Pilot V Technician

[warlock037]

Good evening ladies and gents,

Am seeking a credible source concerning the ratio of pilots to support personnel in a modern day military environment as opposed to a front line environment during the second world war.


Warlock

[muttywhitedog]

probably the same ratio. we have much less aircraft than in WW2, much less pilots and much less support staff.

[ZH875]

Never in the field of human conflict have so few had to borrow so much from so many.

[Harley Quinn]

Semi seriously, you should perhaps also try to factor in the effects that modern ac bring, eg the use of PGM increases the likelihood of target elimination with fewer sorties as opposed to the area bombing tactics of UK or US WWII campaigns.
Taken to the extreme there was no WWII bomber able to carry the offensive load of a B52.
Similarly modern air superiority ac have an immensely greater SSKP than their WWII counterparts through automation and the use of AAM.

[salad-dodger]

This also applies to Technicians who need to be much more skilled, not just technically than their predecessors were.

Are you sure airpolice? Some might argue that RAF technicians have been systematically deskilled in recent years.

S-D

[Red Line Entry]

S-D

It's a good question. I think techies in previous generations had more skill of hand training and experience, because that what was needed - the ability to repair structure or electrical cabling. These days, I think we need people who are better at fault diagnosis. Perversely, the introduction of Built-In-Test capability in many of our newer aircraft has actually increased the need for analytical thought as the complex interplay of the various aircraft systems can make tracking down a fault horrendously complicated.

That doesn't make one generation better or worse than the next.

[PTR 175]

All what has been said so far is correct. I will add another couple of things. Firstly BIT. BIT is only as good as the sytem requirements.

I am an Ex RAF Comms Technician so fit into the older technician bracket, so have some knowledge.

However, as part of the team working on the EFA DASS. We were not allowed to expand the range of BIT outside what was required/mandated by the requirements despite the fact that I knew what it did not cover. So BIT is a useful tool but it will not point you in the correct direction all the time hence where system wide knowledge and not only sub system knowledge is useful.

One thing which can reduce the amount of technical support is good logistics back up. Having spares redilly available is helpful beyond measure. The amount of time taken to Rob spares and do the paperwork is unbelievable. With good spares back up and instantly available, aaahhhhhh luxury.

[VIProds]

During the "Cold War" era, I was trained on most Valliant/Victor & Vulcan Radar Systems. When a defective "Black Box" came in, the first thing that I would reach for was my trusty oscilloscope & volt meter. There was no such luxury as diagnostics & we had to fault find down to component level i.e. resistor, capacitor or valve. What we would have given for integrated curcuits & diagnosing down to card level !

After leaving the RAF, I went on to develop computer products with a Multi National Company, where I was given the option to use low cost (knuckle dragging) engineers & a red button that would diagnose the problem & tell the engineer what to change, or use an expensive fully trained engineer with little or no diagnostics. It was a cost thing.

As far as parts procurement was concerned, I found the "VOG" (V-Bomber On the Ground) emergency request very good.

[The Oberon]

I couldn't agree more with what VIProds says as I was of the same ilk, V Force Radar/NBS. The difference between our era and today is as he says, we had no diagnostic equipment other than basic signal generators, AVO Mk8 and osciloscopes. Another difference is that we were trained to operate at 1st, 2nd or 3rd line. It seems to me that today, 2nd and 3rd line are contracted out and 1st line avionics is largely dependent on BIT telling the operator what to change so it follows that the training revolves around BIT interpretation and not logical electronic thinking. The last major system that I was involved in had a BIT system and compared to sorting out a complex NBS fault, it was a doddle.

As for modern Techies being hamstrung with secondary duties, I feel this is largely due to weak supervision some 20 years ago, I noticed it starting to appear just before I left. When completing a juniors 6442, a lot of supervisors would give people "generous" awards rather than risk an argument. This over assesment spread as even the supervisors who played fair found that they were having to be generous in order that their guys stood any chance of coming off the board. Eventually most people were all at the top and board candidates could not be differentiated between, as a result, further criteria were introduced and thats were the secondary duty importance came from, it was a means of identifying good candidates as due to over assesment, everyone appeared to be above average at their primary roles.

[Pontius Navigator]

The father of the couple that service my car (father and son team) used to service Yorks. Now they service my car but not at the box change level.

For instance one problem at the main dealer was 'diagnosed' as requiring a new hydraulic pump at £1000 plus labour (VAT may well have been extra). They fixed the pump with a new washer at a total cost of £18.

You might save a bomb on training and 2nd/3rd line maintenance but probably spend a fortune on 4th line.

[thing]

Ex techie here. Nothing to add other than when I joined up I was Nav Inst. Then I became Flight Systems (same job, different name) then I became Avionics (same job different name.) Valves were still de rigeur back in my day and transistors were mentioned during trade training as 'the future'.

The most important part of being a techie was to always have an procedure AP in your hand while looking thoughtfully at a broken jet. No one bothered you.

When I became an NCO the most important possession was a clipboard and a pen. Walk 'with purpose' with one of those in your hand and again no one bothered you. I must have walked hundreds of miles 'with purpose.'

[chopabeefer]

A huge problem, when trying to answer this question, is civilianization/contractorisation. An example:

In 2003, 84 Sqn (RAF Akrotiri), replaced it's 4 Wessex Acft with 4 Bell 412 Acft.

The 58 Military engineers/line'ies were replaced with 5 civilians.

It killed the Sqn. The ethos and 'magic' died overnight. Please do not misunderstand - the civvies hired were ALL excellent, thoroughy professional and the sort of guys you wanted working on 'your' aircraft (all ex-RAF...), but it was NOT any longer an RAF Sqn.

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

[cornish-stormrider]

I had the privelidge of learning how to be an engineer from the RAF.
It stood me in great stead for life outside - particularly in how to think outside the box and fault find.....

Thanks to all who helped this fat oik get where he is today.

Now - get your arses outside and generate me some warbirds.....!

[Pontius Navigator]

Choppa, interested to know what was deemed unnecessary that the other 53 had done.

I know where I was they went down to 15 or so from 90. One reason was that the guys that drove the vehicles serviced the vehicles, dug them out when required, painted them, brought their own lunch to work, washed up, cleaned the place, washed the yard, used a local GP etc etc.

We still needed a visit by a radar tech, met techs, works and bricks types, barrack stores types etc but not education or fitness chappies. Mind you none of those would have been in your 53 anyway.

[NutLoose]

Pontius,

I was a A Tech P (Sootie)in the airforce, my licences as a Civilian, which I had to study for are Airframes and Engines, A1, B1 and C covering Piston and Gas Turbine Aircraft....
Airframes also covers all instruments and autopilots, (though I do send them away for repair) it also covers electrics, compasses and basic radio (testing without specialist equipment) likewise my Engine licence covers associated systems and propellers, hence why you require less manpower, additionally I also cert the aircraft and issue C of A Arc renewals.

When my old 3 litre supra had a big end go, I had no worry about stripping down the complete engine to component parts and rebuilding it... Goes back to the training I recieved in the RAF, though I have expanded on that grounding a bit over the ensuing years, I was lucky in the RAF in that I maintained Rotary wing, Wessex, Puma, Chinnoks... Slow Jets, Jaguar and Passenger Jets, VC 10, which again gave a good spread of knowledge, something I believe the RAF fail to do these days, once on a type always on the type.

[chopabeefer]

There can be little doubt we had some dead wood! However, when we went civvy, the sqn lost 24 Op capability - if we wanted to train at night, we couldn't train in the day. The Sqn club (the scorpy) shut (the GC's ran it). Sqn happy hours ceased. The secondary duties for the aircrew quadrupled. The Sqn could no longer self-deploy overseas.

As I said - the Sqn died.

[NutLoose]

Oddly enough the RAF played with multi trade engineers many moons ago, they had the Supertech that passed out as a Corporal after 5 years and was qualified in Airframes, Engines, Electrics, Instruments and Radios if I remember rightly, but they didn't last. Additionally they had the 3 year apprentices, Airframe Engines, but it is only of late that they have took onboard dual trades with the SAC techs and have started to embrace what the civilian market has been tending to do for years.... I still cannot see how employing Civi's to do a Military job is a good thing, especially with the operations we have these days.

One thing I cannot fathom was why get rid of the JT, you have to phase a rank out, change all the paperwork, QR's etc, bring in new badges, etc etc etc... All costs money and what do you gain? Same job different name.

As for Dead Wood, I remember the rush to reduce the over abundance of Chief Techs in the late 70's! the result was those that knew they could walk into jobs in Civi Street ( generally the good ones ) went and what the Airforce was left with was those that knew they would struggle outside... Aka the Dead Wood.

[Dan Gerous]

The 58 Military engineers/line'ies were replaced with 5 civilians.

I've always though of the military as a manpower orientated organisation. You may well be a super duper techy/storeman/scribbly/painter, but you were always an asset especially when it came to "here's a rifle, guard this". I can't see the 5 civvies pulling guard duty, and I may be wrong, but I doubt a JPA terminal has manned a checkpoint. Do stations even do exercises these days?

[thing]

If you had met some of the riggers and sooties I've known over the years you wouldn't have to ask that....:ok:

[Shack37]

The most important part of being a techie was to always have an procedure AP in your hand while looking thoughtfully at a broken jet. No one bothered you.



I thought it was to evacuate the crew room before the NCO with the clipboard reached you.

airpolice
How can people master airframe & propulsion engineering but not basic written English?


I would hope that the Royal Air Force have fewer Pilots, rather than less Pilots.

With the extra burdens on Pilots in the current service compared to some times gone by, I think the need is for more of a Pilot, not less.

This also applies to Technicians who need to be much more skilled, not just technically than their predecessors were.


IMHO, much more communicative than your above politician speak claptrap.

The basic job of determining what's broken and how to fix it may have become a little de-skilled by the increasing use of diagnostic equipment and swap-out parts, I wouldn't know as I don't do it I just see it being done.


:D:D

[Shack37]

If you had met some of the riggers and sooties I've known over the years you wouldn't have to ask that....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


You must have missed the pleasure of working with the plumbing fraternity;)

[VIProds]

NutLoose:

I did not realise that they had stopped the rank of JT ! I was a Cpl Tech when they did away with that rank & they reduced my Trade Pay down to JT level. I cicked up a stink about it & an outside organisation took my case up & won. I wasn't "flavour of the month" but at least my Cpl Tech Trade Pay was reinstated, while my Cpl chevrons were pointing downwards.

[NutLoose]

Quote:
they have took


How can people master airframe & propulsion engineering but not basic written English?

Totally due to my IPads annoying habit of autocorrecting when I type, but then again, one thinks one should at least learn to practice what one preaches.

The techys, like everyone else

That will of course be Techies..

The old excuses of [high workrate] = [allow them to dress scruffy] no longer hold any water. With a shortage of airframes and sorties come a reduction in the pressing need for turnarounds which led to the Prima Donna techy breed who were even (almost) immune from the SWO as long as they could get the aircraft serviceable for a full wave in the morning.

And you don't think that the RAF's manning has not reduced accordingly, or are you working under the illusion they are still operating 1980's manning with 2012 operational requirements?

The basic job of determining what's broken and how to fix it may have become a little de-skilled by the increasing use of diagnostic equipment and swap-out parts, I wouldn't know as I don't do it I just see it being done.

That's blatently obvious.


That post does read as if one has a chip on ones shoulders over not attaining the qualifications to be a " Techy"

VIprods, sadly yes, the JT I believe has now been replaced by the SAC Tech who has the SAC's three blade prop surrounded with a circle to differentiate them from a standard SAC.

[airpolice]

Your iPad "autocorrects" and produces took instead of taken?

I think not. There's a world of difference between a spelling mistake and using the wrong word.

That's blatently obvious.


How did the iPad miss that one?

[NutLoose]

Actually it didn't, that is the spelling it added, I just rechecked! Wonder if it is using google as it recognises both.

But I digress, I am not getting into a spelling issue with people that have nothing better to do, it is not answering the persons query which we were trying to address... You seriously need to get out more.

[airpolice]

Now I'm intrigued. What version of iPad and what language setting?

We are unable to get any of ours, (all three versions,) to accept "blatently" without correcting it. Even pprune wants to correct it.


As for chips, not me. I know, (and knew then) that I wasn't clever enough to do anything with a screwdriver never mind a spanner. I think the current legislation which prohibits me from doing anything more technical than checking the oil level before flying, is spot on.

I recently had to be saved by a licensed aircraft engineer when I cocked things up. Easily done I'm told, but embarrassing just the same. I over primed the engine...... so then I flooded it trying to start....... and flattened the battery trying to purge the flooding.

Pax really not impressed with me when the engineers tell me to stay seated while they hook up the GPU and get us going, muttering something about pilots and laughing to themselves.


I am fully in agreement with your point about J/T. The trades required a way of rewarding the cleverer guys who may not have been suitable, or required, for a JNCO post, but still deserved to be seen to be doing better than a non technical SAC.

I suspect that is why there is the SAC Tech badge, but this situation should have been left well alone.

Everyone understood that a Chief Tech was superior to a Flight Sergeant, even if not senior to him. I recall being told that a C/T was a tech trade F/S but I eventually realised, as I met more of both ranks, that there is indeed a difference. for exactly the same reasons that the Junior Technician needs a differentiation, I suppose the Chiefs are entitled to the same.


As for the OP and the question. I don't think that a proper comparison can be made. As I understand it, most of the QSPs in WW2 were on active flying duties, whereas today I suspect it is a small percentage. So the question would need to be asked about active pilots rather than just pilots.

[thing]

You must have missed the pleasure of working with the plumbing fraternityhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Ah, the simians. Grand breed, quick rub down with an oily rag every morning and they were happy.

[NutLoose]

Ipad2 with icabmobile

Everyone understood that a Chief Tech was superior to a Flight Sergeant, even if not senior to him. I recall being told that a C/T was a tech trade F/S but I eventually realised, as I met more of both ranks, that there is indeed a difference. for exactly the same reasons that the Junior Technician needs a differentiation, I suppose the Chiefs are entitled to the same.

A Technical trade Flight Sgt is still a qualified tradesman so wasn't superior to a Chief Tech as he was simply moving up the trade rank structure, though you might as well call a Chief Tech a Tech Sgt as you no longer have a Junior Tech to play the rank off against, if that makes sense.

Over fuelling on start...mixture closed, throttle fully open and crank will normally start it, just get ready to swop them quickly when it fires.


.

[salad-dodger]

We are unable to get any of ours, (all three versions,) to accept "blatently" without correcting it.
oh I can just imagine the endless hours of fun with all 3 iPads lined up trying to prove NutLoose wrong :8

S-D

[Shack37]

A Technical trade Flight Sgt is still a qualified tradesman so wasn't superior to a Chief Tech as he was simply moving up the trade rank structure, though you might as well call a Chief Tech a Tech Sgt as you no longer have a Junior Tech to play the rank off against, if that makes sense.


Back in the good old days there was a parallel rank structure with Tech equivalents wearing their tapes upside down. Ch. Tech. badge was three stripes upside down surmounted by a brass Crown. Techies advanced by taking trade exams and serving a specified time between promotions. Conventional rank promotions, whilst still tradesmen, were more of a dead man's shoes system.

When the technical rank structure was abolished in the mid sixties (IIRC), the Ch. Tech. rank was placed between Sgt. and Flt. Sgt and the Crown was changed to a cloth four bladed prop. At the same time the J/T single upside down stripe was replaced by the same four bladed propellor.

Apologies for not using blatent as my laptop keeps correcting to blatant. Wouldn't want to upset the grimmer polis.

[salad-dodger]

The old excuses of [high workrate] = [allow them to dress scruffy] no longer hold any water. With a shortage of airframes and sorties come a reduction in the pressing need for turnarounds which led to the Prima Donna techy breed who were even (almost) immune from the SWO as long as they could get the aircraft serviceable for a full wave in the morning.

can't help but feel there's maybe still a wee bit of a chip on the shoulder there airpolice.

S-D

[Shack37]

Ah, the simians. Grand breed, quick rub down with an oily rag every morning and they were happy.


True but beware of the plumber seen running in the absence of the NAAFI wagon.

[stevef]

Some Ppruners apparently have nothing better to do than derail a thread by criticising spelling or grammar mistakes. Rather petty behaviour and mildly amusing in that the person concerned has made several errors in his own posts.
Anyway, to get back on track, this link might be useful regarding ground support staff:
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 17 Nov 2008 (pt 0031) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081117/text/81117w0031.htm)

[thing]

Easy to stay nice and clean doing 8-5 Mon to Friday in Gen Office. Not so easy working a 15 hr night shift in the shed up to your ears in hydraulic fluid and all the other good stuff trying to generate the jets for the programme. There were many times that I took over at 5pm from the offgoing day shift and handed back over to them at 8am the next morning, after having worked virtually non stop apart from a brew here and there.

It wasn't Prima Donna behaviour, it was too bloody tired to really care if the crease on my trousers wasn't razor sharp behaviour. Luckily, some of the more enlightened GD staff cut us some slack on that front.

[Alber Ratman]

How can aircrew master flight but not basic written English? Some F700 / techlog snags I have seen from aircrew has been undecipherable .:E

[NutLoose]

Thing

Easy to stay nice and clean doing 8-5 Mon to Friday in Gen Office. Not so easy working a 15 hr night shift in the shed up to your ears in hydraulic fluid and all the other good stuff trying to generate the jets for the programme. There were many times that I took over at 5pm from the offgoing day shift and handed back over to them at 8am the next morning, after having worked virtually non stop apart from a brew here and there.

It wasn't Prima Donna behaviour, it was too bloody tired to really care if the crease on my trousers wasn't razor sharp behaviour. Luckily, some of the more enlightened GD staff cut us some slack on that front.


