New techies at last

[Tin basher]

Do they actually come out as SAC(T), just wondering because they still have to do an NVQ when back out of Tossford for the second time and our lads didn't think they get it until that was done.

Sorry can't get the hang of that multi quote gizmo.

Chatting to some of the lads on a fitters course today they seem to think they leave as SAC(T) and whilst they have an NVQ and a B-Tech to finish most of it is done at Cosford. But hey this is a rumour network so I could be wrong.

 

[Tubby]

One way or another though they will have to sink or swim, aint gonna be many left before long to pass on trade knowledge for their NVQ's, not where I am anyway.

 

[Tubby]

Suppose leaving as a Tech will help stop the us and them, though to be honest that hasn't really happened to much here other than for banter. It will mean however that when a jockey see's the rank slides they will expect them to have a bit of knowledge to go with them.

 

[a tech m]

hi im on the first course of mechs.4 are going to marham eng bay,4 to benson (1 passaf) 4 to chinooks(1 on role bay!!!) 2 to hmf and two to lossie.quite bad and these are the sort of postings up 2 course 4 so far,even tool cal at marham.we left cosford today so every 6 weeks new people are coming out of cosford.hope this helps oh and yes were sac techs c&g lv 3 and 80% complete of nvq,dont you think weve been on the lower pay band for long enough!!!!

 

[Downsizer]

hi im on the first course of mechs.4 are going to marham eng bay,4 to benson (1 passaf) 4 to chinooks(1 on role bay!!!) 2 to hmf and two to lossie.quite bad and these are the sort of postings up 2 course 4 so far,even tool cal at marham.we passed out today so every 6 weeks new people are coming out of cosford.hope this helps

Are you still p1ssed?

 

[Bitburger]

So these guys and gals are technicians, albeit at a junior level? They have completed a technicians course as opposed to photocopying a load of job cards and putting together a portfolio?

I feel a GEMS coming on to call them Junior Technicians and you could even give them an extra prop blade to distinguish the fact that they have completed a technicians course.

 

[Talk Wrench]

So these guys and gals are technicians, albeit at a junior level? They have completed a technicians course as opposed to photocopying a load of job cards and putting together a portfolio?

I feel a GEMS coming on to call them Junior Technicians and you could even give them an extra prop blade to distinguish the fact that they have completed a technicians course.

Why are they getting Sh1t postings to tool cal etc? Surely these new techs would be better off going first line? Or are they too valuable to send first line at the moment DT_Xtremez_17:


Too late BitBurger, I've already written a consultation paper on it and will charge shed loads for it. Why would they pay you 50 notes for it when they can pay me 2 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DT_Xtremez_14:


TW

 

[propersplitbrainme]

So these guys and gals are technicians, albeit at a junior level?

Yeah, sorry about that, we can't yet graduate lads from FT courses with 3 or four years technician experience under their belts. If you can think of a way of doing it, then that would be worth a GEMS. DT_Xtremez_28:

They have completed a technicians course as opposed to photocopying a load of job cards and putting together a portfolio?

Yep they have completed a technicians course, much the same as the old mech/mechs, mech/techs and SAC(T)'s did. The jobcard photocopying comes later when they build their NVQ portfolio. Thats where you come in to help develop them. DT_Xtremez_15:

I feel a GEMS coming on to call them Junior Technicians and you could even give them an extra prop blade to distinguish the fact that they have completed a technicians course.

I believe the ring thing does that. Still, a four bladed prop may just catch on.

 

[Real Slim Shady]

Good luck to you ‘a tech m’ - enjoy wherever it is you are going to.

It is impossible to post all newly qualified A Tech Ms and Avs back to the 1st Line – they also have to fill Depth posts. They are fully qualified SAC (T)s, who wear the ‘Mercedes badge’, who have completed their C&G Level 3 (no longer a BTECH to remove the onus of responsibility from the units) and are well on the way to getting their NVQ 3 – pre-requisite for promotion to Cpl. They also pick up Key Skills at minimum level 2 as well.

What they have, which many have not had upon leaving their FT, is an ability to carry out fault diagnosis - from Day 1 this is emphasised to them. This is a fundamental and integral part of both courses. It is no longer a ‘learn and dump’ exercise which produced individuals who had passed lots of exams.

Best of luck to them all

 

[Tashy_Man]

What they have, which many have not had upon leaving their FT, is an ability to carry out fault diagnosis - from Day 1 this is emphasised to them. This is a fundamental and integral part of both courses. It is no longer a ‘learn and dump’ exercise which produced individuals who had passed lots of exams.

So when did that change then ??????? Fault diagnosis was always taught on mech and FT courses.

Crack on.......................DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[propersplitbrainme]

So when did that change then ??????? Fault diagnosis was always taught on mech and FT courses.

Tashy, according to the old Skills and Knowledge APs, fault diagnosis has only ever been the official remit of the technician (as opposed to the mechanic) although I realise that many experienced mechs were permitted to do it. Mechs were simply taught how to recognise that something had gone wrong, not to diagnose what was causing the fault.
But, you probably may not have realised it, your SAC(T) graduating between 1999 and 2004 was not taught to fault diagnose in training; it was the one significant difference between these techs and the J/Ts of yesteryear. In fact, I wonder how many other NCOs don't realise that their SAC(T)'s were never taught fault diagnosis and have assumed they were.
The decision to do this came out of one of the many manning, operational and other reviews conducted in the 90's, the rationale being that it should be the job of the NCO to fault diagnose and then send the 'bod' away to do the task.
The TMT1 course for SAC(T) (both direct entry and assimilated) became the Aircraft Technicians Supervisors Course, rising from 2 to 6 (but later later cut back to 4) weeks to include the elements of fault diagnosis omitted from the trade training.
The SAC(T) graduating under the new ATA / ATM scheme will, as RSS says, be able to fault diagnose. What this will mean for their TMT course, well perhaps Hu can tell us.
Hu?

 

[Cake or Death]

well on my SAC(T)sootie course we were given symptons of a fault on the fuel systems and then had to diagnose what was causing the problem. That seems like fault diagnosis to me!!!!!! As long as you have half a brain and understand the system you are trying to sort out its pretty simple think!or am i wrong completely in all accounts

 

[propersplitbrainme]

well on my SAC(T)sootie course we were given symptons of a fault on the fuel systems and then had to diagnose what was causing the problem. That seems like fault diagnosis to me!!!!!! As long as you have half a brain and understand the system you are trying to sort out its pretty simple think!or am i wrong completely in all accounts

No, you are more or less right although there is some methodology to fault diagnosis to avoid barking up wrong trees.
You are also right in pointing out that fault diagnosis did appear in the SAC(T) course - we still use the fuel system ones you referred to in fact. However, it wasn't officially supposed to be there however many (but not all) instructors unofficially included it because they thought it was important.

 

[Cake or Death]

No, you are more or less right although there is some methodology to fault diagnosis to avoid barking up wrong trees.
You are also right in pointing out that fault diagnosis did appear in the SAC(T) course - we still use the fuel system ones you referred to in fact. However, it wasn't officially supposed to be there however many (but not all) instructors unofficially included it because they thought it was important.

Thought i wasnt going completely mad. although that dashpot throttle pretty much did send me loopy. You werent on the hanger flight in 2001 by any chance and are into microlighting are you?

 

[Hu Jardon]

hi im on the first course of mechs.4 are going to marham eng bay,4 to benson (1 passaf) 4 to chinooks(1 on role bay!!!) 2 to hmf and two to lossie.quite bad and these are the sort of postings up 2 course 4 so far,even tool cal at marham.we left cosford today so every 6 weeks new people are coming out of cosford.hope this helps oh and yes were sac techs c&g lv 3 and 80% complete of nvq,dont you think weve been on the lower pay band for long enough!!!!

Yes you've been on it far too long, good luck to all of you and congratulations

 

[Hu Jardon]

The SAC(T) graduating under the new ATA / ATM scheme will, as RSS says, be able to fault diagnose. What this will mean for their TMT course, well perhaps Hu can tell us.
Hu?

There won't be any change that I can see. There has been no Fault Diagnosis in ATSC for over 18 months. After it was proven that an SAC(T) had at least as much fault diagnosis ability as the average JT. Therefore as Real Slim Shady says this latest generation are already capable/trained to fault diagnose so there will be no need to re-introduce fault diagnosis into ATSC.

 

[Tubby]

Thier was also fault diagnosis on the Avionics courses aswell, I even have the reports for HTF somewhere, plus we did it at Fulton block, I agree though that it is likely to be a fraction of what the older courses did but it was definately on the sylabus for us. Fault diagnosis is always better learnt on the job. Even remember having an row with a civvie regarding his techniques during HTF and him running to the FS for back up, the FS agreed with me but said to humour him for this stage.

Roll on the sausage factory, we need those shiney new techs. The rate of people leaving here will mean no light trades soon unless we get new blood

 

[Tin basher]

Just to point out this thread is mainly about the rigger/sooty heavy course (1235)DT_Xtremez_30: and not the elect/avionic version (1236) :Sfor the elect/fairy view see this thread.

http://www.e-goat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=18807

 

[propersplitbrainme]

.....but it was definately on the sylabus for us....

I'll wager it wasn't, if you did an SAC(T) course. It was probably covered unofficially just like the heavies did.

Even remember having an row with a civvie regarding his techniques during HTF and him running to the FS for back up, the FS agreed with me but said to humour him for this stage.

Yeah, course you did DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[monobrow]

I'll wager it wasn't, if you did an SAC(T) course. It was probably covered unofficially just like the heavies did.

The only mention of fault finding on the HTF certificate is for the Second Line part.

Fault Diagnosis and Unservicable Item Replacement
The student must recognize the test/diagnostic failures and upon identifying the unservicable printed electronic circuit (PEC)/module, replace the PEC/module in accordance with relevant procedures

Found the certificate during the house move!