AMM's-whose fault is it anyway?

[wizard]

Ah! I hear you cry 'this old topic again'...no your wrong! the question is not refering to how bad they are (god knows the answer) or how little they know cause there training is so general, but how the hell did we end up with them in the 1st place? which previous scheme was so bad it gave birth to this abmonation?

is it true we are follwing civvy street and churning out mindless cannon fodder for the line, no real tech experience required cause it will fix itself? is it the dumbing down of society we read and hear about? or is it the playstion generation? maybe its a case of outsourcing to companies the repair and supply contracts? or the old age one of saving money?

come on enlighten me as to your thoughts and feelings about the above Q's, share your experiences about the Amm's or what you think of the future managers of the RAF.

remember an Amm is only as good as education!! oh and an Amm is not just for Xmass.

DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[TrenchardsLoveSock]

In light of the (lack of) punctuation and the dodgy spelling, I have to ask; are you an AMM?DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[wizard]

NO born and bred Jt thanks, and yes we all know as an Appo you where made to eat the defence writing AP! nil points scored for spotting grammer and spelling mistakes me old.
DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[TrenchardsLoveSock]

NO born and bred Jt thanks, and yes we all know as an Appo you where made to eat the defence writing AP! nil points scored for spotting grammer and spelling mistakes me old.
DT_Xtremez_15:

I'm not normally a Grammar Nazi, but as you were ranting about education I couldn't resist it.DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[wizard]

Fair point me old! I see what you mean trenchDT_Xtremez_19: .

 

[MrMasher]

It's just reincarnation.
Used to be FLM's (flight line mechanics) years ago.
Next we'll see some form of direct entrant and apprentice.......................

 

[Disillusioned]

I think a lot of it is as you point out about the fixed price supply contracts combined with modern technology.

By that I mean, in the future will we really need the much revered fault diagnostic abilities of those of us trained to be proper techies? I don't think so. As we're seeing with modern A/C you insert a card in the computer and it tells you whats wrong, or you plug a laptop/test-set into a component and it says it's fooked.

No need to figure out what went wrong anymore because with fairy box will tell you. And then there's going to be no need to work out what part of the engine went wrong because if you're taking the engine out to replace something anyway it costs us no more under fixed price supply to send it back to the contractor to get them to fix it and we can get on with fitting a serviceable asset.

Unfortunately none of that helps us with our ageing fleet that are a long way off of being replaced by anything more modern.

 

[Weebl]

I think you are being unfair to the AMMs here.

Yes, they are undertrained compared to what we ourselves were, however the ones I have had working for me have been good on the whole

They are mostly keen, at least as intelligent (in many cases more so due to the Air Force now being able to be a lot pickier in recruitment) and quick to learn.

It is not their fault that due to the RAF Merry go Round (everything changes regularly, normally co-inciding with officer postings) they have joined under this particular system. IMO it is better than the Mech/Mech Mech/Tech shoite

As far as I can see, they are capable (mostly) and it has been left to those of us on the line to train them in the skills required to be a technician rather than 1SofTT.

I work on one of the aforementioned 'Aging Fleets' and while they are primarily employed as Lineys, the good ones always try to get in as much trade as possible, learning what they can.

 

[Goatherdingsplitter]

Ah! I hear you cry 'this old topic again'...no your wrong! the question is not refering to how bad they are (god knows the answer) or how little they know cause there training is so general, but how the hell did we end up with them in the 1st place? which previous scheme was so bad it gave birth to this abmonation?

is it true we are follwing civvy street and churning out mindless cannon fodder for the line, no real tech experience required cause it will fix itself? is it the dumbing down of society we read and hear about? or is it the playstion generation? maybe its a case of outsourcing to companies the repair and supply contracts? or the old age one of saving money?

come on enlighten me as to your thoughts and feelings about the above Q's, share your experiences about the Amm's or what you think of the future managers of the RAF.

remember an Amm is only as good as education!! oh and an Amm is not just for Xmass.

DT_Xtremez_28:

I think you'll find that the AMMs came about from the front line (disenchanted SAC Techs) complaining that they don't need technicians to flight service aircraft, at least that is the line that was fed when the need for AMMs was presented by MSDIT. Strangely when we were shouting to the rooftops that Betts was wrong and we didn't need an all technician Air Force, we were told to move with the times.

