ATM Seminar at Cranwell tomorrow

[NotAnIDOYet]

Well all I can say, is listening to the tosh coming out from the TG12 cadre here demonstrates their complete lack of understanding as to what TG9 does.

I feel sorry for any future TG9 having to work under a TG12 SNCO!

And your understanding of my job is what then?

Some of us have taken the time to find out what you do, can you honestly say you have done the same? You sound like the kind of narrow-minded bellend we can all do without.

 

[opsgeek]

I wonder when this thread will be moved to fight club DT_Xtremez_25:DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

Say something aggressive

 

[opsgeek]

I don't want to talk to you no more TG12, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Sorry..couldn't resist!!DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[R_Squared]

FFS, this was a perfectly ordinary, grown up, reasoned discussion thread. Then someone let a bunch of Ops Monkeys and Scope Dopes in and suddenly there's monkey faeces flying everywhere!

Honestly, bunch of tea making chimps the lot of you. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[FOMz]

FOMZ, utter bollox...

Overmanned ABM? I'll think you'll find that the weapons side is critically undermanned with the surv guys being only just over 100% for the short term.

our OOA is considerable at the moment and having made ourselves a relevant branch, unlike your airships, we are far better seated for the upcoming cuts.

DRR,

Harsh but fair IMHO. Why is that, barring XI sqn, we have to speak to the authoriser direct to get any decent info ref a/c movement?

Why are you answering yourself there NA? or should I call you DRR.... you obviously forgot who you logged on as.... DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Never Alert]

I was actually quoting YOUR post reference ABM being overmanned (responding to posts 33 & 35 infact) It isn't, it is in dire straits on the controller front.

Multi tasking - yes, sort of...

Multiple personalities - Not that I am aware of.

LK,

XI have FOAs as far as I know & one in particular seems to have more of a heads up than the Auth!

Same cannot be said about other sqns I'm afraid. Perhaps I'm being harsh and other sqns simply don't utilise the FOA guys as well as XI. Sometimes, the info on offer is an absolute joke. I'm sure there are plenty of TG9 out there who feel the same way about the reverse flow of info & to be fair, I'm sure that they would have a point.

Red mist mode off, the main issue may infact be a lack of understanding on both parties, something that is not excusable in today's small air force.

 

[lafyar kokov]

Never Alert,
Having worked closely with XI Sqn for a significant period time I am absolutely amazed at your post.......they must really have changed recently!!
XI do indeed have FOAs but they are not co-located with the Auth and unless there has been a drastic re-organisation in the last 12months they were quite often the last to know of any changes, that is why I believe it is the Auth who contacts you direct with the changes.

The other Sqns have FOAs co-located with the Auth but they are often busy booking low level (if required), plotting NOTAMs, delaying tanker slots, delaying/re-booking range slots, re-creating the missions on the software etc. When sorties delay the Auth should keep you up to date because the FOAs are working like one armed paper hangers doing all of the things the winged master race take for granted. Unfortunately, on the list of priorities you are quite low down unless there is a need for extra airspace.

 

[Hmmmm]

Hello chaps, I've been watching this one.

In my mere 30 years or so I spent much of my time in ATC. However, for two tours (and quite a few OOA Dets - GW1, GW2, Kosovo, Afghanistan - "the early days" and a couple of other skirmishes) I was heavily involved in the ABM side of things. Indeed, having completed ABM courses at Hulbert Field and Ede I was asked to help develop the CAM cse at Boulmer.

Anyway, enough of blowing my own trumpet. The bit that many are losing in this particular spat is the scale of disruption/cuts the military will be facing. This isn't about TG9 vs TG12 or the survival of the ATC specialisation, it is about the continuance of the RAF. So, can I suggest these trifling little discussions about how easily a TG12 scopie can/cannot jump into a TG9 job are rather irrelevant? In my experience, the vast majority of individuals in light blue can turn their hand to other roles. I certainly have witnessed TG9 do very well in TG12 jobs and vice versa. I have also seen ATC personnel breeze through the WC course. My point is that no one bunch of people is 'better' than the other; this will not be lost on the HR planners.

