Training cell workload to get worse

[8:15fromOdium]

FLT,

really the same questions I asked of RSS. If training is required to be carried out by the Stn/Sqn training cells this should have been worked out and detailed as part of the work carried out by the AMM course design team? Has that work been done and have the training cells been informed?

It is a few years since I worked on a Sqn trg cell, but I seem to remember being a very busy bee, how about you going out and talking to them as well? You could also ask the AMMs what they thought of the training you gave them.

 

[fat lazy techie]

8:15

This is just the oppinion of me and a few others, but it seems the primary role of the AMM is liney with some rects work thrown in (70-80%/30-20% Line/Rects). This isn't the case with their training. It's more the other way round. Currently they get more time on Human Factors than on Flight Servicing and much of the practical they do in the rects phase harks back to when they left Cosford with an NVQ2, however I await correction from someone.

If the end customer comes to visit then they can advise us as to what is relevant and what isn't. Perhaps there are other elements that need to be added, who knows? It does concern me though that the training offered to the international students is greater than that given to our own. Even the armourers get a more comprehensive line training package, yet they may never get posted to a squadron in their careers. In the days of single trade mechs the line phase was about 2 weeks, but at the end of their course when they had proved able to do spannering and had about 6 months training. Now they are at Cosford for 24 weeks, of which 10-11 weeks can be discounted as not trade related training. I'm not going to post the course profile on the goat as;

a) It'll take too long to get it on here.
b) I don't want to drop myself in the poo.
c) If people come and visit then they can see for themselves.

Having spoken to some of the last AMMs to cpmplete the 22 day line training package they were shocked to hear it's now down to 15 days. Now I'm not laying the blame at RSS's door for this. I have a good idea where the drivers for this have come from, and they just so happen to think we are opposed to change. The first of the new 15 day courses has finished and to be honest the outcome didn't supprise me. I fear the trend will continue untill the package gets reviewed. This time I hope our management sit up and listen to the experience rather than remove them from the project team.

 

[8:15fromOdium]

If the end customer comes to visit then they can advise us as to what is relevant and what isn't. Perhaps there are other elements that need to be added, who knows?

FLT I'm sorry but that is what the Course Designers and the Eng Sponsor should already have done! Who Knows? They should!

By his silence I will take it that RSS has not had this work done. I will happily stand corrected - if corrected.

 

[Real Slim Shady]

FLT & 8.15fromOdium

8.15fromOdium you beat me to it…..Sorry for not replying sooner, been out and about – RAF Lincolnshire, due to visit Rotary world very soon – I presume that is where you are.

I was at Cosford last month and had a full day talking to different folk (incl Cse Design) – notwithstanding the fact that FLT’s gang were missed; intend to speak direct with them next time (probably June).
I attach great importance to seeking the views of both the suppliers of the product (Cosford) and the end users (MOBs) – as well as the ‘products’ themselves.

As I’ve said before, the aim of Cosford is to produce ac aware girls and guys, who are safe and ready to hit the ground walking.

 

[Tin basher]

[I attach great importance to seeking the views of both the suppliers of the product (Cosford) and the end users (MOBs) – as well as the ‘products’ themselves. As I’ve said before, the aim of Cosford is to produce ac aware girls and guys, who are safe and ready to hit the ground walking.

Sorry RSS, whilst I agree with and understand your stance in most of your previous posts in my view we do NOT deal in products or value streams despite the efforts of some to impose such horrible terminology. We deal in human beings. Common term for these fellow humans is students and they should always come first. Sadly for the bean counters we are not producing washing machines on a mechanical production line but endeavouring to impart knowledge into young people who will be our future and guess what some aquire knowledge at a different rate to others.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THIS IS THE STUDENT NOT BUDGETS OR LEAN OR VALUE STREAMS OR 6S A FACT OFTEN OVERLOOOKED BY SOME. I CANNOT STRESS TO HIGHLY THE IMPORTANT PERSON IS THE STUDENT

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Variations in experience.

Variations in experience.

In my meagre time, imparting knowledge to the future generations of techies, I ask all my courses the same question.

How much Trade experience (riggering to older folks) have you all had?

The answers vary from...

Nowt, I've just been kicking tyres and waving at pilots for 2 years!DT_Xtremez_21:

to

Loads, they didn't know what to do with me... so I ended up working a primary line for my first 6 months!DT_Xtremez_09:

With the variation in tasks, aircraft types, postings etc that the trainees can expect, I feel we need to cover all the bases, if only to keep us out of a court room!

