Surprised to see that the new entry scheme for TG1 Mech and Av will be called Direct Entry Technician.........maybe they thought all old DEs will be long gone but there's still a few of us kicking around!
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.
Trending
This Week
View More Trending
- 4,113
- 83
- 443
Same reasons that you need Sgt, Flt Sgt and WO in other trades.
C'mon, for what? Given that they can be managed by the rest of TG1.
- 1,217
- 48
- 43
At the risk of becoming a troll, I only partially agree with that.
Just because someone was a brilliant Mech didn't mean they had the ability to become a tech. 3 years of 8's used to be almost a guarantee of a fitters course and then if they passed, there was more likelyhood of them coming out as a fitter who knows how to work the system rather than a DE who will sink or swim on ability.
tornadofairy
LAC
- 14
- 3
- 5
I was a 2nd line Mech, did my fitters course and was posted to 3rd line... I arrived at my first 1st line posting as a Cpl. At the 'meet and greet' with the Jengo, he asked me what aircraft experience I had; when I replied 9 weeks on Pumas 7 years before, he walked me to the window and said, "You see those grey and green things? They are aircraft; the pointy end is the front, the blunt end is the back". To this day I wonder if he was joking....
Seriously, I still think the training I had was some of the best and reading comments in these illustrious forums makes me feel my Mech's course in 1976 was a better grounding for my career than the current entry ones today. Or are they rose tinted specs I am wearing?
Seriously, I still think the training I had was some of the best and reading comments in these illustrious forums makes me feel my Mech's course in 1976 was a better grounding for my career than the current entry ones today. Or are they rose tinted specs I am wearing?
- 4,113
- 83
- 443
With the majority of the RAF aircraft being flying computers I don't think the techies need anywhere near the aircraft knowledge that we had to have back in the days before the Tornado came into service, although the physical / handicraft skills have probably stayed the same.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
I would not disagree with you. Then again I was a DE (AAD119) and one of our number I believe is a WO still and has been for some time. Couple of officers came out of it as well. I never saw a live aeroplane for 7 years post training (CAT 3's mostly) and it did hurt me. However I had the sheet skills loads of people didn't. Alas people do not get that now bar 71 Repair Sqn. The DE course was as strong as the Fitter courses IMHO, but a lot of us did struggle. DE courses now are a lot longer, even taking in the Propulsion side. It would need a serving guy doing one to say if it was any good or one of the instructors to pipe in.
- 9,741
- 113
- 821
- 1,391
- 38
- 22
AAD 123 
- 1,147
- 63
- 154
AFittP 11 - (When Moses came down with 2 tablets and a gearbox)...
- 2,182
- 63
- 132
I had about the same amount of issues with DEs as any other intake method - some who passed all the standards still couldn’t hold a spanner proper-like. And for some their little knowledge made then downright dangerous....most were okay, to be fair.
New DEs wont be that same as previous DEs because the technology has changed so much in the RAF (Not so much elsewhere, I might add). Plastic airframes and digital controls, hyds designed to leak less with cleaner fluids and bloody chips everywhere have destroyed old training ideas. That new approach is needed. I think the Systems split Q-courses also need a rethink too - rather too specialised, in my blinkered view.
New DEs wont be that same as previous DEs because the technology has changed so much in the RAF (Not so much elsewhere, I might add). Plastic airframes and digital controls, hyds designed to leak less with cleaner fluids and bloody chips everywhere have destroyed old training ideas. That new approach is needed. I think the Systems split Q-courses also need a rethink too - rather too specialised, in my blinkered view.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
Have you anything to do with RAF Q course training now to make such a statement? I would expect a modern Q course is tied to the trade structures the RAF have ran for the last 15 years. Mechanical and Electrical/Avionics. Yes, it is not the B1/B2 courses I see and do, but then again unless guys are doing such for the LAE types, they need only a basic understanding of the other stuff, if it effects their trade.
- 2,182
- 63
- 132
It's my understanding that the current "Q" is split into separate courses for the different systems, i.e. different courses (not phases) for structures, hyds, air con, etc. and as many as 12 courses to make up a whole a/c Q as we knew it. I believe there is also a course for fault finding on particular types...NCO's only.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.