ATM Promotion

[civvy in disguise]

Quote:
Originally Posted by civvy in disguise
hence the reason we have to do our TAT's again, we all retrade from AMM to A tech m once we pass out.



redo your TAT's? Someone's having you on there mate, I left my FT course about three months ago and have done nothing of the sort. Do you think all the lads who did their multi-skilling had to redo their TAT's as well??

i agree, but our nvq cell seem to think we have to do them again, (not that its any great hardship) and the training cell at my section seem a bit surprised by it all. Another anomaly ive noticed since leaving cosford is that on my first assesment im classed(as i guess you will be) as acting SAC(t), i'd guess this will remain the same until we've done our nvq/tats, so im going to find out if our assesments as acting SAC(t) count towards eventual promotion to CPL.

oh and to answer people saying its **** that we might get promoted to prove the system works, i totally agree, but im not going to turn it down, plusif you talk to many of the AMM's who've been in for a few years i think you'll find most will see it as evening up the much lowere pay taunts we have had to suffer from older SAC(t)'s

 

[Captain Gatso]

Oh christ, I have been reading this and I am glad I am out. WTF is going on. Reading between the lines here, the RAF have suddenly realised that the boys and girls ain't happy and are trying to shut the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted. FLT hit the nail right on the head with his last post.

So it'll be off one pulse line in the sausage factory straight onto another, and there are some who'll say we aren't just pushing them through to keep the numbers up.

What I have to ask is who thought you could take an idea that works when producing Toyota Corollas and use it to produce the future aircraft mechs/techs? If real colleges tried to do this I'm pretty sure they wouldn't last long, but then since when has Tossford been a real college?

This is a disaster in the making. Why can't the RAF training HQ grow some balls and start talking to the CAA and come up with some proper training scheme which is for the benefit of all. We all know the same story, some senior officer wants to make an impression and wants that promotion. Comes up with a scheme that will cost vasts amount of money to impliment and bypass those folks who where in the old training schme, by promoting the new ones to prove the system works. This same stupid cycle of events will continue to happen untill somone grows up and realises you can't treat folks like this. I have said it before here. Why can't RAF training just talk with the CAA and impliment there training scheme. Get a new lad in, teach him or her to Mechanic standard. Get him or her on the line for a few years then send them back to take the training modules required to earn the B1 or B2 maintenance licence. The result, a well qualified Maintenance Technician who is well qualified to do the job required and who knows that they have qualifications that will give them a great chance in Aviation once there terms of contract expire. I am sorry to say that NVQ's out here mean absolutly nothing. One lad tried to show our boss that he had an NVQ three, my boss just said what use was that to Aircraft maintenance. Licences are what matters in Aircraft Maintenance. It's a shame the RAF senior airships still have not realised this.DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[Dirty Harry]

CG,

I like your thinking but you know as well as I do that training RAF guys to Part-66 licence standards is never going to happen. It believe it will for FSTA but that will be run as a seperate entity. The military have a big enough problem with retention now, let alone if they were to give personnel qualifications aligned with the civil sector. Who in there right mind is going to hang around playing the "yes sir, no sir" game putting up with all that ****e when they are sitting on a qualification that could potentially double their income within 2 years of leaving. Pension or no pension, when you realise what is out there you will be out those camp gates at the first opportunity.

As you are aware, you cannot hold a civil aircraft maintenance licence unless you've accrued sufficient practical experience on civil operating aircraft in an approved maintenance environment. Since the RAF's maintenance policies are not recognised by the outside authorities, it would be impossible for guys to get the qualification unless they were released to civilian organisations for a minimum of 12 months, perhaps longer. Again, this is never going to happen. You can pass all the modules in the world, unless you turn those pass certificates into a licence within the permitted time frame (and that includes getting the necessary civil experience) they will eventually expire and you will have to repeat the examinations all over again.

 

[Captain Gatso]

Hi agree with you DH. What I am trying to say really, is that the RAF can no longer go around making up a new training schemes which do not really benefit the people who are using them, in the long term. To be honest what use is as an NVQ for Aircraft Maintenance if you want to continue in the career, once you have left the Airforce. My NVQ's are just sitting in my training folders, collecting dust. No one wants to know about them. If you are prepared to put your life on the line for Queen and Country then the RAF should acknowladge that fact with a training scheme for Engineers that WILL actually help them to get a good job when thier time is out. I know that you have to wait a certain amount of time on a civillian based Aircraft to gain that coveted Aircraft Maintenance Licence, once you have passed the training modules . However I still do not understand why the Airforce cannot create a scheme which the CAA would recognise as a completion of those modules, once that person leaves the Airforce. Experience is the most valuable commodity an Aircraft Engineer has, it's just a shame that they have to go through the same training, yet again, just to prove it prove it to the CAA, when it comes to the Academics. I have told so many Lads who are interested in becoming Aircraft Engineers to go to College instead of joining the RAF as they would have a much better chance of getting a good job in the long run. I hate telling them this, as I feel the RAF can offer so much more if only training HQ could grow a pair and speak to the CAA, to see what training scheme they could do which they would recognise as completion of those modules. If any senior training bods are reading this, why can't this be done?

 

[duffman]

If any senior training bods are reading this, why can't this be done?

Although I'm far from a senior bod, but I'll have a stab. The main reason is money and will. Large changes to training schemes in the forces are usually looked at in conjuction with defence training as a whole. It would be unlikely that aircraft techs would be given wholescale changes to their training program. This would lead to other trades not just in the RAF but tri service, now more than ever. This would create a mountain of work to review almost all training in defence. You could argue that there is a exemeption from this for just aircraft techies, but it would be very very difficult. As the MOD isn't flush with money right now, it would be probably be 10 years away most likely never. As long as people are coming through the AFCO door right now, no-one is going to give people a better reason to join up ie a leg up for civvy a/c when they leave.

There may even be wider implications if the CAA started getting closer to the MOD in terms of oversight. It may strenghten the hand of those who wish to have more CAA involvement in how the MOD runs it's aircraft. I'm thinking terms of flight safety and BOIs things like that. That's more of a political monoevering type of thing, but some thing of that order would emerge as an issue that would have to be looked at.

As an aside I think the reason NVQs 3 were chosen is they were backed by the government for civilian employers to give there employees who joined the modern apprentiship scheme. The government had to look to be saying 'Look they're ace we use them.' So everyone in the forces had (even if they weren't in an apprentiship) an NVQ added in as part of their training. They aren't that bad the advanced version got you a BTEC NC as well. Not everyone who leaves the a/c trades moves in to a/c in civvy street either. I'd go as far to say they were in a minority, I don't know the numbers just going on what I've seen, so they offered people something that could be used in a wide range of jobs and is understood and accepted by a large amount of engineering employers. I like your idea of accepted qualifications by the CAA in RAF training so you wouldn't have to restudy them, but for me civvy street a/c is not something that I would look to get into. I'm getting HNC/D in engineering so the NC was quite useful to me, now and when I leave.

Hope this may shed some light, but I'm not a senior bod so it may well be utter hoop.DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Captain Gatso]

Cheers for the insight there DM. I understand that not everyone is looking for staying in Aircraft Maintenance. I am having to restudy for my B1 at the moment and it frustrates me to the core when I compare my old Tossford training aids with CAA's accepted training aids. There is not much differance to them. I have used the bulk of my old training aids for my study and they cover pretty much everything. Saves on buying new stuff but the CAA seem to be the most inflexible organisation I have come up against since leaving the RAF. Most of the blokes I work with, think it's a scandle that ex forces Aircraft Engineers are not given more exemptions. There is a crisis at the moment in Civvy Aircraft Engineering, alot of engineers are close to there retirement point and there are very few new young bods replacing them. I have a few years to run before I gain full, unrestricted B1 status but I still feel pretty hacked off that anyone that leaves the RAF and wants to stay in Aircraft Maintenance has to go through this minefield which can be avoided if only the RAF could work with the CAA when it comes to training. After all it would be of benefit to both parties in the long term.

 

[BillyBunter]

where to start, your ignorance knows no bounds on this one, i was on the 1st fitters course (further training course) and left cosford 6 months ago, i am no longer an AMM (not AAM) since i passed out and now im a SAC (t) just like the rest, theres no such thing as a corporal AMM! hence the reason we have to do our TAT's again, we all retrade from AMM to A tech m once we pass out.

Well you are a cheeky little ****, as far as the air force is concerened you are still an AAM , you will never be a techie till you at least have 5 years experience in , get back to cleaning the hangar and making tea you unrespectful mong. If you read what I actually and after you get some time in you might understand.

 

[civvy in disguise]

Well you are a cheeky little ****, as far as the air force is concerened you are still an AAM , you will never be a techie till you at least have 5 years experience in , get back to cleaning the hangar and making tea you unrespectful mong. If you read what I actually and after you get some time in you might understand.

funnily enough ive done 5 years, and i need 3 positive assesments before im eligable for promotion so it'll be at best 8 years in to get my tapes, i happen to know "old style" sac(t)'s who were promoted after less than 5 years in, so its been no great benefit to go through the AMM route, and im not complaing about that, it just pees me off that some people think we're somehow better off than the old SAC techs, its just not true.

 

[BillyBunter]

Nice One , good wind up though !!! I started to bite but realised its a joke heheheh

 

[mumbles]

Being an 'old school tech' and therefore stoopid was wondering how I could have been picked up after 5 years when you couldn't get Q ops til 3 and needed 3 recs/highs etc after that I always thought 3 + 3 equalled 6 or maybe not?? Also as an AMM you were nothing more than a tradeless monkey so get over it!!

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

Being an 'old school tech' and therefore stoopid was wondering how I could have been picked up after 5 years when you couldn't get Q ops til 3 and needed 3 recs/highs etc after that I always thought 3 + 3 equalled 6 or maybe not?? Also as an AMM you were nothing more than a tradeless monkey so get over it!!

Because there were some SAC(T)'s who were picked up on their 3rd assessment despite only recieving rec's, as long as they'd attained Q Ops, I think this only happened on 2004's board though.

Yes this did annoy us JT's who had better assessments and greater seniority. (I was picked up after my third assesment) however, it wasn't the individuals fault and in their position I doubt i'd have complained either.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Because there were some SAC(T)'s who were picked up on their 3rd assessment despite only recieving rec's, as long as they'd attained Q Ops, I think this only happened on 2004's board though.

Yes this did annoy us JT's who had better assessments and greater seniority. (I was picked up after my third assesment) however, it wasn't the individuals fault and in their position I doubt i'd have complained either.

Agreed mate, although I find it amusing some jelly tots are still using this excuse some 5 years later! DT_Xtremez_14:DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[mumbles]

In fairness I'm not even a proper old school SAC Tech, I was one of the first of the new kind but I don't think our AMM friend knows about the proper old school mech mechs and they got proper shat on.

 

[Sospan]

Seems like it's picked back up, 180 odd this year. Lets hope it flows across the whole trade.

 

[duffman]

Seems like it's picked back up, 180 odd this year. Lets hope it flows across the whole trade.

Yep first batch have already been told, some people have been picked with 5-6 years in which is quick as a sootie/rigger. No doubt caused by continuence being wound down.

 

[montheton]

Well at least its better than last year! 180 odd is quite a few in comparison.

 

[BillyBunter]

Yeah heard of 2 at ISK today , one was due out and was on resettlement only to get the call which is great as hes a good lad

 

[Sospan]

Seems like it didn't really ripple across the trade, 80 odd to Chief and sh to FS.

 

[feckinG RANT]

As an old A Mech A who earned FT on merit to become a JT (6 years as an SAC, not 18 months or whatever) I have to laugh at all the bleating.

We have SAC(T)'s moaning about AMM's, then there's Mech Tech JT's moaning about SAC(T)'s! Seriously, IMHO, the most awful and unfair treatment of anyone was the poor guys like myself who were recruited under the old Mech/Tech/Appo system only to have the rug pulled out some months/years later upon introduction of the Mech Tech. Fact.

Back on topic a bit, I feel things may only get worse. I'll try and explain.

As stated, as an old Mech I got my tapes after 12 1/2 years, which was pretty quick considering, Sgt at 17 years. Now, many SAC's & JT's seem to get their tapes much sooner, some as early as 5 or 6, most around 7-9. Most will sign on to 22. Not all will make the grade for Sgt so you're going to have many holding rank to 22, this means less slots for promotion to Cpl.

The same is likely to happen at Sgt, many of these said Cpl's will make Sgt relatively quickly, perhaps take LOS 30 but may not make it any further. Result? Less slots for Cpl's while they serve their time.

Compounding this is may be more draw-down after the next Defence review.

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

IMHO, the most awful and unfair treatment of anyone was the poor guys like myself QUOTE]

Would you care to explain what was unfair about that system. If you'd gotten the requisite qualifications you could have joined up as a DE or Appo. You knew you were never guaranteed a fitters course joining as a mech. If advancement bothered you so much you should have got the extra quals.