How deep to go - heavies only please.

[propersplitbrainme]

I would like to use the goat to pose a question to currently serving aircraft techies of the heavy persuasion, especially propulsion folks. I highlight currently serving because, as the boys and girls actively engaged in maintaining the RAFs fleet of aircraft I believe you are really the only ones qualified to answer; you after all know the job you are doing best of all

The question appears simple at face value...

How deep into the complexity of any particular subject/system does FT technical training need to go in order to adequately prepare Cosford graduates for live employment on today's RAF aircraft and to undertake a specialist type 'Q' course?

Seems simple enough, but it is giving a bit of food for thought here at sootie training HQ. By way of a few examples....

Is it necessary to go into compressor blade angles of attack (velocity triangles etc) in order to get over how VIGVs work, or would a simple explanation that gave the gist of what is going on but ignored the finer detail suffice? Has anyone had to remember exactly how the IGVs work (not the controlling sub-system, but the way the VIGVs alter the airflow into the compressor) in order to bust snags on IGV systems?

Do you need to know how stator blades are fixed into the compressor casing when you are unlikely to ever dismantle one yourself?

Do you need to know how the individual components inside a hydromechanical FCU work and interact when usually the entire component will be replaced if it were suspected to be at fault. Would a block diagram description do the job?

Is there any value in even mentioning out-of-date technology (multi-can combustion systems for example) in order to give context to the stuff we have in use today?

Is there anything that appears to be missing from your mechanical tradesman's toolkit of knowledge that you think should be included? Note, I'm talking about knoweldge at this moment, not skills which is somehat different.

There are no hard and fast opinions within the instructor cadre and sometimes views are divided (not necessarily as you might think, i.e. old civvy versus young thrusting J/SNCO).
This is not an official survey obviously, and only the sponsor has the authority to change things one way or the other. But it would be interesting to read what folks have to say.

Thanks.

 

[rest have risen above me]

I'm a huge believer in starting things simple and building on them. The point about teaching the multi can system means you can appreciate how the improvements work on the newer systems. The more that can be put into a mechanic/technician the better.

 

[MrMasher]

I've always thought that Cosford teaches too much that isn't required.

I have found Q courses to be more beneficial as they teach you the actual kit you're working on.

I think that Cosford need to teach the basics, obviously, but there is probably a good 60% or so of my mech and fitters course that I've never needed.

I can't comment on the sooty training for basics and FTs (legacy rigger!!)but I found my multi skilling rigger to sooty course a complete waste of 3 weeks. I had already done my aircraft Q course (both rigger and sooty elements for that type) and done a few years working dual traded, yet I still had to go to Cosford to be multi skilled. About 5% of that course was of use to me.

One thing Cosford does well with compared to my mech training is the computer based lessons that show you the guts of components and how the fluid flows. Much better than the days of OHP's!!!

 

[themardyrigger]

Good questions. Here is another do we want guy’s and girls who know what is u/s or why something is u/s.

Modern aircraft have complex systems both mechanical and electronic that in certain cases I am not sure many people fully understand, but I hope most techies would be inquisitive enough to have a basic idea of what is going on inside.

We have all worked with people who have been able to apply knowledge and initiative to solve a snag.
Some of this magic has probably come from the area of the brain labelled “stuff I learnt at Halton/Cosford that I thought would never be of any use”.

Basically I think we should give trainee’s as much information as possible remember knowledge is power.

On your point of old systems if the theory is relevant or it’s easier to see a principle in action it doesn’t matter how old the kit is if learning takes place,

If we become a Trade of box changers with minimal understanding, it would be a dark day. Just my opinions.

PS Course re-vamp or CI event?

 

[Trusty Adjusty]

As a legacy sooty I take great pride in the fact that my knowledge of Aircraft engines is as thorough and in depth as it is, largely thanks to a well rounded Tech course.

Unfortunately, and I think this is what you're trying to get at, in the most part this wealth of sooty expertise has been largely wasted in my time. Snag busting on engines is no longer common place, far easier it seems to just get a new one out the box as it were.

Legacy sooties are a dying breed, the advent of multi skilling and a return to the Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic route of entry is hugely diluting the knowledge pool and in my opinion the more efficient and effective way to get sooty knowledge onto squadrons now, is by utilising Q courses as a means to get specialised, type based and relevant information to the trade desks at first line.

In my experience, the standard of AMM returning from FT at Cosford is good and whilst their sooty knowledge is lacking at best, they most definitely have the capacity to learn more in depth engine systems and snag busting skills if given the chance on Sooty Q courses.

So, in answer to the question - continue to give the next generation Aircraft Technician Mechanics a rounded and broad knowledge of engine systems but refrain from in depth snag skills and deeper system knowledge - leave it to aircraft type q courses to teach specifically the equipment (RB199/EJ etc) the techy will be working on. Of course this method is dependant on sqn's getting their guys on said courses and is far easier said than done.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Replies with full devils advocate mode engaged.......

I'm a huge believer in starting things simple and building on them. The point about teaching the multi can system means you can appreciate how the improvements work on the newer systems. The more that can be put into a mechanic/technician the better.

Thats certainly the rationale used to justify keeping the out of date stuff in place. In only takes a few minutes to cover and helps contextualise the newer stuff.
On the flip side, each piece 'helpful' info puts more time and content into the course and gives the trainees stuff to think about they may not actually need to know - is it necessary to appreciate the advantages of newer technology over old or just recognise and understand it - , though woe betide any instructor who reveals to the student that something is not vital to know!!!

I have found Q courses to be more beneficial as they teach you the actual kit you're working on.

OK, but how much does the 'Q' course rely on you having a platform of information upon which to build? To take it to the extreme, if you were to sit the 'Q' course cold from civvy street, how much harder would it be for you and the instructor. How much longer would the course have to be?

One thing Cosford does well with compared to my mech training is the computer based lessons that show you the guts of components and how the fluid flows. Much better than the days of OHP's!!!

Good visuals when used properly (and not just for the sake of it) are invaluable and as you say have moved on leaps and bounds. That said, Cosford is still lightyears behind many civvy training delivery companies in terms of the quality of visuals used. PowerPoint, which was never really designed for such an application, is still the tool of choice and many shy away from having professional software with crisp graphics and animations produced because of the sheer amount of time you have to put in liaising with the company developing it in order to get it right - they are usually graphics designers and software geeks not engineers.

Good questions. Here is another do we want guy’s and girls who know what is u/s or why something is u/s.

I'd say both, and in a way one can fall out of the other. When I discuss fault diagnosis with my students I make the point that it can be as much a learning process for the tradesman involved as it is a matter of getting the aircraft repaired. To that end, if you can understand why something is causing a fault you gain a bit more of an insight into the way the affected system works and add another nugget of information to your database.

On your point of old systems if the theory is relevant or it’s easier to see a principle in action it doesn’t matter how old the kit is if learning takes place,

Good point, one often made in sooty HQ when we discuss the pros and cons of still covering the Adour hydromechanical reheat system.

In my experience, the standard of AMM returning from FT at Cosford is good and whilst their sooty knowledge is lacking at best, they most definitely have the capacity to learn more in depth engine systems and snag busting skills if given the chance on Sooty Q courses.

OK, in what way is their sooty knowledge lacking? What is missing from their repertoire (for want of a better word) that we could cover to fill in the gaps if time permits?

So, in answer to the question - continue to give the next generation Aircraft Technician Mechanics a rounded and broad knowledge of engine systems but refrain from in depth snag skills and deeper system knowledge - leave it to aircraft type q courses to teach specifically the equipment (RB199/EJ etc) the techy will be working on. Of course this method is dependant on sqn's getting their guys on said courses and is far easier said than done.

Interesting one which kind of flies in the face of what we've been led to believe actually. What do you mean by in-depth snag skills exactly? We use the example systems we teach to show principles of operation (Adour FCU and starting systems and generic lubrication system to give a few examples) to try to get the students thinking about fault diagnosis on engine systems and the sorts of things they must consider, e.g. the root cause of a fault (stall or surge for example) may have its source in any one of a number of engine sub-system, not just an obvious one.

 

[gemarriott]

After reading the thread title my initial response would be "ball deep" or until she screams.

Hope that helped!

 

[Realist78]

I would like to use the goat to pose a question to currently serving aircraft techies of the heavy persuasion, especially propulsion folks. I highlight currently serving because, as the boys and girls actively engaged in maintaining the RAFs fleet of aircraft I believe you are really the only ones qualified to answer; you after all know the job you are doing best of all

The question appears simple at face value...

How deep into the complexity of any particular subject/system does FT technical training need to go in order to adequately prepare Cosford graduates for live employment on today's RAF aircraft and to undertake a specialist type 'Q' course?

Seems simple enough, but it is giving a bit of food for thought here at sootie training HQ. By way of a few examples....

Is it necessary to go into compressor blade angles of attack (velocity triangles etc) in order to get over how VIGVs work, or would a simple explanation that gave the gist of what is going on but ignored the finer detail suffice? Has anyone had to remember exactly how the IGVs work (not the controlling sub-system, but the way the VIGVs alter the airflow into the compressor) in order to bust snags on IGV systems?

No, IGVs are old hat AFAIK, simple explanation needed.

Do you need to know how stator blades are fixed into the compressor casing when you are unlikely to ever dismantle one yourself?

No.

Do you need to know how the individual components inside a hydromechanical FCU work and interact when usually the entire component will be replaced if it were suspected to be at fault. Would a block diagram description do the job?

No and yes.

Is there any value in even mentioning out-of-date technology (multi-can combustion systems for example) in order to give context to the stuff we have in use today?

Brief mention will do.

Is there anything that appears to be missing from your mechanical tradesman's toolkit of knowledge that you think should be included? Note, I'm talking about knoweldge at this moment, not skills which is somehat different.

Not really, OJT works fine.

There are no hard and fast opinions within the instructor cadre and sometimes views are divided (not necessarily as you might think, i.e. old civvy versus young thrusting J/SNCO).
This is not an official survey obviously, and only the sponsor has the authority to change things one way or the other. But it would be interesting to read what folks have to say.

Thanks.

I've always thought that some sections of trade training were overdone. The learning of fault diagnosis is key IMO, never mind the innards of a FCU etc, diagnosis and speedy rectification is paramount to what we do.DT_Xtremez_19:

 

[propersplitbrainme]

I've always thought that some sections of trade training were overdone. The learning of fault diagnosis is key IMO, never mind the innards of a FCU etc, diagnosis and speedy rectification is paramount to what we do.DT_Xtremez_19:

Hmm, but in order to be able to learn fault diagnosis, you have to have something to diagnose faults on. Therefore the students have to be taught a system to some degree or other. Make it too simple (i.e. a high level block diagram) and there's nothing to put any meat on. Chicken and egg I suppose.

VIGVs are employed on the EJ200, much to my surprise when I found out because I too thought they were old hat.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

VIGVs are employed on the EJ200, much to my surprise when I found out because I too thought they were old hat.

And on modern turboshafts and on CFM 56s too (Variable Stator Vanes in CFM speak).

 

[The Zookeeper]

As a legacy rigger and just left an engine bay after 2 years I have never thought that the full on gas turbine theory proper sooties got taught but not me could have helped me actually understand my job better. Knowing how an engine works is far more beneficial in my eyes than how it's put together. This should be the mantra for all techie training courses.

Knowing how everything works and especially in what specific ways it doesn't when certain things are not quite right is paramount. Knowing all the components inside, say, an fcu, what they do and how all the stuff inside the box works in harmony can help during fault diagnosis. Usually you can trace the little part thats not doing its job correctly by following the clues from how the system as a whole is not operating properly. Accurate snag busting feels good and saves time. It would be a horrible waste if we lose that ability. It may feel like a waste teaching in-depth on a component the students will never see but it's not the knowledge of the component that stays with them. It's the ability to ask the right questions when confronted with a problem that is the aim from the lesson.

Q courses were designed around and expect the general knowledge baseline that was taught on FT. And most importantly, not everyone gets Q'd so you need some sort of information safety net.

Old tech that shares basic principles with new tech is good. Folks can see a progression and understand the need for that progression.

 

[MrMasher]

My Q course was 8 weeks.
The first 2 were spent at Cosford doing a "Lead-in" propulsion course. This gave us riggers the basic engines intro, pretty close to what the multi skulking was, hence my utter disdain at having to go back and do multiskilling!

The next 2 weeks were spent at Rolls Royce for the specific engine type course. Very good course. The first two days were a run through of basic engine theory. The rest of it was learning our specific engine inside and out along with it's associated systems.

The next 4 weeks were at Westlands doing their airframe and propulsion course relating to the particular airframe.

I think the Q course will always win hands down because you can relate what is being taught to your aircraft. At Cosford it was always Jag and Tonka systems, it could be difficult to picture what it actually was. It was mostly learn for your exam and then dump it!

No offence to Cosford, the basics are great, but anything else should be specific aircraft type, ie Q courses.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

My Q course was 8 weeks.
The first 2 were spent at Cosford doing a "Lead-in" propulsion course. This gave us riggers the basic engines intro, pretty close to what the multi skulking was, hence my utter disdain at having to go back and do multiskilling!

Yep, I know the course you mean, the Sea King PET course now defunct of course.

Do you think you could have done the course at Rolls Royce, with its two days basic engine theory, without having first done that PET course at Cosford?

 

[Rigga]

One of my e-mails today was from a company called Baines-Simmons - a bunch of consultants with a really good reputation. Google them.

Their e-mail stated that they had just been contracted to advise the EDA (European Defence Agency) in formulating the pan-european standard for military technician training and approvals systems - tentatively called the EMAR Part 66 (European Military Airworthiness Regulations) which, it seems, is to be based upon the EASA Part 66 Licencing system.

If you want prepare for the future, look towards european standards as a minimum.

AKA - "MAOS" Part 147 for training schools and the syllabii in EASA Part 66 (til further notice)

A mere non-serving Rigga.

 

[Realist78]

My Q course was 8 weeks.
The first 2 were spent at Cosford doing a "Lead-in" propulsion course. This gave us riggers the basic engines intro, pretty close to what the multi skulking was, hence my utter disdain at having to go back and do multiskilling!

The next 2 weeks were spent at Rolls Royce for the specific engine type course. Very good course. The first two days were a run through of basic engine theory. The rest of it was learning our specific engine inside and out along with it's associated systems.

The next 4 weeks were at Westlands doing their airframe and propulsion course relating to the particular airframe.

I think the Q course will always win hands down because you can relate what is being taught to your aircraft. At Cosford it was always Jag and Tonka systems, it could be difficult to picture what it actually was. It was mostly learn for your exam and then dump it!

No offence to Cosford, the basics are great, but anything else should be specific aircraft type, ie Q courses.

As long as you work the jet prior to the Q course.DT_Xtremez_19:

 

[duffman]

One of my e-mails today was from a company called Baines-Simmons - a bunch of consultants with a really good reputation. Google them.

Off Topic I think they were involved in the intro of mems to the raf.

 

[MrMasher]

Yep, I know the course you mean, the Sea King PET course now defunct of course.

Do you think you could have done the course at Rolls Royce, with its two days basic engine theory, without having first done that PET course at Cosford?

To be honest, yes and no. I think a 4-5 day intro at Cosford would have been enough. Our one was 9am starts and finished by 4pm at the latest with generous lunch breaks. Just give the basics and pass us on to the Q course.

As long as you work the jet prior to the Q course.DT_Xtremez_19:

I did my Q course when I was in the bay, it was nearly 3 years until I got onto the aircraft.

My harrier Q was started having spent one afternoon on the jet. It helps to have worked the aircraft but it's not essential.

 

[Fluid Druid]

Good visuals when used properly (and not just for the sake of it) are invaluable and as you say have moved on leaps and bounds. That said, Cosford is still lightyears behind many civvy training delivery companies in terms of the quality of visuals used. PowerPoint, which was never really designed for such an application, is still the tool of choice and many shy away from having professional software with crisp graphics and animations produced because of the sheer amount of time you have to put in liaising with the company developing it in order to get it right - they are usually graphics designers and software geeks not engineers.

Cosford is not "light years" behind many civy training delivery companies, many outside agencies are trying to get permission to use Cosford's courseware. If the SME's from Sooty HQ could take the trouble to walk up the road and check the weapons coursware packages you may realise how far behind you are falling by using your "tool of choice". It takes less time to produce a software package that does the job well than one of your instructors preparing a powerpoint package that is just not on the same level. Again ask the weapons people how much time they have be able to cut from their courses through using good CAI.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Cosford is not "light years" behind many civy training delivery companies, many outside agencies are trying to get permission to use Cosford's courseware. If the SME's from Sooty HQ could take the trouble to walk up the road and check the weapons coursware packages you may realise how far behind you are falling by using your "tool of choice".

Ooops, I made a sweeping generalisation sorry. Yes, I've seen the SCORM compliant courseware you use and its very good; we sooties actually use our own version developed for us by Pennant. It did however take a lot of time and manhours to lay down the descriptions of what we wanted each image and animation to show before they got it right. It also took some time for the instructors to get used to it because there are no slide previews (in the version we have at least) and you can't remotely go backwards a step - seems trivial but for some its a big issue.
I think its the weay ahead but others seem to be put off because they can't easily edit (or fiddle with!) it themselves.

As a matter of interest, have you had your courseware updated recently?

 

[Tin basher]

I think that Cosford need to teach the basics, obviously, but there is probably a good 60% or so of my mech and fitters course that I've never needed.

Off Topic But how over a 15/20+ year RAF career is anybody going to know all your postings or types you will work either on the line or in a bay etc? It's impossible to have clear sight some 20 years ago which bits of knowledge may or may not be needed? Perhaps that's why a range of subject areas are included in the training courses. Example. I did the LOX phase of training (along with the rest of my course) yet never worked a LOX bay, I was taught helicopter blade folding yet never worked choppers. So by your logic that was a waste of time and should not have been taught to me. Off Topic

PSBM sorry for hi-jackingDT_Xtremez_42: