Air Engineer Role.

[NDW]

Evening all ,

Please excuse me for my ignorance, How come there is no longer a Air Engineer role on the RAF careers website?

Have they been phased out now?

Information will be much appreciated.:ok:

Thank you

Nathan

[NDW]

Oh right , Shame that.

Thanks for the Info.:ok:

[ZH875]

AIDU, are you feeling OK? :rolleyes:

[St Johns Wort]

Own up, who nicked AIDUs log in?

[mad eng]

You're not suggesting that we are going to run out of Air Engineers are you? At least there are no plans to extended the VC 10 or Tristar............................
Anyone got the old Air Eng school lesson plans?

[isaneng]

A suitably old and bold Eng did in fact save much of the course (or should that be coarse) paperwork, and recent discussion on producing WSops to fill Air Eng positions found that there was sufficient to provide a pretty basic package to enable this if required. Whilst the idea has been shelved for the time being, it remains a possibility for the future to produce the very limited number required for legacy platforms. I remain a little confused (ok, no bloody idea) as to the success of the WSop trade/posting flexibility idea. ME Fleet draw down gives PMA little chance to move people around, and let's not start PMA bashing as they can only go on the numbers and plans passed on by their lordships, nuff said on that. Yes, one or 2 guys have changed brevet (yeh, I know, but you know what I mean), but there seems to be a moratorium on it now. Have the other fleets seen the WSop thing work, or are people stuck in their roles there as well? Have we managed to scare off the ex-rankers by refusing to give them their choice of role as NCA, or are they still applying? Answers on a postcard please, to 'Confused of Chippenham.........'

[m2mob]

I knew an air eng who said he may have some lesson plans of the cranditz course. They wouldnt have made sense to me (move heavy boxes and make sure that they're sort of tied in). I also know the youngest (currently) air eng - and yes he will reach 55 way before the awacs is due out of service. None of the AC planned exit dates slip to the right ever do they....! :oh:
I'm sure that the 'system' will fudge the issue and come up with a way around this - techie to air eng via a double ocu anyone (and if they're good enough to hack it - good luck to them)
To all those in the sand pit - Keep Safe
(14 Greens - I hope my chariot is ok for next week):O

M2MOB

[juliet]

Of course another (temporary) option to fill gaps between the last Air Eng retiring and the last aircraft requiring an Air Eng retiring is to place pilots in the role.

I know, I know, people will kick and scream, but the reality is that pilots are capable of the job. Im not talking about training pilots specifically for the role, just using them as a stop gap.

It worked well for the airlines for many years, with pilots often starting out their career in the third seat before upgrading to the right hand seat.

[mad eng]

Seem to remember training an experienced pilot to sit in the middle seat at Lyneham about the same time we were trying to get GE's and Aussie Caribou loadies to do it. Don't remember him lasting very long.
Hope the old and bold have a good price in mind........

[Throttle Pusher]

Juilet, where do you think we would find these extra pilots? The tri-motor is short of the 2 wing master race at the moment and not many pilots are staying past age 38.
(14 greens is probably crying into his 4x, he's gone to Aus to watch the rugby league world cup!)

[edward england]

Think you'll find that with the introduction of these new-fangled imprests, there is now no kitty - hence no need for the engineer. It was never about flying the plane!!

:}

[juliet]

Throttle pusher,

The fact is the remaining Air Eng lot are getting old and new ones are not being trained.

As I see it there are a few options.

Extend the current Air Engs', assuming they want to.
Train new Air Engs', but what will they do after the retirement of the aircraft? Train techies for the role, but again what is their role after the job goes?
Convert Loadies/GEs/WSOP?
Convert pilots?

In terms of training risk and stress the best option is probably to extend the current crop, assuming they can/will. Failing this it would be to put current pilots into the seat. All the other options, and there will be different options to those I have come up with, incur more of a training burden and risk. They also present a problem in the future in terms of what to do with trained Air Engs'. In the long term the conversion of a Loady to Air Eng and then a reconversion back to Loady (they are going to have to do some sort of OCU) just puts more stress on the training system.

Pilots are in short supply, no doubt about that, but so are many other trades. In some cases though the shortages are on aircraft that have no need for an Air Eng. Some aircraft that do require an Air Eng have potentially some spare pilots due to the ability to provide only a limited number of that type. This is not always the case, but the reality is that some of our types are just not as serviceable as others, and yet have the same or similar manning.

As I said originally, putting pilots in the third seat is not ideal, but in terms of a short term option that can be managed internally by the squadrons I think it is worth looking at.

[ZH875]

Fill the empty Eng seats with civil serpents, especially the bean counting variety, maybe then and only then will the forces get more funding for the shortfalls they have.

[NutLoose]

Civil Licenced Aircraft Engineer to Flight Eng is a couple of weeks course......

Does the VC 10 Still carry a Navigator in the Cockpit to counter ballast the Air Loadmaster down the back? :}

[14greens]

certainly crying in to my beer, england have been rubbish!!!
Watched a good Irish win tho
did bump in to a nice chap in RAAF uniform gave me a good contact number in Canberra for lateral recruitment info tho!!!!

As for the old and knackered going on to the Tri Motor think the next 2 boys coming thro the course will not be too happy with that comment, am sure pretty boy especially!!

[goneeast]

Im not old, and I'm certainly not bold. but 4 years ago or so I was told to "get rid" of all training notes and software.. I obeyed.. "I got rid" to my pc, and it remains stored on disc.

I've got a piece of paper( legally) that now says that I own these documents..and there was no objection from the Crown.

It wont take a rocket scientist to reproduce a lot of it. but it will take many thousands of man hours, and who can afford that these days.? Its interesting stuff if nothing else, but the short-sightedness of PMA astounds me.

[m2mob]

I may know you - did you perhaps/maybe once mention to a driver airframe that you didn't need an aircrew knife - coz you could ring his neck with your bare hands?:O If it is you - long time no see and hope things are going well for you.
m2mob

[goneeast]

Thats me!!

I was quite annoyed that he'd asked me where my knife was, I wasnt in Akrotiri and therefore didn't need to open any charlie bottles.

To my original post, I didnt mean that I own the material, just the discs it is stored on. I dont think you can own the Rolls-Royce Dart Fuel system. The material could be built again (as I said , many man - hours). Theres 24 weeks of lessons /exams there.
Just a shame noone officially thought it worth storing for future use, the attitude was "get rid of". There was years of effort in the lesson packs and Dominie school material. (Didnt keep AEPT stuff, as I didnt forsee anyone bussing students to Newark Air museum for a sortie).

The idea of training A.N Other trade popped up few year ago, when I was still in. The CAA would probably have an interest, as they did back then, as the guys need a formal course of some type. They are not terribly interested in WSop as they dont operate the aircraft as such (no offence, but its way authorities see it I think). Also, I have seen/taught the generic groundschool, and Air Eng standards it is not!! So there may be some work for someone in the future.

[NUFC1892]

Excuse the ignorance of a non aircrew/techie interloper, but how difficult would it be to convert a GE to a temp AE?

[klubman]

It's not as if this has come as a surprise to the RAF (well, maybe it has) but their airships were told on many occasions that Engineer training should not have been curtailed when it was.

All the course material is available (I put aside the AEPT stuff) but the main problem is implementing a course. The AEPT is now no more than a large amount of widely dispersed pieces, and the pool of experienced instructors is also widely dispersed.

To run the course the RAF would need to withdraw Eng's from the front line to be instructors which will only exacerbate the current manning problem. However, for a suitable fee (!), I'm sure I could get sufficient, instructor qualified, retired Engineers together to run a suitable course! It's all part of my retirement plan!

Sadly, I doubt the bean counters would put forward sufficient cash for my pet project so I suspect I may have to graft elsewhere for a little longer.

[goneeast]

I'll walk down to your office tomorrow klubman. :ok:

A few conditions though.. make the training base somewhere nice (that excludes Scotland and The Far East of England).. Errr Doncaster International? And no Aircrew Knives allowed!

[klubman]

Sounds like deal, mate!

[cheesedoff]

I have been informed that there is no shortage of us....................

[The Gorilla]

.....withering on the vine....

[fergineer]

So all that money (rate ones) and time that they/I spent getting the AEPT together in one piece has now been wasted as its now spread around places......
They will never learn the lesson will they. Glad that someone had the foresight to keep at least most of the stuff on a disc......Maybe they could find an Argosy to play with and really step back in time (dump seal spill 19500 485 or some thing like that).
Best of luck to those out there trying to pick up the pieces of the shambles that could be comimg your way. At least there are very few flying jobs outside that will entice anyone away and in this current economic climate there will not be that many other jobs for people to go too so the problem will still manage to stay hidden. Until there are better jobs available outside then watch the early leavers go.

[baby-spice]

Don't worry, there will be 2 Sqns of Air Engs becoming available from a secret Lincs airbase after PR09 is announced.

[Flight Detent]

Hey ADIRU (?)...I'd like to correct your initial statement that goes "..the C130J and C17 that do not need an Air Eng (read Flight Engineer).." to something along the lines of "the C130J and C17 that do need a Flight Engineer, but are not configured for one.."

Also...Let me tell all that will listen that it takes substantially more than "a couple of weeks" (as in the case someone said to Xtrain a GE), or anything short of 5 or 6 months to Xtrain a qualified-on-type pilot to be anything resembling a competent Flight Engineer.

In the RAAF, they have an FE course for qualified GEs to the middle seat in their P3Cs that takes 6 months, and that is an extremely intensive course, with a pass rate of around 80%.
They turn out a real quality product that can hold their own anywhere in the world.
It's not good enough to be just able to 'flick a few switches', he/she must have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works, and how to get the best out of it, when it matters.

All this talk is seriously undermining the job of the professional Flight Engineer!

FD

[flyboy007]

"Evening all ,

Please excuse me for my ignorance, How come there is no longer a Air Engineer role on the RAF careers website?"

Simple. They are being replaced by FADEC, and and a cross bleed valve. BBrrwwwahahahahaha:}

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

FD,

I have seen some rather silly things posted on here but......

"to something along the lines of "the C130J and C17 that do need a Flight Engineer, but are not configured for one.."

Obviously both LM and Boeing got this one totally wrong so go on, give us the benefit of your vast wealth of of C17 and J model Op's and tell us exactly what said AE is actually going to do on either aircraft....................you couldn't write some of this sh1te :rolleyes:

[TrickyTree]

Flight Detent, I'm just a humble fast jet spanner-monkey so please excuse my ignorance but....

"Also...Let me tell all that will listen that it takes substantially more than "a couple of weeks" (as in the case someone said to Xtrain a GE)...to be anything resembling a competent Flight Engineer."

In the case of a ground engineer, why's that then?

"In the RAAF, they have an FE course for qualified GEs to the middle seat in their P3Cs that takes 6 months..."

Why does it take half a year? I read this as being in addition to the type-specific aircraft maintenance engineering training he/she has already had - six months seems an awfully long time.

"...It's not good enough to be just able to 'flick a few switches', he/she must have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works, and how to get the best out of it, when it matters.

All this talk is seriously undermining the job of the professional Flight Engineer!"

No, I would not suggest that it undermines anybody's professionalism. However, are you suggesting that a ground engineer who spends, I am led to believe, at least six months learning how the aeroplane works, plus God knows how many years prior to this gaining general aircraft maintenance experience on quite possibly a range of types might not be up to the task of doing it in the air, or perhaps does not "have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works"?

I, too, really am intrigued to know what is is that an air engineer does that a suitably qualified ground engineer cannot do.

[klubman]

TrickyTree, it's relatively simple.

In addition to all you've mentioned the FE needs Airmanship.

OK?

[TrickyTree]

Ah! Of course! Airmanship :p

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Which of course your average GE has none of......................:rolleyes:

[TrickyTree]

Indeed. So my question(s) still stand.

[The Gorilla]

And the RAF Air Eng Training course was almost 18 months from start to fully turned out able, to do it on their own type of dude!! But that's all history now.
:ok:

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

But do what on their own.................................:confused:

[Throttle Pusher]

Tricky Tree

The Ge’s job and that of the Air Engineer require a different mindset.
It is one thing diagnosing and rectifying faults on the pan with the steps in. It is quite another handling emergencies, or appreciating the repercussions of perhaps several unconnected faults, when at 35000ft three hours flying time from the nearest suitable airport.

It would take longer than a couple of weeks as the conversion to type alone would be in the region of 20 sim’s plus flying training. Add on all the essential extras such as met, navigation CRM and other aviation related subjects and it’s easy to see where a figure of six months come from.

I have worked with many GE’s who I thought would have made excellent Air Eng’s although I myself would make a lousy GE. (could never sleep on an aircraft) It would be possible to train suitable GE’s, we used to get a lot of our air eng’s from the ground trades anyway, but it would not be a quick crossover.

Remember. Being an Air engineer is like driving a Wells Fargo Stagecoach. You spend most of your working day sat behind two horses ar@e! :;)

[isaneng]

Ok, let's all admit that most aircrew jobs aren't that difficult (please note the 'most'). And what were half our NCA before they went aircrew? (Pre WSop, of course). Yep, serving personnel. And what makes good aircrew? Personally, I'd suggest a basic level of aptitude, with a bucket load of experience thrown in on top. Of course we can train just about anybody to fill a FE position, same as we can take most recruits and turn them into NCA. There is a different perception/perspective towards aircrew systems operation and techie operation, but that's surely due to the background of their training and work experience, and it's hardly insurmountable. And is it even a major problem on the larger ME aircraft, where there is less flexibility in operation and systems management (drills are FRC driven, and you can't go around pulling CBs as they impact on multiple systems - remember the airbus with a broken back on its ground runs?). With reference to the old airline manning, with a new pilot operating the 2nd officers position, that worked fine, and I bet they never tried to engender a FE's perspective. So can we train techs to fill FE positions in the future? Of course we blooming well can. Will they be as good as an experienced FE. Nope. Will they be as good as a newly qual'd FE? Probably not far off. Will they gain airmanship? Course they will, just like all new aircrew do.

Mind you, one thought. Has anybody even wondered if the techs will want to fill in for a few years?

[HeartofBlackburn]

The Flight Engineer not only requires an understanding of aircraft systems but requires an understanding of met, performance, navigation and a myriad of other subjects which, when added together can be classed as airmanship. He has to be able to OPERATE the aircraft, learning a set of SOP's, as well as being able to carry out a variety of drills of varying importance when things go wrong. To make sure he can carry out these drills he has to be able to carry out multiple emergency drills in a serious of ever more demanding sims. It is this that takes time. He also has to keep an eye on ever younger and more enthusiastic pilots, which are let's face it the only thing on the aircraft likely to kill you. I have both fixed aircraft and flown aircraft and the differences are in outlook on what is and isn't acceptable would surprise you. Not one of us believe that we are better than GE's and not one of us believe that some GE's couldn't do the Flight Eng job but I can guarantee that not all GE's could and that those that could would require the full 6 months, if not longer.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Isaneng,

Absolutely spot on :ok:......... unlike a few of your rather precious brethren. Outstanding analogy throttle pusher, another CRM classic :rolleyes:

[goneeast]

Whatever the gobbier types on here think or do not think is irrelevant. You cant take short cuts and you cannot train anyone in 4 weeks. It would not satisfy certain authorities, otherwise, dont you think it would have been tried before? The course wasnt 18 months long for a laugh, whatever your previous trade was. :ugh:

Besides this, I think we have serious thread drift because I dont think anyone in authority has admitted to a shortfall in manpower. (or have they ? )

[ScufferEng]

I have just left the RAF having been an Air Eng on C130 & VC10. had a great time:). I cannot help but feel that The MOD have made a grave mistake;( akin to the Banks lending money to people who cannot pay it back):ugh:, by closing down the Air Eng School . It will be a brave ALM/AEOp, oops sorry! Wsop who sits in front of a VC10 Engs panel without a SOLID AND COMPLETE course in Air Eng training. It would appear that PMA are happy about the manning levels in our trade, lets hope that all remaining Air Engs stay in untill 55, coz I reckon the manning numbers are now based on that assumption!

p.s I may be available for the Aux's (IF THEY PAY ME ENOUGH):D

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Enough of this arrogance!

Why on earth would a GE want to be a Flt Eng? We travel more, sleep on the way, and get all the pretty girls.

The only techies who apply for Flt Eng are the ones who want to better themselves...that is, the ones who have been overlooked for promotion to proper SNCO, and want to find another way by cheating. And even after such mediocrity they tend to be in the top percentage of the Flt Eng cadre, ie 47 Sqn SF.

To my knowledge, the only ex SNCO Grd Eng to transfer was the 'Riddler' himself. And he was in charge of the lot of you!

[k1rb5]

Shame on you big lad! What was it JH and previous SAGE's used to say on day one? 'The FE is your best friend'

Cheating :=

[NutLoose]

Flight Detent

Also...Let me tell all that will listen that it takes substantially more than "a couple of weeks" (as in the case someone said to Xtrain a GE), or anything short of 5 or 6 months to Xtrain a qualified-on-type pilot to be anything resembling a competent Flight Engineer.



"Flight Engineers must be licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates). The most common method is to complete a course of ground and flight instruction approved by the FAA. For a Flight Engineer's certificate, individuals must have had either 2 years of training or 3 years of work experience in the repair of aircraft and aircraft engines and at least 5 hours of flight training in the duties of a Flight Engineer, or at least 200 hours of flight as a pilot of a four-engine piston or jet plane, or 100 hours as a Flight Engineer in the armed forces."

Scuffer Eng, you could simply convert a Ground Engineer over to do the VC10 Job, most of the Engine trades used to have to do most of The Panel anyway....

[dessert_flyer]

Wow, never realised it was so simple to become a FE. Just think of all the money they could of saved by not sending Aircrew to Cranwell/Biggin Hill. Why dont we just wander down to the line and pick up any of the guys and restream them, jobs a good'un. In fact why not take it one step further, grab a mover, and make him an ALM, after all, he knows how to stick some pallets on an Aircraft. I got another idea, go down to MT grab a couple of young drivers who are also good on the xbox, give them some wings and call them pilots. Wish you all thought of this earlier and saved an awfiul lot of money.
Now lets be serious, it does take a certain amount of time to train to become aircrew, the understanding of what is happening does take time and effort. Decision making is a lot different in the air to what it is on the ground, and needs a different outlook. Im not saying that Ge's cant be FE's, however they will all admit to needing the required amount of training. They are very good at what they do and that Aircrew are very good at what they do, but both require the requisite amount of training to achieve those standards. Taking shortcuts is an easy way of causing problems.
As an aside i have known a few ex ground trades fail courses to become FE's, and they were experienced engineers, so its not for everybody.

[Mr C Hinecap]

grab a mover, and make him an ALM, after all, he knows how to stick some pallets on an Aircraft

We'd end up with an awful lot of over-qualified ALMs and the Movers would have to argue directly with the captain. :E

[TrickyTree]

Interesting replies, thanks all. Though I have to say I'm not convinced that the problems of conversion would be as great as stated. But what do I know, I'm not aircrew and certainly have never worked on anything big.

"Mind you, one thought. Has anybody even wondered if the techs will want to fill in for a few years?"

Certainly not me! Love aeroplanes, hate flying!

[Wensleydale]

Never trust an engineer who refuses to fly in the aircraft that he has just worked on!!:sad:

[NutLoose]

Friend of mine was a Licenced Engineer, applied and was accepted as a Flight Eng by a company on Tristars or DC10's, I forget which, his course was as said about 2 weeks......... a year after joining them they phased out the Dinosaurs and replaced them with None Flight Engineer type Aircraft..... To his delight they said they would like to sponsor him through his ATPL's and now he flies with them as Co Pilot.

[NutLoose]

Outside of the Military most flight engineers have simply been replaced with a bunch of 00011100011101010111000111's

Don't get me wrong a third person in the cockpit in times of high workload in an emergency can be a bonus, but a lot of FE's seem to think they are indispensible....... clearly the History of Aviation and the little black box has proved them wrong...


Similarly Navs have been replaced with a 50 quid box of 001010101001111001111's bought form the likes of Maplin or Garmin :p

[haltonapp]

Apart from those of us who are ex military, (RAF) all the Brit F/E's who work for my current employer are ex GE's, and maintain the currency of their JARR maintenance licence. I am certainly not daft enough to presume that I am better than them just because I was an RAF trained Flight Engineer (Topcliffe 1970-71)! In fact all our British TRI/TRE's are ex GE's, not RAF ones I hasten to add!

So please, lets cut the cr@p!

[Flight Detent]

Sounds like you're a lot more than "12 twists per inch" to me!

The RAAF Flight Engineer courses I mentioned earlier were set up to accept ONLY experienced GEs, being 'licenced' in at least two trades, which of course turned out to be mostly airframe/engines GEs. Even with significant experience, it was very difficult to get selected!

Even the ones experienced on the P3C had a hard time learning all the extra info that covered all the other aircraft systems, as well as weight & balance, navigation, basic airmanship, and a host of additional maritime ops subjects, then they had to complete a full flight simulator program, followed by flight training and checkout.
They all come out the other end saying it was the hardest course they had EVER done!

Then they started gathering experience in the seat!

[The Gorilla]

He obviously drinks Guinness..
Not a bitter man!
:}

[Flight Detent]

Hey..SFFP..
My comments were/are directed at the manufacturer of those two airplanes you mentioned.
These are supposed to be warfighters, operating at or near the front lines, or where ever the loads are needed most.
By 'configured' I meant that the airplanes are significantly more complicated and difficult to maintain than they need to be...I am much, much happier to see the likes of an C130H-type airplane, not in the fact that it performs better, or carries more, because the 'J' does both of those things better.
But inside, it should be a 'H', together with the systems that keep it going. Believe me, it's much, much easier to maintain, for a variety of reasons than a 'J', not the least of which (by far) is the fact that it carries an Flight Engineer. Reliability is everything when you really, really need those stores in a particular place asap. It's no good having a really great looking 'J' stuck on the tarmac at the main base with a flight management computer that won't pass it's IBIT, and therefore can't fly!!
The very same goes for the C17, it really needs a B747-300 flight deck and operating systems, without the FADEC and all the computing systems that make it go, it may not be quite as efficient, but it will be much more reliable with a Flight Engineer when it matters.
A single guy with an automatic weapon a mile off the end of the runway can be having a lucky day and take out a 'black box' that will ground the airplane until a spare is located, and that's not helpful in demanding times.

All these C130J and C17 airplanes are a 'peacetime' fleet!!

The acronym KIS comes to mind here! :E

[HeartofBlackburn]

12 twists per inch, as stated in my post some GE's Could be trained to be Flight Eng's and some couldn't. The argument on here was about the length of training required and I still maintain a course lasting at least 6 months is required, again as stated in my post.
As for some younger engineers thinking they are better than you, in every trade there is a proportion of small, narrow minded people who think they are better than others, and tend to typecast all members of a trade. Thank you for the excellent demonstration of this in your earlier post.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

FD,

I suspect that you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of either the J model or C17 which would explain just how wide of the mark your rather ill informed, but bearing in mind your speciality hardly surprising post is :rolleyes:

Suffice to say and without giving anything away the J model is currently working in both of the sandy theatres with a mission success rate that is simply outstanding. Add to that the very impressive tonnage that it is air dropping on a weekly basis it sort of puts your rather inept comments into perspective.

"These are supposed to be warfighters, operating at or near the front lines, or where ever the loads are needed most."

It is a war fighter, it is operating at the front line and it is delivering on a day to day basis almost without fail, which also throws some doubt on your rather dated assertion that simplicity is the key to reliability.

As regards your other daft idea that

"It's no good having a really great looking 'J' stuck on the tarmac at the main base with a flight management computer that won't pass it's IBIT, and therefore can't fly!!"

is at best laughable but for my own peace of mind please explain to me how having an FE in this circumstance is advantageous:confused:

"A single guy with an automatic weapon a mile off the end of the runway can be having a lucky day and take out a 'black box' that will ground the airplane until a spare is located, and that's not helpful in demanding times"

and that is only applicable to modern day aircraft how............:confused:

I can fully understand how in these time of modernisation that you and others would wish to "big up" your trade but to stop yourself appearing a bit daft I would, without wishing to sound rude politely suggest you try to fill your future posts with either common sense or more informed fact :ok:

Edited to add............Just as a though how long do folk in here think it would take to train an FE to become a GE? Bearing in mind all I have ever seen is the FE mentally diagnose and the only time I have seen him/her get oil on his/her hands is when his ACC overflows just how long do you think it would take your average FE to assimilate the relevant skill sets to carry out an engine/aileron booster pack etc etc change...................just a thought :confused:

[cheesedoff]

Not too long as I spent 13 years doing such things on a variety of aircraft and helicopters. Gotta add that, although I am an ex ranker, I have never met or seen any of my 'E' colleagues looking down their noses at Groundcrew, or thinking they are greater than thou.

Might wanna take your handbags elsewhere and find some other trade to lambaste! XXX

[isaneng]

Well somebody certainly bit on the hook that was cast out! As a D/E FE, I don't think there would be enough time left to try and make me a GE! Although they have occasionally let me get my hands dirty, I suspect it was more to humour me than actually to accomplish anything useful. Their years of practical experience, technical and general knowledge can only be gained the hard way. Earlier replies to the disgruntled GE were right, there's always a few prats in each trade, can't help that. And much as I despise the word, my GE and I work as a 'team' (sorry, small vomit at 'PC'ness). Lost track of the number of times they've stopped me making an arse of myself, and hopefully I've helped them now and again with diagnosis/reccomendations. So I've been replaced by a black box, well that's tough on me, but only a reflection of technology. I love my job, but reality has to be accepted (and, I think, has been by most). And as for claiming new aircraft are less flexible, well once the everpresent initial problems are overcome, that's just daft. A quick look at the logbook hours flown by my J mates will soon show that! Enough, off to the bar to have a drink with the GEs and J guys at the top table do, sure we will all laugh at some of the twaddle printed here!

[goneeast]

well said sir, :D

Twaddle some of it is. original question though chaps....

are we short or not?

[cheesedoff]

Thats the question that by the time it's been answered in anything other that PME speak, it will be to late. As of about 3 weeks ago after a chat with the man in the know, the answer was, no, we're not short of 'E' manpower.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's 'PR09' from a previous thread?

[The Gorilla]

I wondered that too??

[k1rb5]

My guess would be 'Pay Review 09'

Let's not hold our breath eh?!

[Good Mickey]

SFFP,

nice post mate and to back up your comments yet another J crew has just returned from det with the right to wear the '100 Tonnes airdropped' badge...all done without the aid of a safety net, Navigator or FE.

GM

[StopStart]

FD - "All these C130J and C17 airplanes are a 'peacetime' fleet!!"

I laughed so hard a little bit of wee came out! Genius sir, just genius.

Now then Mr Detent, would like to spend the afternoon by the window or the television? WINDOW OR TELEVISION; WOULD YOU LIKE SPEND THE AFTERNOON BY THE WINDOW OR TELEVISION, MR DETENT?
No, no more internet, you've had enough of that silliness. Now then....
Oh. I think he's nodded off. Bless him.
Oops, careful, little bit of dribble there....

[NutLoose]

My guess would be 'Pay Review 09'

Let's not hold our breath eh?!

Knowing this Government it will be

"Premature Release 09"