 

[BBuster]

Gents

We are missing the point here!

This is not about Scopies v's ATC, this is about a mechanism whereby numbers can be reduced without redundancy payout, regardless of the length of your remaining engagement. This is just another initiative along with all the others(Fitness, Injury etc etc) to quickly get rid of people if required.

Rest assured, post election, we the Armed Forces along with all the other Public services are set for severe cut backs and 1980's style redundacy packages will not be available.

As for "getting rid of the dead wood" I'm not so sure. Todays capable Controller is tomorrows dead wood - If you put him in the wrong job and apply enough pressure!

Picture It......" Relax, this is your third and finally check ride. If you don't succeed you're out of a job, homeless, bankrupt after a couple months, car reposed. never mind I am sure you, your wife and kids will be all right. So what that you've given 17 years of service, multiple OOA's, never had a day of sick etc etc. Now S*d off.

Bit melodramatic I know, but you get the idea.

The people most vulnerable would be the older Controllers with families who are short of their immediate pension/lump sum.

This initiative will I suspect have two major effects.

1.Far fewer, if any Controllers will elect to move, why would you if you are established and qualified at you're current unit. Again its not about ability, sometimes a face just doesn't quite fit. Why move if potentially it could cost you your career and livelihood?

2. Some square pegs will be forced into round holes, Less capable individuals will hang on when perhaps a sideways move would have happened in the past. Similarly LEO's will maybe issue endorsements to people that they are less than certain about. Especially if the consequences of not doing so are potentially so severe.

Apologies for my slightly gloomy take on these proposed changes. Also, as of yet I am not in possession of all the facts with regards to how this is going to pan out.

Rest assure though I am well past my pension & Lump Sum point and am fat dumb & happy with no the move on the cards. I could happily leave tomorrow, however for others I worry!

 

[R_Squared]

I have to say, that pretty much sums it up for me.
For the FCs out there looking on thinking this isn't going to affect you because of your "Operational Credibility", what is about to hit ATC, will most likely be heading your way soon enough.

 

[Triple SA]

As for "getting rid of the dead wood" I'm not so sure. Todays capable Controller is tomorrows dead wood - If you put him in the wrong job and apply enough pressure!

Picture It......" Relax, this is your third and finally check ride. If you don't succeed you're out of a job, homeless, bankrupt after a couple months, car reposed. never mind I am sure you, your wife and kids will be all right. So what that you've given 17 years of service, multiple OOA's, never had a day of sick etc etc. Now S*d off.

Genuine question here. Wouldn't the individual mentioned above be offered a remuster to either FOM or ABM before they were kicked out?

 

[opsgeek]

Genuine question here. Wouldn't the individual mentioned above be offered a remuster to either FOM or ABM before they were kicked out?

Only if slots were available

 

[R_Squared]

The direction we have received is that this is highly unlikely to be the case.

Nothing would be more likely to give the Ops Branch an anurism than thought that 5 years down the line their promotion prospects are to be hosed by a bunch of DE SNCOs who couldn't cut it.

 

[FOMz]

Genuine question here. Wouldn't the individual mentioned above be offered a remuster to either FOM or ABM before they were kicked out?

Only if slots were available

The direction we have received is that this is highly unlikely to be the case.

Nothing would be more likely to give the Ops Branch an anurism than thought that 5 years down the line their promotion prospects are to be hosed by a bunch of DE SNCOs who couldn't cut it.

Considering that promotion competition is fierce from FOA to FOM and that there are some very capable Cpls out there, I doubt it would happen. As RoJaws says... a DE SNCO who cannot cut the mustard as a Controller, should be shown the door or posted to RAF Sleepy Hollow to be forgotton about. Its bad enough at the moment when the odd controller is allowed to remuster to FOM, and that causes a lot of distaste in Cpls mouths.

If it was up to me - I wouldn't allow it.

 

[orgASMic]

As long as it is no more than the odd one being allowed to remuster to FOM, this should not be a drama. It must not be the individual's right to do so but the RAF needs to retain the right to offer the opportunity to the individual based on his/her skills.

Promotion is open competition. The failed (acting) SNCO controller is still a substantive cpl and so should be able to go back into the pot alongside the other cpls, a little older but hopefully wiser. As I understand it, DEs have not right of re-muster into FOM and rightly so - they are not qualified to do so as they have not been FOAs.

Could it be the case that the cpls who take umbrage are the guys who are not getting picked up anyway? They perceive that they are losing out because someone has 'stolen' a FOM slot. The so-called thief has already been selected for promotion to sgt in TG9. He has then been offered the opportunity to train for a different skillset within TG9 ie controlling because he had the apptitude. If that does not work out, he still has the scores and skills to be a TG9 sgt as a FOM because he came out of the same pot as the other promotees who did not have the apptitude or desire to go to JATCC.

It is interesting to see how this thread has developed from my original rant, having not checked in for a while. Due to a lack of controllers posting on here, it seems to have drifted into another TG 9 vs 12 bunfight, whereas I was hoping for a discussion on how to move the ATC specialisation out of the Cold War and into The War rather than the CAA.

I am encouraged that we now have an ATM Force Commander with authority over and ownership of the front line controlling manpower. I am encouraged that ATM training is being addressed through Phases 2 and 3 and our people should be better prepared for ops as a result. I am encouraged that the OJT endorsement policy is to be stremalined to better reflect accumulated experience. I am encouraged that we will have an ATM sqn ldr posted into 1ACC, with TacATC under his command and with OPCON of the augmentees. I am encouraged that there will be competition for SATCO posts rather than it being seen as a right.

These measures will drag us out of the mire of Joint and Integrated ops with NATS and into a more risk-aware, better prepared force which can react to changes in operational tempo, whilst maintaining the high quality of service we provide to the home base.

 

[FOMz]

The so-called thief has already been selected for promotion to sgt in TG9. He has then been offered the opportunity to train for a different skillset within TG9 ie controlling because he had the apptitude. If that does not work out, he still has the scores and skills to be a TG9 sgt as a FOM because he came out of the same pot as the other promotees who did not have the apptitude or desire to go to JATCC.

No thats not the case - You may find that the JATCC board and the Cpl-Sgt FOM board are seperate. As now the majority of the FOA(ATC)'s have been selected and the ATCA 's are steadily being utilised.

 

[may the FOMs be with you]

"They perceive that they are losing out because someone has 'stolen' a FOM slot. The so-called thief has already been selected for promotion to sgt in TG9. He has then been offered the opportunity to train for a different skillset within TG9 ie controlling because he had the apptitude. If that does not work out, he still has the scores and skills to be a TG9 sgt as a FOM because he came out of the same pot as the other promotees who did not have the apptitude or desire to go to JATCC."

But they are not selected because they are capable of being a Sgt; they are selected on their aptitude to be a controller.
They only have to show they have the capability of being a Sgt in the future.
So they should not be given the automatic right to be a FOM.

 

[orgASMic]

I know that the ATC CB and cpl-sgt FOM PSBs are separate. The ATC CB is held after the cpl-sgt FOM board so it is not beyond the wit of man to have a candidate who is selected for promotion to sgt as a FOM and selected for JATCC. If he subsequently fails JATCC or fails to endorse on the front line he reverts to his previous rank and trade. If he was FOA(ATC) then he is back in the pot and, because he was previously selected for promotion, could be promoted into a FOM slot if one were available. If he was ATCA then he can remuster to FOA or another TG or he is out of the RAF.

 

[FOMz]

I'll say it again for the hard of understanding, the majority of legacy FOA(ATC)'s have already been selected for JATCC, so its mainly ATCAs now - so the chances of what you are saying are very very slim and getting slimmer.

And there lays the rub....... someone who may be a rubber desk johnnie not actually knowing how the Flight Ops side of TG9 works.

What you said - may have been the case a few years ago - but not now.

Anyhow - back on topic chaps and let the 'maggot tamers' talk about how they are out of a job unless they pull their fingers out and be FOB-its, rather tham MOB-it's