How deep to go - heavies only please.

[propersplitbrainme]

PSBM sorry for hi-jackingDT_Xtremez_42:

Actually is not high-jacking the thread because its important too. Its all about identifying what someone needs to be taught in order to be considered a tradesman as opposed to training someone in just enough to be able to carry out their immediate task but who would need top-up training if they ever moved to a new platform or environment.
I understand, though I could be wrong, that if a certain system or feature is only present on X% of the RAF's fleet of aircraft, then it is not taught in basic training but is left to PET training.

 

[185]

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Is there any value in even mentioning out-of-date technology (multi-can combustion systems for example) in order to give context to the stuff we have in use today?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

i seem to remember charles/boils law,gas flow though an engine. be it piston or jet.using a dynamonitor/canullar/can combustion chambers/axial flow/by pass flow/reheat/fuel systems/and how intake guide vanes work,in conjunction with the bleed valve.etct.as a hands on sooty you need to know how it works, not how its made(but thats a bonus)even found out how a propeller /constant speed unit worked.all this at halton as a craft app.and ive been living on ever since.

 

[Notred13]

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:

In an ideal world all the Trainees recruited into the Tech trades would have an innate mechanical aptitude borne of playing with mechano and and rewiring your Mum's house while she's out; but unfortunately most of the kids who join up now have been cosseted in a throw away world and have never felt the need to dismantle things at an early age to either fix them or at least find out what's inside! Bearing all this in mind, the more you can get them to understand systems, principles, construction, etc, the better. I believe that this is still best achieved by teaching the deepest possible aspects of their trade; granted they might ever have to strip and rebuild an oxy reg in real life, but at least they have an understanding how that and many similar components are constructed and work.

Having spent three years at Halton leaning all sorts of antiquated technology certainly wasn't wasted, it's not so much what I learnt there but it definitely set me up for learning afterwards.

I would implore the powers that be not to dumb down the training the RAF provides, for a start we have a reputation to uphold throughout the world as being really quite good at what we do; this was not achieved by accident. And secondly, you only have to visit certain other training establishments outside of the RAF to see how much damage is done by over simplification of the training. I don't believe the RAF can survive having only factory floor drones maintaining the aircraft, we require creative thinkers who can solve problems as they arise. giving our trainees the deepest, broadest training possible is the only way to provide these. Challenge them now so they won't struggle in the future.

 

[MrMasher]

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:

The whole point is why teach me everything if I don't need it? It's a costly exercise putting people through training. If I had to pay for it out of my own pocket I'd make sure I only paid for what I needed.

Basic training can be done to get you onto the first rung but once there further specific to type training is of more use.

 

[duffman]

giving our trainees the deepest, broadest training possible is the only way to provide these. Challenge them now so they won't struggle in the future.

The problem is you can only push so much stuff into peoples heads. Teach what people are likely to need/see.

On my multi skilling rigger course there was quite a bit on the course that we had to learn, not an overview, how it worked despite none of it being in service. Use of it me personally none, I didn't work in a multiskilled post for about another 5 years.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

The whole point is why teach me everything if I don't need it? It's a costly exercise putting people through training. If I had to pay for it out of my own pocket I'd make sure I only paid for what I needed.

Basic training can be done to get you onto the first rung but once there further specific to type training is of more use.

The problem with this philosophy is that the training gap would have to be filled somewhere, and this places a training burden on someone even if its not the basic training schools. Squadrons surely have enough on their plate at the moment without the added headache of receiving someone from training who has never been taught some detail or system that is relevant to the platform they are going to be working on but was omitted from basic training on the grounds that not everyone is going to need it.
Yes, the 'Q' course could fill the gap, but the course will be longer as it needs to have extra content, the capacity of the ground schools goes down, less courses per year therefore longer gaps between arrival from Cosford and placement on the type course.

And at the end of the day, could you really call yourself an aircraft technician with big gaps in your basic trade knowledge?

