How deep to go - heavies only please.

[Sospan]

Would it be unrealistic to stream training according to aircraft type? Maybe 3 streams:

RW
AT
FJ

Everybody starts with a common phase, once you pass basic engineering training you would move on to the relevant stream, then after posting carry out the specific Q course. If a few years down the road you are posted from Chinooks to C17 you return to Cosford for a current AT course prior to posting and C17 Q.

This would negate to extra training for somebody who is employed on RW for their career. It would also serve useful for somebody who has never worked fast jet moving over at the 15 year point.

It will never happen but it certainly has its merits.

 

[Tin basher]

Think he was a rigger mate!DT_Xtremez_42:

OOOPS thanks for the infoDT_Xtremez_06: my original post now editedDT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Tin basher]

Would it be unrealistic to stream training according to aircraft type? Maybe 3 streams: RW, AT, FJ. Everybody starts with a common phase, once you pass basic engineering training you would move on to the relevant stream, then after posting carry out the specific Q course. If a few years down the road you are posted from Chinooks to C17 you return to Cosford for a current AT course prior to posting and C17 Q. This would negate to extra training for somebody who is employed on RW for their career. It would also serve useful for somebody who has never worked fast jet moving over at the 15 year point.

It will never happen but it certainly has its merits.

At your notional 15 year point the spread of rank, talent, experience etc would make writing such a course very very difficult. Hard to produce something with the right ingredients for anyone from an SAC destined for the line and a young thruster of an SNCO with his eyes set on LITS post.

 

[Sospan]

At your notional 15 year point the spread of rank, talent, experience etc would make writing such a course very very difficult. Hard to produce something with the right ingredients for anyone from an SAC destined for the line and a young thruster of an SNCO with his eyes set on LITS post.

They forced it through with MSAT.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Would it be unrealistic to stream training according to aircraft type? Maybe 3 streams:

RW
AT
FJ

Everybody starts with a common phase, once you pass basic engineering training you would move on to the relevant stream, then after posting carry out the specific Q course. If a few years down the road you are posted from Chinooks to C17 you return to Cosford for a current AT course prior to posting and C17 Q.

This would negate to extra training for somebody who is employed on RW for their career. It would also serve useful for somebody who has never worked fast jet moving over at the 15 year point.

It will never happen but it certainly has its merits.

I'm sure it would have merits in that people would become more specialised in their area.

However; we would also lose some of our flexibility.

PMA have to change their mind every week as to what is a priority because of changes in tasking, government policy etc. I'm sure that their job would become more difficult when they have to factor in type ratings as well!

I'm led to believe that the American Air Force works in a 'Type Rated' environment (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm sure they manage it because of an abundance of manpower... something we've only ever been able to dream of!

We'd need the extra manpower to cope with all the extra courses that we'd need to do!DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[Kitbag]

Be Careful What Yoou Wish For

Be Careful What Yoou Wish For

Having left training 30 years ago (and still in the game now) I know the youngsters do not get the same depth of knowledge that was beaten into me and my peers. We were all proud to be technicians taking the techies wage packet home (we were the highest paid group of tradesmen in the service). We are now paid the same as many trades who have comprehensively extended the depth of knowledge they have (even if they don't use it). Carry on dumbing down the basic trade as some are advocating and come the next set of Job Evaluations we will get hammered in terms of status and remuneration.
Take note of what Rigga said on page 2. We have few enough exemptions/accreditation for prior experience in the civil world as it is. Reduce the training courses any further and there will be even less read across than there is now.
For a lot of you who think the stuff you learned on FT was a waste, perhaps open your minds up a bit. Someone said hacking and bashing was no good for them. I would argue that that, for example, develops fine motor skills, hydro mechanical fuel systems knowledge makes electronic systems **** easy- we had to learn the Lightning reheat system complete with kinetic knives, differential pressure capsules and other fantastic bits and pieces, Adour and RB199 was a doddle after that.
Try looking at the big picture, there's few enough of us now and soon there will be even less. Those left will have to do more with less, let's try to ensure they have the tools, attitudes and underpinning knowledge to work the miracles they will undoubtedly have to.

 

[taylortony]

With Kitbag on this, Ex sootie and fully licenced now........ It is alright dumbing down say an FCU to the point of boxes, but without the knowlege of what is happening and why ,fault diagnosis and troubleshooting can become limited, Civil street you need to know what is doing what, what happens if you send a dumbed down engineer on a manufacturers course for a new type coming into service?? will he then be lost if they are still teaching engineering ... The hacking and bashing too is still important...... I remember the Falklands and the "shortcuts" taken with BN based on a sound understanding of the aircraft and its systems. And one does wonder how a box chart can show you why and how an Adour reheat is pop surging............

I have to know how things work, you have to remember where on some types you can get away with that approach, on others you will be disadvantaged, In my service (before you all got trapped on one type) I served on Wessex... Pumas... Chinooks..... Jaguar... VC10...
Since my service career I have worked airliners and Executive aircraft, such as Gulfstreams, Falcons, Learjets, Citations etc all the way down to the lowly Cessna 152 on which I am expected to be able to strip the engine, inspect and overhaul parts and rebuild it,
A lot of this Skill set I learnt in the RAF from hacking and bashing to accurately measuring and repairing items, gave me the skills to build on, I can happily totally rebuild a light aircraft that has been written off, rebuildng and resparing the wings, fuselages too, I learnt how to accurately measure washout and build it back into the wings, and the recertify it Airworthy ......... these are all skills the RAF gave me as a basis to build on. you may think some of it is a waste of time, but believe me it isn't. The reasons hacking and bashing is important is as kitbag says...... it gives you disciplines in engineering, I once watched a "Civilian" mechanic walking along banging two hammers together totally unaware of the possible consequences..

I realise the RAF is not here to provide future Civilian Engineers, but parts of the Licensing is to degree standards, especially the electronics, and you wll have to show you understand the systems and how they work.... dumbing down as said will reduce your chances of getting licenced post RAF or make just that little (read lot) harder.


As a poscript you may be interested to know my licences have some 200 plus aircraft and engine types on it!! from DC6 to C152's lol

Streaming as suggested would just dumbdown the skillset, for what it is worth my only training from helicopters to Jags was as 2 day bangseat course and work on the desk as an SAC. I was then sent on detatchment 2 weeks later and due to probs on another on the other side of the Airfield I was left to man the engine desk, go figure the Wing Co's Jag wouldn't start and I was sent for.. climbing up the ladder, he rabbited on about this snag, demo'ed it, then asked my opinion........ in true Chinook style, I shrugged my shoulders and shouted f*ck knows in his ear and then smiled......... Instant humour failure, ever noticed how people get redder and louder the more you smile as they spit out their dummy...... but bar that I picked up the jag pretty quickly.

 

[Rigga]

Would it be unrealistic to stream training according to aircraft type? Maybe 3 streams:

RW
AT
FJ

Everybody starts with a common phase, once you pass basic engineering training you would move on to the relevant stream, then after posting carry out the specific Q course. If a few years down the road you are posted from Chinooks to C17 you return to Cosford for a current AT course prior to posting and C17 Q.

This would negate to extra training for somebody who is employed on RW for their career. It would also serve useful for somebody who has never worked fast jet moving over at the 15 year point.

It will never happen but it certainly has its merits.

The trouble with this theory, of revolutionary training changes, is that two of the largest "employers" in the RAF have totally UNCONVENTIONAL aircraft in Triphoon and Torpedos.

These particular aircraft are unlike any other aircraft in the inventory, both in the RAF and out, and need 'specialist' courses from the off.

The reason I say 'specialist' is to separate them from "Normal" aircraft and this can only be done IF YOU KNOW WHAT A NORMAL AIRCRAFT IS.

The reason for the amount of training developed over the past 90 years is that it has been deemed NECESSARY through trial and many errors, and paid for by learning lessons from previous accidents and incidents. Lessons that were thought to be so serious that changes to include this "stuff" were thought to be valid and NECESSARY.

