Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

FTT Results

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
Results Are Out!

Results Are Out!

So, it doesn't seem that bad and majority of those who did fail will only have to resit 1 or 2 modules. :PDT_Xtremez_30:
 
Ftt

Ftt

Well done to those who passed, comisserations to those who need to resit modules.

The system is not designed to be easy, those of us old enough to remember the Prom 1/2 system will testify that it is easier than that was...

Mmmmmm 500001D Annex Q, my mouth waters at the thought of a certain Mr Meach asking me questions on a night shift!!
 
NotAnIDOYet said:
Well done to those who passed, comisserations to those who need to resit modules.

The system is not designed to be easy, those of us old enough to remember the Prom 1/2 system will testify that it is easier than that was...

Mmmmmm 500001D Annex Q, my mouth waters at the thought of a certain Mr Meach asking me questions on a night shift!!
Click to expand...

From what I'm led to believe you cannot really compare FTT to Promex. Although it (FTT) was vote for joe, you did have to study, and know your subject. The 4 possible answers would all feasible to the 'Guessers' amoungst the trade and this would catch most out, couple that with negative marking and you have a hell of a hard exam IMO. I think the negative marking may have had a big impact on the results, then again, You are only going to get through the SAC's / Cpl's that want the promotion but passing a theory exam does not make you a good manager.

Any other 'Old Skool' Scopies thoughts?
 
Manager

Manager

sadscopie said:
From what I'm led to believe you cannot really compare FTT to Promex. Although it (FTT) was vote for joe, you did have to study, and know your subject. The 4 possible answers would all feasible to the 'Guessers' amoungst the trade and this would catch most out, couple that with negative marking and you have a hell of a hard exam IMO. I think the negative marking may have had a big impact on the results, then again, You are only going to get through the SAC's / Cpl's that want the promotion but passing a theory exam does not make you a good manager.

Any other 'Old Skool' Scopies thoughts?
Click to expand...

The aim of FT/FTT is not to turn you into a manager, it is to give you the necessary TRADE knowledge to progress into NCO roles. ACS is for management training and does it very well.

As for the comparison, both systems provide a hurdle to promotion, both involve exans (although I concede that the exam techniques differ) and both involve hard work and study for the candidate. Yes there are teething problems, fell free to give examples of anything that is right first time...
 
NotAnIDOYet said:
Yes there are teething problems, fell free to give examples of anything that is right first time...
Click to expand...

That's very kind of you.

FTT does not work for two reasons:

1. There is no check of understanding at any stage. The trade sponsor cannot expect local training sections to take this task onboard as the workload would be massive at some units.

2. The exam does not follow objectives that were laid out in the theory handouts.

Although the CD was well put together, I could not help but suspect that the objectives for each module were added as an after thought. As it is RAF policy to for exams to be written from course objectives, the FTT exam did not really comply as many of the questions were pulled out of thin air.

Should the trade sponsor wish us all to retain all of the info on disc (nearly 1100 pages) then a structured course, probably about 1 month in duration should be run, allowing a constant check of understanding & consistency in teaching methods... Hang on a minute...

I believe that the applications course is going to be a complete waste of time when taking into account that it would be feasable for an airmen to pass FTT1 in 2006, whilst not gaining a place on a FTT1 Applications course until 2009/10.
The theory would need to be taught again, duplicating workload.
 
Teething problems

Teething problems

Never Alert said:
That's very kind of you.

FTT does not work for two reasons:

1. There is no check of understanding at any stage. The trade sponsor cannot expect local training sections to take this task onboard as the workload would be massive at some units.

2. The exam does not follow objectives that were laid out in the theory handouts.

Although the CD was well put together, I could not help but suspect that the objectives for each module were added as an after thought. As it is RAF policy to for exams to be written from course objectives, the FTT exam did not really comply as many of the questions were pulled out of thin air.

Should the trade sponsor wish us all to retain all of the info on disc (nearly 1100 pages) then a structured course, probably about 1 month in duration should be run, allowing a constant check of understanding & consistency in teaching methods... Hang on a minute...

I believe that the applications course is going to be a complete waste of time when taking into account that it would be feasable for an airmen to pass FTT1 in 2006, whilst not gaining a place on a FTT1 Applications course until 2009/10.
The theory would need to be taught again, duplicating workload.
Click to expand...

Taking into account some of your points;

1. Surely the exam is a check of understanding in itself? The problem with the current FT is that it is a memory retention course, no real check of understanding occurs.

2. It is possible that the exam did not correctly mirror the objectives. If there was only a list of objectives on the CD, with an exam just on these, would that be any better?

The package was put together in a professional manner by people who took a great deal of time and effort in doing so. When the trade as a whole were asked to provide an opinion on what was coming, the majority welcomed it with open arms.

As for the applications course being a waste of time and reteaching theory, do you not think that there is an individual responsibility to do some pre-reading before the course? This used to happen on FT, with a pass/fail TOK on day 1. Failures were RTU'd with a bo11ocking about not being prepared!!

Your training section are not the only ones with training responsibilities, your line management NCOs have training of subordinates as a key responsibility. Any NCO who does not take this duty seriously is not worth the stripes they wear!!

Again feel free to give examples of any project that worked first time out (hence why it is not compulsory until Jan 08!!). Remember Murphy's first law of combat - No Plan survives first contact with the enemy!!

Rant over, enjoy the resits!
 
NotAnIDOYet said:
Again feel free to give examples of any project that worked first time out (hence why it is not compulsory until Jan 08!!).
Click to expand...

So what is the bottom line as myself and a handful of others are still wondering about what happens next.

It is not compulsary until Jan 2008, that is to be boarded as I understand, so from now until Jan 08 you can be boarded without having sat the exam, however, yuo will be expected to pass the exam before the applications course - right? If you fail it's bye bye like the old days. For the ones that have passed the exam they will turn up for an applications course once they have been finalised, but again, as I understand it they won't be sorted out for a while (someone mentioned 2009?), in that case what happens to currently boarded candidates? Will they do an FT1/2 course and have to be 'Taught' lessons on subjects they have just studied for a year and have already passed?
 
A Period of Flux

A Period of Flux

Sadscopie,

I empathise with your position however the transition between systems is never easy, think Pay 2000, JPA, UCCS etc.

The current FT was not producing NCOs who were qualified to do anything, FTT Applications should be aiming to solve this, not by button crunching on UCCS but forcing prospective J/SNCOs into trade supervision/management issues.

A lot of the problem historically is Junior Officers, who see the trade as "assistants". By virtue of rank a Cpl is a supervisor and the apps course should put the candidate in situation where they have to "manage" trade problems (Battlespace management, communications etc).

It is tough for those caught in the middle, when we went from Promex to FT a lot of the trade had passed prom 1 to be told it didn't matter.

As I said earlier, no plan survives contact with the enemy, your pain now will help the powers that be develop the training packages for those who pass behind you. Tough for you I know but that is the way of the world, we learn from our mistakes and experiences.

Hold on tight, be proud of what you achieved if you passed and work on the modules you didn't pass (hate the word fail) for the resit. If you have genuine concerns with the conduct of the exam or the learning material then put it in writing to your line management, they will have to do something about it.

The trade is changing severely, along with the rest of the RAF. We are not the first to bring in this kind of system and we will not be the last. Dig in for the long haul, the system will improve if we give it a chance!

Not An IDO...YET!!!
 
NotAnIDOYet said:
If you have genuine concerns with the conduct of the exam or the learning material then put it in writing to your line management, they will have to do something about it.
Click to expand...

I have not got any problems with the exam, on the contrary, I thought it was fine, I just wanted to clarify what would happen in the transition period.
 
Not an IDO... Yet,

You could also say that if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.

FT1 & 2 provided a high workload, forced course members to improve on their time management & pushed their trade knowledge up to the next level.

The Apps course is going to be very generic, it has to be, due to the wide spectrum of tasks a JNCO or SNCO may be asked to undertake for example, a SNCO at BMEWS carries out tasks that bear no relation to that of a SNCO at MSW.

I appreciate that the courses may have been becoming dated however, the key issue, IMHO, is the lack of a check of understanding & no real objectivity to the FTT theory literature & that is of real concern to me. If we can introduce some sort of COU then I'm sure this will work well. The big positive is the requirement for self motivation, that'll weed a few people out...

Good luck with the rest of your course, A's on P's & all that!

I've been sitting at home revising my ICAOs, reporting points, NASP & all the rest of it for January's course. Looking forward to it!
 
Check of understanding

Check of understanding

Never Alert said:
Not an IDO... Yet,

You could also say that if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it.

FT1 & 2 provided a high workload, forced course members to improve on their time management & pushed their trade knowledge up to the next level.

The Apps course is going to be very generic, it has to be, due to the wide spectrum of tasks a JNCO or SNCO may be asked to undertake for example, a SNCO at BMEWS carries out tasks that bear no relation to that of a SNCO at MSW.

I appreciate that the courses may have been becoming dated however, the key issue, IMHO, is the lack of a check of understanding & no real objectivity to the FTT theory literature & that is of real concern to me. If we can introduce some sort of COU then I'm sure this will work well. The big positive is the requirement for self motivation, that'll weed a few people out...

Good luck with the rest of your course, A's on P's & all that!

I've been sitting at home revising my ICAOs, reporting points, NASP & all the rest of it for January's course. Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...

The COA is the apps course, you will need the knowledge then.

As for the course being generic, that is the nature of the beast! The aim of the course is to produce J/SNCOs that can deploy OOA with JFACC, AOCC (L), 1ACC and the like. The UK is just a training ground (with the obvious exception of MT2.4).

You also cannot get more objective than multiple choice questions, no grey areas, right or wrong. Too many people, myself included, waffled on in FT exams in the past.

The FTT literature was produced in consultation with what industry would call the "End User", in otherwords the Units. Most of the source material is the AP3430, also written by the Units.

When the RAF as a whole are crying out for personnel that can do the whole BSM thing then we are ideally placed to gain some posts out in the "Sandpit" with the rest of our bretheren. No other trade group provides this type of training to their airmen and indeed some are coming to us for training prior to OOA.

And the next person to tell me its just "A's on P's" is getting their throat ripped out!

Weapons Monkey I presume?
 
NotAnIDOYet said:
When the RAF as a whole are crying out for personnel that can do the whole BSM thing then we are ideally placed to gain some posts out in the "Sandpit" with the rest of our bretheren. No other trade group provides this type of training to their airmen and indeed some are coming to us for training prior to OOA.

And the next person to tell me its just "A's on P's" is getting their throat ripped out!

Weapons Monkey I presume?
Click to expand...

I see your point mate & I completely agree however, it is the lack of CHECK OF UNDERSTANDING that is the problem. The exam did not fully follow the objectives laid out in the theory handouts & to be inline with RAF policy, it should have.

If we can nail down the questions to stay in line with objectives & have some sort of COU then I think we have a winner.

A's on P's, I thought you'd bite at that, MK certainly did, every time, only ever said in jest. Not knocking the IDO course matey, I don't suspect for one minute that it's easy & yes, I am going weapons, I like the sound of the job & it's time to choose my career path before they promote me & make me a DLM or TACRO!!!

I think I've got you whittled down to a possibility of 3 people at the moment, 2 of them a rugby lads (probably just watching it these days) & other was never seen at the gym at Buchan, a 'bar athlete'.
 
How true is it that the objectives were only put in because the sponser wanted them in and not the ones who actually wrote the question paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top