I'm not confessing to know the answers to all this mate, I'm just pointing out that for every solution that suits one set of circumstances, there exists a problem for another. Would 'just in time' training work in the RAF as yourself and Duffman appear to be suggesting?

 

[MrMasher]

I understand what you're saying PSBM, but I truly believe we are taught too much that we won't need, perhaps ever!

If I got posted to a new and different ac type I wouldn't necessarily remember stuff from my mech course. For eg, if I went to Brize and ended up working on conditioning systems, I can't remember the Halton stuff on it because I haven't needed to in the last 19 years. But......the Q course would teach me the particular system.

I understand that we need to teach a decent base level to people, but because you're not posted until later, you can't tailor the training to suit.

I don't think the Q courses would become as long as you think. My split traded Seaking course was only 8 weeks and don't forget how much on the job training you get as well.

Anyway, thats my pennies worth!!
I hope it's of use.

 

[duffman]

Not so much JIT more removal of pieces of information that is no longer req'd. A nod towards the past, such as a brief explianation of cannula combustion chamber is ok but any real need to learn it in depth when it is only seen in museums?

PSBM, as an ex engine bay bod what is the state of play with deep strip. Is it still in the course what is the future for this part of the course? With no engine bays left (that I can think of) what does the future at cosford hold for sooty deep strip?

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Not so much JIT more removal of pieces of information that is no longer req'd. A nod towards the past, such as a brief explianation of cannula combustion chamber is ok but any real need to learn it in depth when it is only seen in museums?

I think we're singing off the same songsheet then!

PSBM, as an ex engine bay bod what is the state of play with deep strip. Is it still in the course what is the future for this part of the course? With no engine bays left (that I can think of) what does the future at cosford hold for sooty deep strip?

OK, I'll tell you what I know which isn't a lot, don't think I'm speaking out of school here, hope not anyway. You are right of course, the days when RAF sooties 'deep stripped' an aero engine are drawing to a close. We still have a small amount of what we used to term 'deep strip' in the course, however it is quite small - removal and refitment of an Adour module 5 and 6.
However, there are plans to move towards a more 'depth maintenance' based activity in that, rather than go into a turbine module remove/refit which a tradesman is unlikely to encounter, what they may come across is the need to replace, for example, an exhaust module if there are no spare engines around but an exhaust unit can be obtained. So the option of doing that is being explored as is moving towards RB199. The latter requires a fair bit more planning than at first appears, because the instructors themselves have to become familiar with any new platform that is brought in, and of course you need all the support equipment.

 

[duffman]

the need to replace, for example, an exhaust module if there are no spare engines around but an exhaust unit can be obtained. So the option of doing that is being explored as is moving towards RB199. The latter requires a fair bit more planning than at first appears, because the instructors themselves have to become familiar with any new platform that is brought in, and of course you need all the support equipment.

Having worked in said engine bay, that's quite interesting. I can't really think of a time you would only be able to get a 199 eu and then change it. TBH I can't really see much benefit from teaching the above situation is so remote it's not really worth teaching in any specific sense, above how to do spannering.

 

[Stevienics]

I am not qualified to speak here, as I left a while back but I would back the view that the demise of deep strip, or any depth of servicing in any trade, robs the service of a lot of knowledge and technical rigour that it shoud have to hold its head up amongst the professional academic institutions and industry in general.

I spent a most wonderful year on deep strip Gnome (we got one each) as well as in component repair 199 and Adour (inc blending and balancing). Frankly (and obviously subjectively), getting into the guts of the thing was what it was all about for me in 20/20 retrospect - not box slamming on the line as I thought at the time.

never quite worked out why we all had to do the Q-PE though?

 

[The Zookeeper]

10 to 15 years ago there were many different types of aircraft in service and as we had mostly aged fleets it kind of made sense to teach old technology, 1st and 2nd line engineering tasks and systems on fixed/swept wing, rotary and large a/c types.