I remember the time before they started to recognise that a engineer needed more than one pair of No2 trousers, the "you get issued with 2 pairs of coveralls" was worth absolutely squat when you got soaked in hydraulic fluid, fuel, oil, Skydrol etc rendering them unwearable until you had them laundered ( they were not washable ) then we gradually got a second pair, then two pairs of washable working trousers, sensible dark blue work shirts, then the blunties got the wooley pulley redesigned with a V neck which was a retrograde step.. Trying to get a pair of combat boots changed at stores because the soles were worn and were dangerous to wear up on a Puma's decking in the rain I got the "you should be wearing your safety boots"... It showed a total lack of understanding that went on, he seemed to think that in the field one should carry ones safety boots with one to change into before climbing on an aircraft, but then without experiencing it one can understand the lack of understanding.
It is often impossible to come off shift looking smart, try polishing a pair of shoes that are soaked in fuel or skydrol, unless you have full changing facilities and showers etc.. Try working on a fuel system or pulling Skydrol pumps off that are above you, the fluid has only one way to go and that is down, often over you.

Thing, speaking of shifts, doing 12 hour shifts on the VC 10 three days three nights on six off was resented by the whole station, the fact we worked weekends and public holidays, plus the first day was spent sleeping off nights and the second adjusting your time clock, and leave had to be split with the off time... still did not wash with them even when the shift pattern was shown that we worked more days than a normal 9 to 5 shift worker.. All they saw was the six days off.

[thing]

If you are too tired after a 15 hour shift then how are you after a 14 hour shift?

Still to tired. This was back in the 70's, the Russians were a credible (so we were told) threat so a lot of things went by the wayside in the drive to produce the wave for the morning flying.

As for flying being easier, as an ex techie and a current pilot, don't believe all the steely eyed killer nonsense....anyone that can count to ten and know where they live can fly. OK I will give the FJ guys their due, running around in the weeds at silly speeds does require a degree of sharpness, fair dues to them and I don't count chopper pilots as helicopters are an affront to decency.

One of the things that really used to annoy me during a tech debrief were pilots who would snag some complex piece of kit and then proceed to tell you what they thought was wrong with it. So, the HNC in Electronic Engineering and the 3 month manufacturers course on that particular bit of kit are as nothing compared to your A level in Art and two day overview of the system then sir? I see, let me kneel before your superior wisdom. Prat. Please just stick to pushing the buttons that make it work and leave Complicated Things to me, because that's what I'm paid for.

[NutLoose]

Ahhhh Thing... I still remember one now..... VC10 ( cannot remember the exact figures these days ) but it went like this...

No1 engine will not relight at 30,000ft

But is is not designed to, Rolls Royce say it will not normally light above 28,000ft, it is outside it's design parameters

But No2 No3 and No4 did

:ugh:

Best part of day wasted lix washing an engine even though it is doing what it says on the tin.

[thing]

Reminds me of the old Shackleton chestnut.

Pilot snag-'No 1 engine is missing'

Techie-'No 1 engine found on port wing after brief search.'

[Pontius Navigator]

One of the things that really used to annoy me during a tech debrief were pilots who would snag some complex piece of kit and then proceed to tell you what they thought was wrong with it. So, the HNC in Electronic Engineering and the 3 month manufacturers course on that particular bit of kit are as nothing

Actually on the NBS we were trained to assess what component had failed and to visit the avionics bay when 'our' u/s box was being tested. This was in earlier days when we debriefed and the crew chief wrote up the 720.

One day I arrived at the bay as the tech was about to write NFF. I convinced him that the fault was there as it had occurred on 3 sorties out of 5. Then I realised he was looking at the wrong side of the box. The CC had mixed up N/S and E/W when he did the write up. A quick look at the correct side of the box and a fresh description of how the intermittent fault had occurred and the problem was instantly visible.

[Shack37]

One day I arrived at the bay as the tech was about to write NFF. I convinced him that the fault was there as it had occurred on 3 sorties out of 5. Then I realised he was looking at the wrong side of the box. The CC had mixed up N/S and E/W when he did the write up. A quick look at the correct side of the box and a fresh description of how the intermittent fault had occurred and the problem was instantly visible.


Was the same fault entered wrongly three times in the 720 (confusing N/S with E/W) without a question being raised? The norm as I remember it was that the snags were written into the 700 in the ground crew office by the crew Flt. Eng. and normally in the presence of the duty Ch. Tech. in charge of the shift. A recurring snag such as this would/should have raised an eyebrow.