Another Review of Another Trade Merge

[Fearless Leader]

Yet another review to look at the chestnut of TG12 merging with TG9 is planned. How much money and manhours have been wasted on this topic over the years?

I can remember the first I head of the topic back in late 1991 when I was out at 280SU. But at least it might give a job to the 'Special Projects Team' on the ground floor of the SABM... LMAO.

DT_Xtremez_35:

 

[norfolkred1]

Has it been brough up again because the trade is going to the dogs. With few postings and a total lack of get up and go from the young people who join the trade.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Found out about this the other night, funny how when somebody wants the FC/ATC/FOps branches to amalgamate then there is talk of a trade merger.

Should be a hot topic at the WO's conference next week, keep your ears to the ground.

BTW, 6 years ago when I was on a visit to Shawbury with some other esteemed members of the trade we were told that a merger would never happen as the trades are too disperate at SNCO level. Given more TG12 SNCOs are going the IDO route with it's associated speciallist training, how the hell are we going to merge with FOMs?

Yes the posts would be nice but there is a lot ov devil in the detail!

 

[R_Squared]

Quite apart from anything else, you would then have the possibility of direct entry Sgt FC's I suppose.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Quite apart from anything else, you would then have the possibility of direct entry Sgt FC's I suppose.

And that is something we fought hard to stop!

Although the way people are getting asked about FC duties at the moment nothing is impossible!

I was under the impression that the DE ATC is not working as you have not met your recruiting targets - any truth in this? The thinking being if you can pass the aptitude then go for commisioning.

 

[FOMz]

The recruiting targets are not the issue... its the quality of the people being put through NCAITC....

 

[Fearless Leader]

Setting aside the issues from an actual amalgamation, what gets my goat (forgive the pun) is the fact we seem to investigate this every few years!!! That has to be a complete waste...

What I would have advocated a few years ago, when TELIC was on at the same time as HERRICK, in order to help ease the burden on Flt Ops OOAs would have been to identify where TG12 could have helped out. (Along the lines of some other plans highlighted in the 2007 ACOS Manning Roadshow for the RAFP trade). I couldn't look my TG17 Cpl in the eye back in 2007 when I was at Griffin when she told me her trade's OOA turnaround for example.

Though with recent DWR developments for me personally and as highlighted in the recent TG12 newsletter it would appear I am doing more than enough for OOAs compared to some TG12 SNCOs!

Whatever happens it should benefit both trades, there's little point in merging otherwise; though today's Sunday Times article might indicate we might be all out of a job soon anyway!!!

 

[FOMz]

Maybe it won't be an amalgamation, maybe just a restructure of the two trade groups.

Take the controlling element out of both trade groups and stick them together, and with the Flight Ops and Scopies mission support side - stick them into the same trade group.

I hear they will all be in TG9 though.... DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[R_Squared]

That's how I would possibly have imagined it as well.

Although it would seem bizarre to have two "separate" trade groups working alongside each other in mutual support but with completely different career structures and routes, and I'm not talking TG12.
Effectively that's what we have now in all but name.

It could also go the complete amalgamation route, all Controllers and Ops under one umbrella but with differing career structures. The disciplines, whilst different in some ways, are not incompatible.
We already have variety in TG9 controlling when you think of Area, Terminal and Range disciplines. With the existing training structures it should be conceivable to be able to add Battlespace Mangaement in as well.

Either way, if there was a "merging" of the Trades, it does call into question the viability of DE SNCOs.
I imagine recruitment for ATC would be helped with the addition of FCs, and as far as I am aware, they have no recruitment and retention problems (compared to us in the recent past anyway). We could almost go back to the old system, opening the doors again to greater promotion prospects and a wider working background for SACs.

Actually thinking about it, in many ways I don't think it would be an altogether bad idea.

 

[FOMz]

They will never go back to the old ways RoJaws.. DE is here to stay, so best you get used to it..