Remember that you would have 16 people leaving every 2 weeks for several years going on to a huge range of work places and what the school did was give a huge spread of info to cover everyone for every eventuality so of course a lot of folk would not use what was taught.

Now the dinosaur a/c are mostly gone. 2nd line is mostly gone. The new a/c are more than likely going to be technologically complex and Q courses longer to teach the complexness. This is likely to have an impact on Q course availability as already discussed. The op is right to ask whether the course content is valid. Most of it isn't but I don't believe we should rely on Q's to impart basic knowledge instead of a centralised school that sees everyone and, standards wise, is a known quantity.

I agree that a lot of the course content that relates to defunkt a/c or environments could be chopped or have a cameo appearance at best. Fault finding on the newer style systems would be highly desirable as individuals may not get Q'd for a while after posting.

 

[shoutingwind]

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?
yes - sometimes you have to know how a component works to know why it is going wrong EG what type of pump/ gears etc I hate the FCU on a T-56 (yes i work on stupid old engines) but knowing how the bits work is useful

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?
yus- (again i'm woking t-56 so biased) so the trainers can appricate how awesome annular one are!

gimme a AE2100-D3 anyday... stupid smelly cr@ppy T-56 engines.

 

[Cake or Death]

As a Sootie to the core with only 10 years in, (ex tonka TASF and engine bay, now on helicopters. sadly i have been brought to the dark side of hammering things to death, cheers RAF) I am appalled at the lack of knowledge on engines. Be this x 500 riggers and AMMs that have some how made it through cosford again. I am the only legacy sootie on my shift SAC wise. There are two SGT Sooties. These are the only two people that know what is going on with engine rtis snags etc. Granted there are a couple of rigger who grasp the subject on snags, but when it comes to boringscopes I get the job as I quote ' Your the only person who knows what he is looking at'. Now supposedly they have been taught engines. Except most who are honest reckon they could (x500 people) have had another 2-3 weeks on the subject. The new lads that come out dont know their power turbines from their HP2 turbines! I dont know what is being taught but Noone seems to grasp basic engines layout. Thats before you get to how fcu's flip flop man, IGVs VSVs work!!! Specific engine teaching should be done on a Q course. But The riggers on my Mech Q course didnt have a feckin clue what the tutor was on about. Reverse flow combustion chamber!!!!!!

God help the engines is all I can say. Spend more time on the basic of engine make up and theory!

This may have been typed on a spicey and coke fuelled session.

 

[Prudhoe]

I’m afraid my first hand knowledge of RAF technical training is quarter of a century out of date so this is really a throw away post. Feel free.

Anyway, I’ve had a read through this thread and the general impression I get is that some of your young people are happy with the minimum training needed to get them out and working, and then to rely on OJT and Q courses to enable them to perform above their basic level in a very limited scope.

I like to employ and work with people with a broad level of understanding that is gained from a burning desire to learn as much as possible from any learning opportunity. I find these people are flexible and adaptable, and can work on any given equipment in any situation with a high chance of success. The RAF I left a few years ago liked people like that too. I’m not entirely sure you can produce them without providing a broad and detailed training.

Ask yourself, if I put a recent Cosford Props graduate, a bag of spanners and a broken Kilimov TV3 turboshaft together in some third world hell-hole, what chance would I have of flying home?

 

[MrMasher]

I think need to reiterate, you still need to teach the basics. It seems a few people think I said to skip them and go straight to Q courses.

I haven't had the pleasure of working with AMM's yet but I believe they are taught a base knowledge and then sent out to work the line etc.

Do they really need to have their head full of everything for that?
Don't they then build their knowledge and return for FT?

Expand their knowledge there so when they rock up to their next post they are more proficient in their trade.

Then a Q course gives them the specifics of their particular ac type and it's systems.

Take my fitters course. It was a lot of basic stuff again which had already been covered on my mech course! The 6 weeks of hacking and bashing was an utter waste of time for me, I've never had to use that skill since!

 

[propersplitbrainme]

I am not qualified to speak here, as I left a while back but I would back the view that the demise of deep strip, or any depth of servicing in any trade, robs the service of a lot of knowledge and technical rigour that it shoud have to hold its head up amongst the professional academic institutions and industry in general.

The counter-argument is that the RAF doesn't need its personnel to have that depth of knowledge. Much analysis of engine serviceability and decisons are now taken by an ops room at Rolls Royce, not by RAF techies.

Fault finding on the newer style systems would be highly desirable as individuals may not get Q'd for a while after posting.

We do have a simulator and computer suite that is designed for that very task. We are looking to place more emphasis on its use.

The new lads that come out dont know their power turbines from their HP2 turbines!

They are certainly taught what a power turbine is and I'm sure they know if given the chance to think about. But, like a lot of things, the detail takes time to sink in and only becomes clear once seen in context.

Ask yourself, if I put a recent Cosford Props graduate, a bag of spanners and a broken Kilimov TV3 turboshaft together in some third world hell-hole, what chance would I have of flying home?

If, back in the day when you'd just graduated, you were placed in that situation, would you have had a chance of flying home then? Honestly!

Take my fitters course. It was a lot of basic stuff again which had already been covered on my mech course! The 6 weeks of hacking and bashing was an utter waste of time for me, I've never had to use that skill since!

Because if a structural repair does need doing its usually left to Marshalls or RSS who give their own training. Yes, its a skill I never used in 27 years either. Should it come out? I'm sure Tin Basher will have a view!

 

[Stevienics]

"We aim above the mark to hit the mark. Every act has some falsehood or exageration to it.....where should we be if our thoughts had not transcended the exact limits of the feasible?"

Emerson may have been talking about the human condition, but it applies as equally to that doris throwing herself out of a plane today, where most guys would happily have handed over the moolah anway, as it does to going further than you need to go in any training environment just because its the right thing to do...

...enough philosophy. Back to the footy.

 

[Tin basher]

I think need to reiterate, you still need to teach the basics......... Take my fitters course. It was a lot of basic stuff ....... The 6 weeks of hacking and bashing was an utter waste of time for me, I've never had to use that skill since!

Doesn't everyone need basics before the clever stuff, building blocks and all that. Wasn't your 6?? weeks of filing and smiling confined to BET or whatever this weeks name is AMES. Sadly no one knew at the start of your career that you would never be employed Tin bashing. PSBM's original post asks about depth of subject knowledge, if I read it right he means after an individual completes a "fitters" course i.e. core trade fundimentals and knowledge. Remember after further training there is going to be very little trade teach for the rest of your career. Management training yes, type specific info yes, Rank dependant stuff Indies etc yes, but not much additional trade.

(standing by for TMT to justify themselves)

Because if a structural repair does need doing its usually left to Marshalls or RSS who give their own training. Yes, its a skill I never used in 27 years either. Should it come out? I'm sure Tin Basher will have a view!

Big repairs do get handed over to RSS, Marshalls etc but many smaller ones don't. PSBM says he never used it in 27 years on the flip side I seemed to do little else for my 20 odd years. Should it come out? To paraphrase one time NRA president Charlton Heston "only when you take the (riveting) gun from my cold dead hand". How are you to attain the required hand skills needed for the task without some stage undertaking the task. Far better to aquire the skills in a learning environment were errors are not life threating but building blocks one mans mistake is anothers learning point. Trying to produce an almost individual bespoke training course that contains only knowledge and skills that you will need for YOUR career and no one else's is utterly impossible.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Doesn't everyone need basics before the clever stuff, building blocks and all that. As a sooty wasn't your 6?? weeks of filing and smiling confined to BET or whatever this weeks name is AMES. Sadly noone knew at the start of your career that you would never be employed to blend blades.

Think he was a rigger mate!DT_Xtremez_42: