A/Cpl techie instructors

[walkingmadman]

To lead on from the recent thread regards Techies leaving and the whole retention payment for 5% (a guess lol) of trade group 1 thread I was recently made aware of an execs meeting which asked the question, would it be possible to have SAC(T)'s carrying out the role of instructor.

A similar set up is now in place at RTS RAF Halton but this of course is a non technical teaching set up and open to all ranks as an A/Cpl position. I was just thinking that Trade group 1 must be really struggling to not only get volunteers but to find any Cpls to post into instructor slots. TG1 must be really desperate if they are even considering acting ranks etc. I don't know what the RAF could do to retain techies but it will need to be something drastic as there other attempts have failed miserably, from what I've seen.

 

[ady eflog]

To lead on from the recent thread regards Techies leaving and the whole retention payment for 5% (a guess lol) of trade group 1 thread I was recently made aware of an execs meeting which asked the question, would it be possible to have SAC(T)'s carrying out the role of instructor.

A similar set up is now in place at RTS RAF Halton but this of course is a non technical teaching set up and open to all ranks as an A/Cpl position. I was just thinking that Trade group 1 must be really struggling to not only get volunteers but to find any Cpls to post into instructor slots. TG1 must be really desperate if they are even considering acting ranks etc. I don't know what the RAF could do to retain techies but it will need to be something drastic as there other attempts have failed miserably, from what I've seen.

Not surprised by this at all, Where are you getting the 5% from? as the recommendation from the AFPRB for next year? I'm just waiting for a generic mutty post about how you all should have left if you were any good.......

 

[sulky]

I was just thinking that Trade group 1 must be really struggling to not only get volunteers but to find any Cpls to post into instructor slots. TG1 must be really desperate if they are even considering acting ranks etc..

one reason is...and i am bitter as i just missed out, they promoted 10 out of 48 total, yes 10... AV Cpls to Sgt from Cosford so that's 10 TG1 Cpls required to fill those slots

 

[OneTimeSooty]

If you're talking about Phase 3 training (ie aircraft training cells) then I wouldn't have thought so due to the Auth level you would be needing to sign off your trainees authorisations (if it still works like that?)

Phase 2 would be ok I guess as it's generic principles, but then would your trainees, on finding out they're acting (you know they will), really respect them as an instructor? We all used to take the pi$$ out of PTI trainees for the same reason...

 

[Downsizer]

It’s for phase 2.

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

Phase 2 would be ok I guess as it's generic principles, but then would your trainees, on finding out they're acting (you know they will), really respect them as an instructor? We all used to take the pi$$ out of PTI trainees for the same reason...

I remember trainee PTIs in tears having tantrums because we wouldn't do their bidding.

Might have a bit more respect for them as they're the same trade and mirror techs, and push them to breaking point. DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[unruly1986]

This has been proposed for TG4.

 

[Flumpdaddy]

If they are good enough to be a/Cpl instructor why not promote them substantively? As an instructor your supposed to show high levels of leadership, management etc so they should be good enough to hold the rank.

Ultimately this highlights the desperate position manning wise the RAF is in. Even if you can find volunteers the frontline can't afford to release them.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[ERT]

Paid or UnPaid?

Paid or UnPaid?

Paid or UnPaid?

A/Cpl and Paid = Cpl

 

[Keyser Söze]

do they need to be in the RAF? If not, there will potentially be any number of qualified and capable civilian instructors to fill those posts,, whilst they may not necessarily have currency, but is that important?

The bottom line is that the service pay is sh&te so stop p*ssing into the wind and get to the route of the problem

 

[ady eflog]

A/Cpl instructors are cheaper than Cpl's who are cheaper than civilian instructors! we also have SAC(T)'s and a lack of CPL's SGT's and Chiefs that we can't promote because we cant replace them.

 

[Tin basher]

Cpl's who are cheaper than civilian instructors!

If the instructor is a D grade MOD civil servant the Cpl is on a higher salary. If however he is a contractor say with a company like MPI he might be on a tad more than a Cpl but not by much.

 

[Keyser Söze]

If the instructor is a D grade MOD civil servant the Cpl is on a higher salary. If however he is a contractor say with a company like MPI he might be on a tad more than a Cpl but not by much.

I'm not particularly well informed on the current detail over mil' v civ' pay in the instructor field, however when I was - I completely agree with Tin Basher. The gap becomes much wider when you consider, a civ' does not need any support (eg housing/dental/medical etc etc). This is one aspect of the argument often overlooked at the 'coalface'. If the situation is looked at from a strategic level, as the local mil' footprint gets smaller, much more money stays in the MOD coffers, thats why your higher leaders say they save so much more money.

 

[Tin basher]

Top end Cpl circa 36K

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/rafpayscales.php#.W5LJdCRKgdU

Not in London D grade lower end circa 25K

https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/583819/FOI2016-26337_grade_salary_bands.pdf.