As for the FC's - well, you need to watch this space guys, you may well find it coming your way and there's nothing you can do about it.

Look at it this way, if it works for JO's, it can work for DE SNCO's.

 

[R_Squared]

Whilst the trades are structured as they are DE will remain the norm for ATC. If TG12 suddenly develop problems, maybe they will adopt it as well and end up running a parallel trade as we do, but that is a little off topic for here.

What I am saying is, the recruitment and retention problems we had in the past that led us to adopting DE, may end up being solved by a trade amalgamation.

Senior management have never been happy about a DE ground trade, hence the "Fast Track" experiment. It wouldn't take much for them to bin it and go back to the old system.

Just a thought.

 

[FOMz]

Errrrr - yes it would. I suggest you go and find out exactley how hard it was to impliment ATCA's and the fast track system. Things don't happen overnight you know...........

 

[R_Squared]

If they went down trade amalgamation, they have to choose an appropriate recruitment method out of the two available.

It is a possibility they may choose the Fighter controllers already established traditional method rather than ours.

It was the decision to bring in DE that took all the time, not it's implementation, that was fairly rapid.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

The main issue with TG12 is the amount of different jobs we have at SNCO level. For example this tour I am an Identification Officer, the next I may be running the Mission Sim at Waddington, a Data Link Manager on 1ACC, an EWO on the E3. All completely different jobs with different requirements that even we have difficulty managing/training. Add FOM into this and the career management at Sgt/FS/WO level becomes a nightmare.

THEN add in the TG12 SNCO FC/TG9 ATC into the mix and the mind boggles.

Now an amalgamation of TG into an Ops Support Trade Group, with several trades coming under the same umbrella is possibly sensible. It is then possible to keep a career path within your trade (TG8 as an example).

What SHOULD (but wont) decrease is the number of higher ups that look after us!

The main driver may be that AO BatMan is now, for the first time, a Fighter Controller and there is a definite drive to merge the OS (FC) and OS (ATC) branches.

Times are interesting, the wheel may be reinvented but possibly not with as much effect as previously thought.

Just my ex-staff job mind working overtime though!!

 

[Never Alert]

I agree with NAIDOY in that the ops spt side of the house could easily be merged; something that should happen IMHO.

However, merging the Branch is actually going to be very difficult. Weapons Controlling is not something that will merge well with ATC as it requires a completely different mindset. The last ATC (an absolutely fantastic lady who I consider a good friend) that came over was very good at flight safety & brought much to the table in that area however, by her own admission, weaponeering is a very deep subject and it takes more than 1 tour to become anything like good at it. Her next tour would have been E3s and would have been very difficult for her from a tactics point of view. I imagine that Area Controlling is much the same.

To that end, any specialisation would have to be for at least 5 years with only the last 2 being highly productive, that would not work on the officer career development front.

With all due respect to Air Traffickers, I do not think that Tower work or range work require that long to become highly proficient at and are not really part of the argument.

Any merge would be tenuous to say the least with each specialisation taking personnel on an aptitude scoring basis after a 'foundation course'.

Having spoken about this a great deal with FCs & ATC (most of whom do not want this) I would envisage the foundation course ending with personnel being sent out as follows, with the highest scorers being at the top of the list:

Weapons Controller/Area Controller (very similar aptitudes)
Tower controller
IDO
Space

If sent Weapons, you would never get a shot at tower etc, purely because of the time and money spent training.

I only place IDO below Tower as I suspect they will look for a controller in each of us before other specs, just as it is now.

 

[R_Squared]

I think a great deal could be learned from each branch. I have to admit to a certain amount of embarresment at my lack of knowledge about FC. I think I may have to arrange a visit at some point. I did go to Neatishead about 9 years ago as an assistant, but didn't get a great deal out of it as I only got to see the assistant's side of things, which is basically the same as what I was doing anyway.

I am intrigued by the idea of a different controlling mindset, and would like to see what that actually entails.

We do currently stream our top xy% of high scoring radar controllers to area radar, but it is usual for all controllers to be expected to do a tour at SCATCC or Swanwick at least once.
Coming from RAF sleepy hollow (if such a place still exists) is no excuse to not becoming productive in fairly short order, at JATCC the whole point is to ensure that controllers are able to become proficient in the required timescale.It requires us to have a flexibilty of mind to be able to change your focus and become useful in a whole new skill set quickly as you move about.

If a FC tour takes such a large amount of time to become proficient maybe it is best to leave the trades as they are. Maybe that's why the trades have never been amalgamated in the past.

I know a handful of ATC have been working alongside FC over the years, I'm sure their experiences would be interesting to hear and valuable in this discussion.

 

[Fearless Leader]

What might work is the way the officer side has merged and you get some posts now that are open for both Flt Ops, ATC and FC officers.

I just hope it gets somewhere positive, the previous reviews never seem to come at it from the right angle and I have to admit to being a bit cynical about the whole process. You only have to look at the blinkered 'CRCs rule' attitude that meant we gave away our SAC and Cpl posts at Ay Nik and now on TMS what do we have -

SAC posts back at Ay Nik. (Albeit on a 'temporary' basis).

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

The last ATC (an absolutely fantastic lady who I consider a good friend) that came over was very good at flight safety & brought much to the table in that area however, by her own admission, weaponeering is a very deep subject and it takes more than 1 tour to become anything like good at it. Her next tour would have been E3s and would have been very difficult for her from a tactics point of view. I imagine that Area Controlling is much the same.

Having spoken about this a great deal with FCs & ATC (most of whom do not want this) I would envisage the foundation course ending with personnel being sent out as follows, with the highest scorers being at the top of the list:

Weapons Controller/Area Controller (very similar aptitudes)
Tower controller
IDO
Space

I only place IDO below Tower as I suspect they will look for a controller in each of us before other specs, just as it is now.

Agree completely, controlling and IDOing are completely different in aptitude - one has to be able to make quick decisions whilst on console through the night and the other has to either sleep or moan about not sleeping because they are playing Risk!DT_Xtremez_34:

On a serious note this is the great conundrum the powers that be are faced with. Even the Great Ginger one may have some difficulties here.

I think a great deal could be learned from each branch. I have to admit to a certain amount of embarresment at my lack of knowledge about FC. I think I may have to arrange a visit at some point. I did go to Neatishead about 9 years ago as an assistant, but didn't get a great deal out of it as I only got to see the assistant's side of things, which is basically the same as what I was doing anyway.

I am intrigued by the idea of a different controlling mindset, and would like to see what that actually entails.

PM me and I will sort out a visit to either CRC

What might work is the way the officer side has merged and you get some posts now that are open for both Flt Ops, ATC and FC officers. Pretty much only at Sqn Ldr and above

I just hope it gets somewhere positive, the previous reviews never seem to come at it from the right angle and I have to admit to being a bit cynical about the whole process. You only have to look at the blinkered 'CRCs rule' attitude that meant we gave away our SAC and Cpl posts at Ay Nik and now on TMS what do we have -

SAC posts back at Ay Nik. (Albeit on a 'temporary' basis).

The Ay Nik was nothing to do with the trade. Int An types said they had enough people to do the the job out there until, surprise surprise, they didn't again!

Merging the trades wholesale will not work as things are at the minute. Both trades have jobs that are too specialist, especially at the higher ranks.

 

[scopie182]

Is there any gen yet on the trade merger? I only ask because I have been hearing rumours that it's been green lighted.

 

[NotAnIDOYet]

Is there any gen yet on the trade merger? I only ask because I have been hearing rumours that it's been green lighted.

From what I hear (and my ear is pretty close to the ground at most times) there will be a discussion about the paper at the TG12 WOs' conference. There should be an announcement after that.