The reason for cutting all this recently declared 'unnecessary' learning is to save money. Be warned - You will save money in the short term, but it will cost lives and many millions in compensation and litigation in the long term.

A lot of the litigation will be from poorly trained mechanics and technicians claiming they were never told how to do what they are supposed to do.

Many moons ago someone once told me that you wouldn't like to know your pilot only knew 70% of his job.

Why would we accept a techie with the same lack of knowledge?

A SOBER Rigga.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

The reason for cutting all this recently declared 'unnecessary' learning is to save money. Be warned - You will save money in the short term, but it will cost lives and many millions in compensation and litigation in the long term. Agreed

A lot of the litigation will be from poorly trained mechanics and technicians claiming they were never told how to do what they are supposed to do.We now do a shed load of paperwork to prove which instructor taught exactly which part of each lesson and when!

Many moons ago someone once told me that you wouldn't like to know your pilot only knew 70% of his job.

Why would we accept a techie with the same lack of knowledge?
Our pass mark is 60%. Does this mean a Technician may have forgotten 40%DT_Xtremez_42:

A SOBER Rigga.

More importantly...Why Sober..?

 

[Weebl]

The reason for the amount of training developed over the past 90 years is that it has been deemed NECESSARY through trial and many errors, and paid for by learning lessons from previous accidents and incidents. Lessons that were thought to be so serious that changes to include this "stuff" were thought to be valid and NECESSARY.

The reason for cutting all this recently declared 'unnecessary' learning is to save money. Be warned - You will save money in the short term, but it will cost lives and many millions in compensation and litigation in the long term.

A lot of the litigation will be from poorly trained mechanics and technicians claiming they were never told how to do what they are supposed to do.

Many moons ago someone once told me that you wouldn't like to know your pilot only knew 70% of his job.

Why would we accept a techie with the same lack of knowledge?

A SOBER Rigga.

Nail. Hit. Head.

The way the RAF is cutting costs by reducing training at source, and pushing it ever outwards to the operating Sqns will only end one way.

Money will be saved and people will get hurt.

I hope the cost/risk analysis makes it worthwhile to whoever decides these things and I hope they can sleep at night.

 

[Rigga]

"Sober" - Cos its this late on a Friday night!


...it is Friday - innit?

 

[Rigga]

Harry,

I don't know you or where you work (but I will assume Cosford) so don't take this as anything other than an observation.

I'm pretty sure that reason for doing exams is to make sure students know what they need to know and to determine what levels of understanding they have for that subject.

If you're having to certify each and every step it's likely to be because of the fear of future litigation (and is also likely included in some standard such as Part 147) -

Possibly - to cover/give assurance of the lack of "sufficient" tuition?


...and I feel that 60% is quite low! I wouldn't want anyone working in my hangars with just a 60% pass - Is this passmark the same for Type Courses?

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Harry,

I don't know you or where you work (but I will assume Cosford) so don't take this as anything other than an observation.

I'm pretty sure that reason for doing exams is to make sure students know what they need to know and to determine what levels of understanding they have for that subject.

If you're having to certify each and every step it's likely to be because of the fear of future litigation (and is also likely included in some standard such as Part 147) -

Possibly - to cover/give assurance of the lack of "sufficient" tuition?


...and I feel that 60% is quite low! I wouldn't want anyone working in my hangars with just a 60% pass - Is this passmark the same for Type Courses?

No offence taken Rigga, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this subject!

We do make the exams as robust as possible here at Cosford and we also still subject the students to a number of practical exercises, so that we can find out if the students can DO as well as LEARN.

Yes, the large amount of paperwork required is so that we meet the standard set by the JSP on 'Military Training'. It also helps in the occasion when accidents happen and they need to find out if the person involved had the correct training.

We certainly strive to make our training as professional and relevant as possible (hence the start of this thread!) but personally I think it could be made a little more robust in some areas... hence my user name!DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB