things is given if they aren’t staying around to do the fixing.

Unfortunately within the UK there is no protected status for the title of Engineer so it’s widely abused but I don’t think that’s relevant to the current retention issues.

I quite like your suggestion regarding pay adjustment but wouldn’t want to be the poor sod that had to figure out which jobs were worthy of the extra pay against those that weren’t. Manning also have enough issues filling some of those jobs which wouldn’t be made any easier finding volunteers for if it comes with a pay cut. Try and pull service need combined with a pay cut and see how that works out. Not many people get released from TG1 for out of trade roles these days anyway.

Pushing further civilianisation might be a quick fix but those vacancies are usually filled by blue suiters leaving the RAF, unsurprising given they are usually already qualified and experienced.

I have also heard a rumour of increasing the use of sponsored reservists on Sqns in an attempt to plug gaps but the only way any civi contractor could fill the vacancies quickly is to poach from the RAF so wouldn’t really help.

Breaks from front line were usually a tour in AMF or the bays. Both of which have been heavily civilianised already and in my experience the civies are getting paid more. I don’t think the money saved by cutting a couple of peoples pay at Halton would go far in uplifting everyone else within TG1. As a former adminer you would have a good appreciation of the numbers of personnel in TG1 as a whole and I can’t imagine there is that big a proportion hiding in out the way roles but if I get chance I might have a look for the data.

Original CAA Licences are AMELs as opposed to EASA Licences which are AMLs - The Euro definition of “engineer’ involves certificates and universities. The English version of “engineer” is as a verb which is to influence an outcome, i.e. to engineer a remedy or a change in outcomes. In Part 66 terms - you only become an engineer when you have a CAT C Licence (Base Maintenance Engineer). CAT A is a Line Mechanic and CAT B is a Line Technician.
A further complication is that most UK maintenance organisations refer to themselves as ‘engineering’ indeed as the RAF does for its Eng Wing (where only maintenance is carried out). The nearest thing to engineering in the RAF and most maintenance organisations is in their CAMOs where changes to maintenance are, or should be, produced through statistical evidence or otherwise mandated changes. In reality, maintenance organisations should not be referred to as engineering…
In many civvy companies maintenance and engineering are two distinct departments.

dctyke · Mar 31, 2024

muttywhitedog said:
Cool.

In the 90s, the Sqns I was on (which included both HR Consultants and Engineers and a few aircrew) deployed on ops for 2 months out of every 6.

So did many of us, nothing special. Most of them were nice places, in reality it was families that took the hit.

Flumpdaddy · Mar 31, 2024

Rigga said:
Original CAA Licences are AMELs as opposed to EASA Licences which are AMLs - The Euro definition of “engineer’ involves certificates and universities. The English version of “engineer” is as a verb which is to influence an outcome, i.e. to engineer a remedy or a change in outcomes. In Part 66 terms - you only become an engineer when you have a CAT C Licence (Base Maintenance Engineer). CAT A is a Line Mechanic and CAT B is a Line Technician.
A further complication is that most UK maintenance organisations refer to themselves as ‘engineering’ indeed as the RAF does for its Eng Wing (where only maintenance is carried out). The nearest thing to engineering in the RAF and most maintenance organisations is in their CAMOs where changes to maintenance are, or should be, produced through statistical evidence or otherwise mandated changes. In reality, maintenance organisations should not be referred to as engineering…
In many civvy companies maintenance and engineering are two distinct departments.

Agree with most of that except the CAMO part. Majority of their work is managing and ensuring maintenance is carried out. They apply limits as provided by higher authority unless data analysis suggests a more stringent regime is needed due to platform useage, in which case they usually knee jerk to over maintaining. I suppose that could be argued as an engineering decision but so could a lot of things... but none of this helps retention

Typhoon-Techie · Mar 31, 2024

Anyhow, let's not be distracted.

Are we getting an FRI?

ady eflog · Apr 1, 2024

muttywhitedog said:
Aerospace engineers design, build and maintain aircrafts such as planes, spacecrafts and satellites. Their role combines aspects of both mechanical and electrical engineering.

Whats your engineering degree in Ady?
Do you design and build aircraft?
Have you ever designed and built an aircraft?
Or have you just maintained an aircraft?

- And its Stamford, not Peterborough.

I'm registered with the IET as an IEng, and yes I do have airworthiness responsibilities in my day job, and yes I know you live in Stamford but you work at Peterborough, the point is mate that you can't afford to employ "engineering personnel" to carry out the tasks required with the current money that is being paid and we are in a shit state.

vim_fuego · Apr 2, 2024

I work for a company that employs engineers (amongst a broad landscape of other technical and non-technical people). I personally interview people from time to time and get to hear why people look at us, who else they are talking to and what is important to them when looking for a role. We are in competition with other companies like QinetiQ, Ultra, Babcock, BAES, Atkins and so on. They are all looking for the same or similar people so we have to think about how we position ourselves to land the prize.

I would say that for every 5 people we interview, if our recruiting agency has done it's job, we will make 1-2 offers. I would then say that out of every 5 offers we will land 2-3. We definitely listen to those that we make an offer to and are helpful enough to let us know why they chose another company. We listen so we can sensibly tweak our offerings within the realms of reality and the abilty to make a profit still.

The RAF must do the same. If your Salary, terms and conditions do not excite the candidate he/she will not say yes...it really is that simple. There is the attraction of 'service' and seeing the world. To some the threat of action is an attraction or being able to say that they have served their country is a draw, or getting a free gym, dentist and doctor (that latter two being a bigger deal sealer than ever these days) however, in the end, people need to see the potential for putting a roof over their head, food in the belly and some security of employment into their lives. The RAF is in competition against BAES and Babcock for those without a degree and for those who do have one the world is becoming your oyster with companies like mine.

So in summary, the T&C's need to be competitive or you're going to lose people or never see them apply.

kawoloki · Apr 2, 2024

vim_fuego said:
I work for a company that employs engineers (amongst a broad landscape of other technical and non-technical people). I personally interview people from time to time and get to hear why people look at us, who else they are talking to and what is important to them when looking for a role. We are in competition with other companies like QinetiQ, Ultra, Babcock, BAES, Atkins and so on. They are all looking for the same or similar people so we have to think about how we position ourselves to land the prize.

I would say that for every 5 people we interview, if our recruiting agency has done it's job, we will make 1-2 offers. I would then say that out of every 5 offers we will land 2-3. We definitely listen to those that we make an offer to and are helpful enough to let us know why they chose another company. We listen so we can sensibly tweak our offerings within the realms of reality and the abilty to make a profit still.

The RAF must do the same. If your Salary, terms and conditions do not excite the candidate he/she will not say yes...it really is that simple. There is the attraction of 'service' and seeing the world. To some the threat of action is an attraction or being able to say that they have served their country is a draw, or getting a free gym, dentist and doctor (that latter two being a bigger deal sealer than ever these days) however, in the end, people need to see the potential for putting a roof over their head, food in the belly and some security of employment into their lives. The RAF is in competition against BAES and Babcock for those without a degree and for those who do have one the world is becoming your oyster with companies like mine.

So in summary, the T&C's need to be competitive or you're going to lose people or never see them apply.

I'm going to go a little off the thread topic here but relates to what you're saying.

My son is in the first year of A levels at the moment and as much as I want to push him down the engineer route for available jobs / job security his heart is set on Sports Science. I'm now asking him to consider the RAF (or Navy) and join as a PTI (yes I feel ashamed of myself

). The simple fact is if accepted he can be earning £30k within 6months and have the MOD put him through uni on day release covering most of his costs.

Even if he lives with us in Lincoln and goes to uni here the debt after a 4yr degree course will be £30k minimum (3yr on site, 1yr placement). Also, who the hell wants to go to uni and live at home with Mum & Dad!!!

The sad truth is that unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth Uni is a pipe dream for many, which is possibly the most advantageous thing the forces have going for them recruitment wise right now.. TG1 & 2 or otherwise...

Downsizer · Apr 2, 2024

vim_fuego said:
I work for a company that employs engineers (amongst a broad landscape of other technical and non-technical people). I personally interview people from time to time and get to hear why people look at us, who else they are talking to and what is important to them when looking for a role. We are in competition with other companies like QinetiQ, Ultra, Babcock, BAES, Atkins and so on. They are all looking for the same or similar people so we have to think about how we position ourselves to land the prize.

I would say that for every 5 people we interview, if our recruiting agency has done it's job, we will make 1-2 offers. I would then say that out of every 5 offers we will land 2-3. We definitely listen to those that we make an offer to and are helpful enough to let us know why they chose another company. We listen so we can sensibly tweak our offerings within the realms of reality and the abilty to make a profit still.

The RAF must do the same. If your Salary, terms and conditions do not excite the candidate he/she will not say yes...it really is that simple. There is the attraction of 'service' and seeing the world. To some the threat of action is an attraction or being able to say that they have served their country is a draw, or getting a free gym, dentist and doctor (that latter two being a bigger deal sealer than ever these days) however, in the end, people need to see the potential for putting a roof over their head, food in the belly and some security of employment into their lives. The RAF is in competition against BAES and Babcock for those without a degree and for those who do have one the world is becoming your oyster with companies like mine.

So in summary, the T&C's need to be competitive or you're going to lose people or never see them apply.

Which company is this?

TG1 Retention again

E-Goat addict

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14

LAC

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14

LAC

Ex-Harrier Mafia Member

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14

Ex-Harrier Mafia Member

Corporal

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14

Licensed Aircraft Engineer

LAC

Licensed Aircraft Engineer

Corporal

LAC

LAC

Harrier Mafia

Hung Like a Baboon.

Sergeant

Administrator