We need to prepare them for every eventuality on both of their visits to cosford, even if it does seem a waste of money for some of the trainees.

HTB

 

[8:15fromOdium]

RSS I ask again:

With this desire to have the AMMs at least partially trained on stn and by the training cells, are these training objectives (Syllabus Part 3's in old money) being advised to the stns/training cells? Obviously once the size of this training task is known it will enable the stns/training cells to train/man/resource accordingly.

BTW I have done a VSA on your posts, if you reduced your font size, you would reduce the B/W being used across at Air. Or are you deploying the old staff officers trick of making it look thick, therefore it must be good?

 

[Captain Gatso]

I have to agree with Tin Basher here. The Airforce is being, or has been pushed too far into beleiving it's a corporation, with products and value stream analaysis being spouted off left right and center. Am I wrong in beleiving that the Airforce is a Military service. Or should it now be known as RAF/plc. I don't think the MOD has a right to turn the services into something that you would find in money markets of London. Serving personnel under training are not Products and officers should not be expected to act like buisnessmen or women. The MOD has diluted the whole core ethos of the services and money saving is it;s primary focus. No matter how they do it. I can understand such thinking in a company that I now work for, but I still cannot find the logic for such thinking in the services. The Airforce is there to defend this country and should not have to devote it's time to find ways of saving money.

 

[Tin basher]

With reference to the corporate thinking pervading the Air Force today a quote from an engineer of some standing one Isombard Kingdom Brunel

"Great things are not done by those who sit and think only of the cost of such things"

 

[8:15fromOdium]

RSS where are you?

RSS where are you?

RSS I ask again:

With this desire to have the AMMs at least partially trained on stn and by the training cells, are these training objectives (Syllabus Part 3's in old money) being advised to the stns/training cells? Obviously once the size of this training task is known it will enable the stns/training cells to train/man/resource accordingly.

BTW I have done a VSA on your posts, if you reduced your font size, you would reduce the B/W being used across at Air. Or are you deploying the old staff officers trick of making it look thick, therefore it must be good?

I correct my last sentence - I fear you are employing the new RAF Staff Officers trick of ignore it & it will go away.

 

[Real Slim Shady]

8.15 Odium
Just back from leave - I had not forgotten that you were awaiting a reply.
I can confirm that when the AMMs leave Cosford they are 'Good to Go'. There are no TOs that have been omitted from their trg that will effect their efficiency. Some may argue that this is not the case, and that Stn Trg Cells are having to pick up more than they have done in the past. If an item is applicable to less than 20% of the course, as a whole, it is deemed to be an inefficient use of trg time. Hence it will be taught as OJT/PET. Thanks for tips on font and syntax.


Apologies to anyone offended by my rather flippant use of the term 'product' to describe trainees/students. I try not to do 'management speak' - an error on my part.

 

[8:15fromOdium]

RSS, I fear you want to have it both ways, in a previous post you stated that:

The AMMs trg is designed to allow them to hit the ground walking, it is the units/sqns responsibility to turn the walk into a run.

but today you say that:

I can confirm that when the AMMs leave Cosford they are 'Good to Go'.

Now which is the case, quote A or B?

 

[Real Slim Shady]

8.15

Both statements are correct. They are trained to be ready for induction into the Sqn's/Stn's trg cell programme - as you were when you left BTT.

 

[Captain Gatso]

Hello again RSS. I have been wondering about something and I think you are the person that is best suited to answer this. We have been discussing at length the AMM course and it's duration of teaching for new kids comming into the service. Now, I have met a load of young lads who have just spent two years doing their apprenteships, who have come out as B1 and B2 exam qualified engineers and are now working to gain experience. Within five years they are going to be type rated and earning a fortune and thier average age is 21. So at 26 they could be earning more than a Sengo does and have the same authority on signing off ADF's and LIM's. Now I am studying for my B1 at the moment and, with a bit of luck be qualified within the next few years also. The Airforce is trying to recruit new blood and I just do not beleive that AMM courses or further training is competitive to what I have seen from the civvy side of the fence. I have a young relative who askead me about joining up as an RAF engineer and I told him to go and get an apprenteship or Aircraft engineering course with a college. I told him that he should not think of the RAF option as I honestly said that it would be better for him to go and do a load of hard studying for a few years and then all he had to do was get experience and he would be fine. I privatly was sad that I had to say that to him, but I think that his best route was to go civvy. I worked for years doing the courses, passing the exams and all this for very little as I need licenses to work in the Civillian Airline industry and the CAA does not recognise RAF academic training. To get a B1 or B2 you have to do the training yourself, with learning credits. RSS, why can't the training sponsers come up with something new. An AMM is a FLEM, but under a different title at the end of the day. If you want young boys and girls to join up, you have to offer them something they can use out in the civillian world once they have completed thier service. I mentioned on another thread a while ago about training people up to a standard that would be recognised by the CAA but have terms of service, that no one could PVR until after nine years. Within that nine years you have a highly qualified engineer who knows that they could have a good future once they leave and you know that they can't leave for a set period of years, everyone wins. At the moment there are young folks leaving after four years, I even know of one who left after three. Yet seeing what future a young lad can have doing a civvy related apprenteship, I just throw my hands up in dispair. I loved most of my time in the RAF but I don't think it offers competitive training to that of the Airline industry.

 

[Tin basher]

CAA does not recognise RAF academic training......... If you want young boys and girls to join up, you have to offer them something they can use out in the civillian world.....

CG from my limited experience what you ask is very diffcult to achieve in reality. Yes almost all of the RAF techy training means little to the CAA hence you and others obtain their license through extra study. Now Civvy quals is not my strong suit but it seems most of the civvy stuff is type rated the RAF just don't do type specific training as an element of core training it's more generic training, flexibility is the key and all the other buzz words. Type specific stuff is usually left to unit training cells. Over the years numerous attempts (Not all well executed) have been made to cross map RAF training to Civvy organisations such as NVQ, JAR 66, Key Skills, B-Tech and currently City and Guilds but at best it's a bad match. The requirements of civvy airlines are somewhat different to the RAF's. In the putting together of the new fitters course I am lead to believe that it was not easy by any means to get C+G to agree on what the course should contain. It had to have enough "civvy" in it to attract the award of a C+G yet have enough "RAF" in it to meet the needs of the service. Without going into to much boring detail removing the C+G requirement to teach canvas and dope repairs from the syllabus took quite some time, yet they didn't want stud removal in the spec but the RAF did. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Real Slim Shady]

CG

Not my area of expertise – if I have one – but I have done some digging:

There has been some work carried out on accreditation for the AMM and FT courses for CAA recognition; this ended with the result that the FT courses would obtain the City & Guilds 2661 Level 3 Certificate in Aeronautical Engineering. The Sector Skills Council SEMTA recognised the Level 3 Technical Certificate along with Key Skills and an NVQ in the workplace as a Modern Apprenticeship (Advanced Apprenticeship). The 2661 meets a proportion of knowledge requirements for Joint Airworthiness Authority Syllabus (JAR 66) B1 and B2 Avionics and Mechanical, it is a close match but is not accepted by the CAA who work in skill levels 1,2 and 3 (requiring a depth of knowledge with some civilian aspects).

Cosford has previously carried out a cross mapping exercise against CAA qualifications and C&G accreditation, they have previously written the Occupational Stds for the level 3 in aeronautical engineering. Work is ongoing looking at the occupational stds v CAA stds (88-100) to see if they can be aligned.

- This would consider if a Mil Std could be achieved.
- Mil/Civ accreditation for aircraft such as FSTA. (Currently individuals attend Barry College).
- Impact of EASA 147 accredited school (possibly Civilian run?)

Tin Basher is absolutely correct, not an easy one to solve. To add to the pot - Under EU law, the Service can only get personnel to sign to a 3 year return of service post any award of qualification. Yet again we reach the dilemma of investing in our personnel and awarding civilian q’s, only to see them all walk in 3 years. Or, hope that they will respond to the trg given, and the qualification, and stay……. Hope this provides some answers.

 

[Captain Gatso]

Thanks for the reply RSS. It answers my question but I feel that it's not an ideal situation for the RAF to be in. City and guilds are good, I have a few myself at level 3. However NVQ's etc are never even talked about out here. Not once have I been askead about my NVQ's and no one seems to care about them either. I can understand that you have to perform a juggling act, trying to recruit new blood for the needs of the service, while trying to offer them something in return. However there is more oppurtunities for mechanics and engineers than ever before in the civilllian world. There is a shortage of Mechanics and Engineers from what I have been told and I know which route young folks will take. I understand that the RAF has to operate differently, I knew that ever since I joined up. To be honest the RAF is just not competitive enough to recruit new engineers until something changes to allow RAF academic training to be accepted, or be partly accepted, by the CAA.