Why AMMs; simple really. Only one course to deliver rather than the previous 5 trades or current 3 (including Wpns).

 

[airforceone]

Isn't it something to do with recruiting people into the RAF, get them "out there" gaining experience and getting their hands dirty before putting them through a long and expensive apprenticeship at Cosford? I think the theory is that you do 2 years or so as AMM then specialise in the trade later - it gives you a chance to walk away if you thing the RAF is not for you and, crucially, it gives the RAF a chance to bin you if you are shoite without having invested loads of dosh inteaching you.

 

[Late & Tired]

It's quite apparent that there is either a general ignorance of the role and requirement of the AMM, or people just don't want to know about the development of the future FT.

Have a look at 100B-01 Order 2.2.2 (It's not the JAP as it's RAF only!)

If there is any further clarification needed, it can be sought via A4-Eng at STC (MSDIT) Air Eng Branch on GPTN 95221 Ext 6047.

FIND THE INFORMATION, BECOME EDUCATED FFS.

 

[wizard]

I think you are being unfair to the AMMs here.

Yes, they are undertrained compared to what we ourselves were, however the ones I have had working for me have been good on the whole

They are mostly keen, at least as intelligent (in many cases more so due to the Air Force now being able to be a lot pickier in recruitment) and quick to learn.

It is not their fault that due to the RAF Merry go Round (everything changes regularly, normally co-inciding with officer postings) they have joined under this particular system. IMO it is better than the Mech/Mech Mech/Tech shoite

As far as I can see, they are capable (mostly) and it has been left to those of us on the line to train them in the skills required to be a technician rather than 1SofTT.

I work on one of the aforementioned 'Aging Fleets' and while they are primarily employed as Lineys, the good ones always try to get in as much trade as possible, learning what they can.

On reflection I should have really pointed out this thread is about the scheme and not an attack on the Amm's themselves. It is about how we have gone from one extreme to another over the past few years and why. Symptom and cause.
I feel I should also point out over the years I have met many clever people who where badly matched to the 'RAF's scheme of the month' and were undertrained, leaving them to feel is it worth it?.
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[wizard]

It's quite apparent that there is either a general ignorance of the role and requirement of the AMM, or people just don't want to know about the development of the future FT.

Have a look at 100B-01 Order 2.2.2 (It's not the JAP as it's RAF only!)

If there is any further clarification needed, it can be sought via A4-Eng at STC (MSDIT) Air Eng Branch on GPTN 95221 Ext 6047.

FIND THE INFORMATION, BECOME EDUCATED FFS.

Done it:

The need for change

With the RAF evolving into an expeditionary air force and entering a major re-equipment programme that will introduce into service some of the most modern and technologically advanced equipment, the demands on the RAF’s aircraft engineering workforce are changing substantially. To meet these challenges, this workforce needs to be trained and employed in such a way as to maximise the flexibility and availability of tradesmen at the front line. The revised aircraft engineering trades provide a mix of individuals employed at mechanic and technician levels who have broader trade coverage, so best meeting the operational and maintenance requirements of future fleets.

Future fleets eh?
so if that is the future and this is the present, an Airforce chock full of old frames needing old repair skills, I come back to why?

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Isn't it something to do with recruiting people into the RAF, get them "out there" gaining experience and getting their hands dirty before putting them through a long and expensive apprenticeship at Cosford? I think the theory is that you do 2 years or so as AMM then specialise in the trade later - it gives you a chance to walk away if you thing the RAF is not for you and, crucially, it gives the RAF a chance to bin you if you are shoite without having invested loads of dosh inteaching you.

This was in fact one of the prime movers for the creation of the AMM system. Many trainees passing through SAC Tech training complained that 18 months was too long a time to have to spend before getting to see how the RAF really works. AMM training satisfies this basic requirement; train 'em to do menial jobs, send 'em out to taste hyd oil and avtur fumes for real and then bring 'em back and train 'em up to techie level. It also gives a 'mechanic' level tradesman albeit with much less capability than the old single trade mechanic.
What was not forseen (I presume) was the micron thin stretching that the service is now experiencing and the employment of AMMs on unsupervised rectification. They were never intended to be used for that, they don't have the skill and knowledge. But when the manpower cupboard is empty, anything that breathes oxygen and can don a pair of coveralls gets chucked into the furnace doesn't it?
I suggest that if there was enough manpower to use everyone as they were intended nobody would notice the lack of capability of the AMM at all, its only because there aren't enough and there's an AMM sitting there that his limitations become a frustration.

 

[alberts nose]

The whole scheme to me looks like we are going down the same route as the Navy with their Aircraft Engineering Mechanics who did all trades and the Army Air Corps. We needed people to pump fuel and gas the tyres. so do the other Services, if all are trained to about the same level, would they not be interchangable?

Makes sense if we are just going to have an Army with enhanced capabilities as we don't have much of an airforce or Navy left.

AN

 

[airforceone]

The whole scheme to me looks like we are going down the same route as the Navy with their Aircraft Engineering Mechanics who did all trades and the Army Air Corps. We needed people to pump fuel and gas the tyres. so do the other Services, if all are trained to about the same level, would they not be interchangable?

Makes sense if we are just going to have an Army with enhanced capabilities as we don't have much of an airforce or Navy left.

AN

I believe the interchangeability was demonstrated last year when a whole intake of techies from Cosford were sent to Faslane (I think, or certainly some RN base over the border).

 

[Weebl]

What was not forseen (I presume) was the micron thin stretching that the service is now experiencing and the employment of AMMs on unsupervised rectification. They were never intended to be used for that, they don't have the skill and knowledge. But when the manpower cupboard is empty, anything that breathes oxygen and can don a pair of coveralls gets chucked into the furnace doesn't it?

Absolutely, Positively, 100% not by me, or to my knowledge any other supervisor on my Squadron.

Not only would it be illegal and dangerous, it would be unfair on the AMM.

They are allowed to Self Supervise Flight Servicings, that is legal and within their training. Working rects unsupervised? No, the jet will be late (and they sometimes are) and I will explain why (and I sometimes do) before that happens.

 

[Defender of the universe]

We At lyneham have some good keen AMMs although we do have some that just dont care. Dont tarnish them all with the same brush. We are here to train them and hopefully they will go to further training with a lot more knowledge and skills gained whilst on unit.
However if they are used for the sole purpose of line service then it shall not help them at all.
Remember they chose to join the Airforce for a trade not just to be abused by us techies who have been in a while.

I personally believe that we are doing a M J F and going "back to the future" but this is what higher management call progress so lets all just do what we normally do and get on with the job in hand.
Techies will always adapt to whatever is thrown at them and this AMM thing is just another phase of seperating the technical trades ie DEs, mech mechs and mech techs etc.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Absolutely, Positively, 100% not by me, or to my knowledge any other supervisor on my Squadron.

Not only would it be illegal and dangerous, it would be unfair on the AMM.

They are allowed to Self Supervise Flight Servicings, that is legal and within their training. Working rects unsupervised? No, the jet will be late (and they sometimes are) and I will explain why (and I sometimes do) before that happens.

I have recently been assured that this practice IS happening out there somewhere Weebl; no offence to those who are using their AMMs properly as intended.
I am 100% in agreement with you, when in a position such as yours my response was always the same.
"You don't like it, you take the responsibility, you sign the F700s or you find me more suitably trained manpower." Strangely my career caption managed to remain extinguished throughout - so having a bit of backbone isn't necessarily a career killer DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[Rikster]

I think a lot of it is as you point out about the fixed price supply contracts combined with modern technology.

By that I mean, in the future will we really need the much revered fault diagnostic abilities of those of us trained to be proper techies? I don't think so. As we're seeing with modern A/C you insert a card in the computer and it tells you whats wrong, or you plug a laptop/test-set into a component and it says it's fooked.

No need to figure out what went wrong anymore because with fairy box will tell you. And then there's going to be no need to work out what part of the engine went wrong because if you're taking the engine out to replace something anyway it costs us no more under fixed price supply to send it back to the contractor to get them to fix it and we can get on with fitting a serviceable asset.

Unfortunately none of that helps us with our ageing fleet that are a long way off of being replaced by anything more modern.

Having worked on Boeing 777's for the past 6+ years , yes you have a point about the A/C telling you whats wrong with it, however don't forget its a computer programmed by a nerd who has never even kissed a girl, so I still find myself having to do "fault diagnosis", and to do that you have to understand the systems involved (all of them, no single trade bollocks out here!).
As to wether FLM's, sorry AMM's are any good, I have no idea, but I was Aircraft Mech Airframe and managed to learn enough to blag it in the real world!