Fcuking Assimilation . . . I'm still TG3

[Soulboy]

[mad_collie Which is why there is the argument about TG3 SNCO exemptions. A large number of people don't require AT, as they have been 'dual hatting' for years, before the TG4 fiasco came about. SACs, JTs & Cpls can get exemptions, but a SNCO cannot?




You won't get argument from me on that one, I agree exemptions should have been given to SNCOs.

After being told of the overrun on AT Training bet the TS wished he had allowed more exemptions too.DT_Xtremez_41:

 

[Studley dangerfcuk]

Hey There Masked Geek

Hey There Masked Geek

Masked Geek,
you might want to hold off there with the accusations, I only say it as I see it. Don't get me wrong I am a techie through and through, but we all know how to play the game. I get on with anyone, even TG12 Scopies (did I admit that!!!!let the world open up and swallow me). It's the same in what was TG3, how many fcukwits have you seen in your time in TG3. This Air Force takes all sort and usually does. Just one more thing there is not that many TG3 left out there, most have now been assimilated. Every week that goes by new courses start and TG3 fades into the distance, why fight it, just go with the flow baby.
By the way I work with a couple of ex-peanuts that think they're the gift of the gab, I just keep them on a tight leash and let them dig their own pits. It's more fun that way. You know who you are. Here cometh the ICE MAN ?????


StudleyDT_Xtremez_28:

 

[hobbes]

I have been reading e-goat for a while and have found the majority of the postings to be witty, interesting or just letting off steam in general. Then I found the TG 3 bit. What a bunch of whingeing, whining morons you all are. I can appreciate the fact that you, as a collective, should be known as a thicket and that you actually believe the cr@p you all spout but I would have thought that if you hated the thought of AT that much, you would vote with your feet and refuse - or would that mean showing some of that spine that you are castigating your sponsor for not having? The reality is that you have two choices, you can refuse to do AT and take the consequences or you can elect to do AT and become part of the future - whatever that holds! it's your choice but for God's sake make it and quit the whingeing!

I have, this evening sat and read the thread showing concern and support for an E-Goat poster who in the last week or so has been to hell and back over her young sister who has been hospitalised with a serious brain tumour, this supporting RAF is the one that I remember and puts all of you who are whingeing here to shame!

Just for the record, I know the instructor of whom "Hobbes the Gobbes" writes and I know for a fact that some of the retards on that course were definately talking through their rectums! The phrase "We don't do that" was muttered regularly and was at times blatently incorrect because if "you didn't do that" the intranet would not work!::

That has to be the most inflammatry post I have seen in my short time here.

How dare you (a civilian, who have never been TG3) come into a trade forum and compare what we have to say about about a trade related matter, with somebody who has a brain tumour? That has to be singly the most insensitive comment I have seen on here.

And of course all the people on the course were retards, that is why we all made SNCO, *************************************

There is one person on this forum talking through their rectum, *******.

 

[The Masked Geek]

Masked Geek,
you might want to hold off there with the accusations,

Yes we appear to be wrong in this instance but two brand new members hitting the thread with inflammitory posts within a few hours of each other may be seen as (and often indicates) a trolling attempt.

Comments from myself and MC were there to highlight such a possibility and hopefully avoid a flame war between you, Razor501 and our established membership.

Now, why not drop into the introductions forum and give us a clue.

Unfortunately, this post seems to have come 1 minute too late for Hobbes.DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[mad_collie]

That has to be the most inflammatry post I have seen in my short time here.

How dare you (a civilian, who have never been TG3) come into a trade forum and compare what we have to say about about a trade related matter, with somebody who has a brain tumour? That has to be singly the most insensitive comment I have seen on here.

And of course all the people on the course were retards, that is why we all made SNCO, *************************************

There is one person on this forum talking through their rectum, *******.

Hobbes, the point has been made and there is no need to bite to what was obviously a post designed to provoke reaction.

If there are any more 'one post wonders' that turn up for a bit of trade bashing, the posts will be deleted or moved.

The subject is assimilation, anybody wanting to have a pop at TG3, take it to fight club.

 

[Mug?]

Warning!! Back On Topic

Warning!! Back On Topic

Please ignore the following paragraph aimed at the special people.
Quickly I would like to thank the two out of trade posters who seem to know a surprising amount about the trade and how much better we will be once we can all suck eggs in time together, I really don't know how we would be expected to click on a few windows, or even read the odd help file, compared to running global communications and navigational systems using many interfaces and different manufacturers own operating systems, without your knowledge and experience. I must bow to your obvious superior knowledge. How I can work my own PC at home sometimes escapes me

Right on topic...
If I get picked up early enough I will not do AT, chances are I will not as it would be into the decreasing CIST echs slots, so may do it as whether I do it or not will not have any impact on the direction we are going, and could be a chance to spend a week or three on the lash.
If the concearns of the full trade spread about the irreversable harm it will/ is doing to the skill set of the trade are ignored what hope has my little protest got?

What I want to know is what effect will doing it have on my employment prospects. Even the TS wouldn't tell me. Can I still do OOA?
As Eng Tech EL which slots are open to me? IM and CISTech?
What about promotion, when does the trade become Obsolete, surely if I am elegable to fill a TG4 slot/ OOA comitment- I should be considered for promotion?
Yes I know I can't be signed on but that really doesn't concearn me, and when used as a threat (as it was) it will not bother me!

Does anyone know if they still do the exemptions?

 

[razor501]

exemptions

exemptions

have been asking around and think that the only exemption that exists is if you have completed SMS2003 training at the school. This will exempt you from training but you still have to do the datacomms exam. I will try and confirm this for you soonestDT_Xtremez_35:

 

[The Hoffmeister]

Sms2003

Sms2003

Razor, you are correct about sms2003, i did this last month. If you have relevent Q's in NT and Exchange all you need to do is the 4 day sms2003 course and the datacomms exam and them you are assimilated.

I was origionally put on a 3 week course, but when I spoke to sponser they cancelled it and I just had to do the sms course.
Apparently there is 120 odd tg3 people who have Q's, but the system screwed it up and didn't take peoples Q's into account.
So if you have any Q's hassle the sponsors and you will get away with just doing the one week course if anything, but all tg3 have to do datacomms exam even if you have Q's, which is arse.

hope this helps

DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[dunbar1983]

Razor, you are correct about sms2003, i did this last month. If you have relevent Q's in NT and Exchange all you need to do is the 4 day sms2003 course and the datacomms exam and them you are assimilated.

I was origionally put on a 3 week course, but when I spoke to sponser they cancelled it and I just had to do the sms course.
Apparently there is 120 odd tg3 people who have Q's, but the system screwed it up and didn't take peoples Q's into account.
So if you have any Q's hassle the sponsors and you will get away with just doing the one week course if anything, but all tg3 have to do datacomms exam even if you have Q's, which is arse.

hope this helps

DT_Xtremez_28:

cheers for the info i have a few exemptions but saw the lads in the same boat as me havng to do the full course even though we sent our Q's to the bods in charge. ill prob still have to do it anyway. I wish they would just send me on it because its just dragging on now!!DT_Xtremez_17:

 

[OK..Igiveup]

mee too

mee too

I too sent the stuff off. I thought I only had to do the sms/sunrise part.
Return email said that i would get called up just for the one week disguised as a Pre employment course, But when I phoned up I got a rather snotty reply saying it was all getting too complicated and that everyone will have to do the three weeks (exTG11 Sgt trying to sort it out-figures!). Okay if you in the UK but a pain if you are overseas and get dragged back for three weeks without a car to redo courses you have Qs for that were run by a properly authorised Microsoft trainer.

Does a degree in computing get me off the exam?

 

[mad_collie]

cheers for the info i have a few exemptions but saw the lads in the same boat as me havng to do the full course even though we sent our Q's to the bods in charge. ill prob still have to do it anyway. I wish they would just send me on it because its just dragging on now!!DT_Xtremez_17:

Dunbar, get your snec to call the desk at PMA and ask when there are spaces on the courses.

I called them last week & got all my lads booked on their courses at a time that suits both them and PMA.

It's the quickest and easiest way to get on the course.

 

[dunbar1983]

Dunbar, get your snec to call the desk at PMA and ask when there are spaces on the courses.

I called them last week & got all my lads booked on their courses at a time that suits both them and PMA.

It's the quickest and easiest way to get on the course.

Cheers for the info MC, that might mean i can avoid getting it during the Siggies Cup DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[mad_collie]

Cheers for the info MC, that might mean i can avoid getting it during the Siggies Cup DT_Xtremez_14:

Worked for my lot. DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[OK..Igiveup]

We tried that

We tried that

Thats why we rang up. Admit it was a few months ago, maybe it was the wrong time of the month. Will try again if you think its worth it.

I also heard on the rumour grapevine (down the pub) that the cut off date for training was now August? Anyone confirm.

 

[rugby then work]

As has been mentioned before (I think), exemptions aren't available to SNCO's, no matter that you may have done the SMS2003/NT4/LDCN etc you still have to do the week course.

 

[Little_Dictator]

An instructor's perspective on TG4 assimilation

An instructor's perspective on TG4 assimilation

Ok, anyone who's read my introduction will know that I've joined e-goat purely and simply so I can give you the benefit of my experience as an instructor... for what that's worth!

Looking back through this thread, I can see that the course for TG3 Sgts to be assimilated to TG4 has been widely slated. I have just spent the last 4 days standing in front of a group of 12 TG3 Sgts, whose IT knowledge ranged from quite extensive to "what's a computer". I am in no way disparaging those whose career path has kept them away from IT... it happens! However, straight away the justification for the course becomes slightly more evident... all these people somehow have to be brought up to a "base-level". I offer my sincerest apologies to those who were already AT or beyond that base-level... I unfortunately can't think of a way round using the stock answer "The Trade Sponsor says so". It was the Trade Sponsor's decision to decree there would be no exemptions for Sgts, regardless of IT Q's held... sorry, I'm stuck there just as much as you are!

Don't get me wrong.. I am not advocating the stock "Why am I here?" with the answer "Because the Trade Sponsor says so". What I am suggesting is that with the trade becoming more IT-based, prior to posting someone in to an IT role, the Trade Sponsor needs a warm fuzzy feeling that the individual meets some base criteria... hence the "overview" (for want of a better description) given on this course.

As part of my justification that I gave my course, I broke an IT system down into segments:

Operating System
Email
Systems Management
Database Management
Fault Reporting System

I then explained that whilst the software and systems I was instructing them on was perhaps NOT what they would actually use out in the real world, at least by covering each topic in some depth they would get an understanding of what each TYPE of segment would be capable of providing. Yes, NT4, Exchange 5.5, SQL Server 6.x (or 7) and SMS 2.0 are probably either upgraded already or in the process of being upgraded, the fact remains that if you understand WHAT each one of these do, the version doesn't really make all that difference... does it?

Personally, I think my class learned something... if I taught each person at least one thing about IT that they didn't know, then a) I have done my job as an instructor, and b) I have justified the requirement for the course because the student didn't know that one thing to start with. I had a great bunch of lads on the course and it was a pleasure to teach them. What seemed to stand out though was the fact that I had vast experience in the real world, and was able to explain sometime complicated concepts using real-world examples and situations I have experienced. I don't know if this is what the problem has been with previous courses.... perhaps, perhaps not... the key though is that anyone having to still do this course, bear in mind the segmented approach I used to justify it and see if that helps when you sit in that class wondering why you're covering NT4!

I look forward to seeing some feedback (possibly!!).

 

[The Masked Geek]

What seemed to stand out though was the fact that I had vast experience in the real world, and was able to explain sometime complicated concepts using real-world examples and situations I have experienced.

Ah, somebody with an indepth knowledge of the subject they are teaching; now there's a novel idea. Maybe the RAF needs to take note.

I'm fed up of going on RAF run courses and being taught less that I have ever forgotten about IT, then being told "that's what we've been told to teach you" when I challenge something, all because the instructor is teaching from a book and doesn't have a clue.

A good post LD and a refreshing argument in an oft stale arena. Personally I'd use the course as an excuse to get p1ssed and turn my brain off for a while but even after over 15 years in the business, like you say, there's always one little gap that gets filled. It's the little personal tips and shortcuts that I gain from these courses now-a-days rather than any real subject knowledge.DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[Dingbat]

LD, praise be they finally have someone teaching the course that gives a damn about it. Congratulations on the novel approach and good luck.

I suspect the problem with previous courses was that there appeared to be little or no structure to it. You can accept being on a course, even if you have an indecently large knowledge on the subject matter, if someone just takes the time to explain the reasons why you are doing it. The approach of 'This is bollox and I don't know why you are here' doesn't exactly put the student in the right frame of mind for learning.
Nice to have an instructor’s point of view, and appreciate you taking the time to put it.

 

[mad_collie]

It's about time they did something.

The problem is LD, they have finally got you to take on the course when 80% of the SNCOs have already gone through!

Still, I suppose one little step in the right direction is better than none at all.

 

[MAT1]

Sorry but as an Instructor I do not believe that personnel experience or what trade you are is the overriding factor in this matter, of course TG11 like to be taught by TG11 or Ex and TG3 like TG3 or Ex because elements can be placed in to their respective contexts, I believe it is in fact the product that is a fault it is without doubt very poor, and is a package that originally was designed as an overview for new TG11 Instructors when they arrived at the school to bring them quickly up to speed on what was being taught to TG11 TCO’s

This package should have been retired when TG11 was, and a new and properly designed one should have been designed that actually gave SNCO's some sort of useful information.

Also after reading the other comments on this forum I all would have to agree that SNCO's with relevant experience should have been granted exemption allowing them to assimilate with minimal expense and fuss.

Allowing exemptions would have reduced the stress levels the training staff who have had to put up with justifiably negative attitudes from not just TG3 SNCO's but TG11 SNCO's, who have or are being employed in IT/IM roles.

Attitudes towards course have been further compounded by the stock answer "because we have to, or because the trade sponsor says so". The reasons these answers have been given by instructors on a regular basis are two fold. Firstly when AT training started instructors where honest and gave students the reasons behind elements of the courses being taught, but they were soon told in no uncertain terms to stop, this was followed by if you don’t you will be as a serviceman posted, and as a civilian possibly sacked or moved,.

And secondly It could be like most instructors I am just plain fed up with AT training it was supposed to last for 2 years and it looks like it could be 3, and as technology marches on and Basic Trainees get their CISCO and 2003 package training the AT are still getting NT and Exchange 5.5 not what you would call ore inspiring eh..