Excuse my ignorance

[smujsmith]

I apologise for using a thread, but I'm obviously suffering a senior moment when I see the bottom photograph on this story;

Give this World War II hero a proper send-off: Call for mourners to attend funeral of serviceman who died alone aged 94 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508358/Give-World-War-II-hero-proper-send-Call-mourners-attend-funeral-serviceman-died-aged-94.html)

To the left of centre, as viewed, there is a chap with a rank badge, which looks like that of a Senior Aircraftsman (SAC) but enclosed within a ring, ala, the "apprentice wheel. I wonder if anyone can tell me what it all signifies, I've been a civilian since 1997 and obviously the world has moved on.

I do hope the Army guy gets a good response. If for no other reason than my Grandfather was a dispatch rider with the Green Howard's at the same time as him. I'm certainly trying to make some space in my schedule. Mr Percival was definitely given a good send off.

Smudge :hmm:

[Background Noise]

SAC(T) - for technician, see here:

RAF - Non-Commissioned Ranks (http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/noncommissioned.cfm)

[Background Noise]

A bit more here: Senior aircraftman technician - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_aircraftman_technician)

[smujsmith]

Thanks for that BN,

I assume then that the rank of Jnr Tech is now "phased out" ? It's interesting to see the evolution of your former service, it's also curious why the Jnr Tech rank is considered inappropriate and needing redefinition. I only ask as I managed to become a Jnr tech on leaving Halton many moons ago.

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

It's so they can waste money, it's not just badges, everything, all paperwork that has the rank added, QR's etc all have to be amended, and then when the last JT retires / gets promoted you have to go through it all again to remove the rank from the above... Total waste of money for what gain? None I can see.

[smujsmith]

Like you Nutloose, I'm confused as to why they should want to do this. The rank of Junior Technician is well established in the RAF. I wonder if the next move will be the encirclement of Sergeants stripes to denote Technical Sergeant and the expunging of Chief Technician. I suppose it's not for an old crusty ex serviceman like me to question the "modern thinking". I just can't see any logic in the new titles.

Smudge :ok:

[cornish-stormrider]

I think you will find this was critical as back in the good old days, I.E. before us mech tech wankers ruined it, a Jt was THE highest an average bloke but excellent aircraft technician could get to.

as such the JT regarded himself/herself (and quite rightly too) as a cut above the rest.

A JT was a hard eanred badge of skill and ability, even when I went thru it made a big difference having that fourth blade on the prop.

Yes us TG1 were intolerant of external niff naff imposed diciplinary bu****it, wore out hair a bit longer and were a bit scruffier - have the discips do 4 pm till breakfast shifts inside rb199 exhausts doing all nighter boroscopes.....

We had high standards and we tried to live up to them, it was a work hard play harder deal with a lot of responsibility,

as the years went on this was eroded by the trade sponsors for all the tail talking up their jobs as we were left to do what we did - generate aircraft for the flypro

Time moved on and the PTB decided they could stream out the JT and just give the sac a little ring to denote a technical specialisation.

even if they pay the same - it is a lesser thing.

but then they could not put a value on the mere wording of a rank could they......

oh i'm glad to not be in any more, i can whinge about it on prune like an old fart. FWIW i do more engineering with less support now than i ever did, the importance is the same and i have no-one to directly answer to apart from the operations director. its not as satisfying as aircraft work but more challenging, and i suppose i ought to say thanks to Everyone who ever tried to teach me things, specially Billy the Fish, Cpl Mat the Apo scumbag and Neil the scary ex flem who showed me the line I had crossed as a gobby SAC and then got me v drunk after.

Cheers all

[Roadster280]

Perhaps the rank of SAC(T) was created to reinforce to them that they are not NCOs, but LCpls are, now that the RAF Regt has LCpls.

[Lordflasheart]

Give this World War II hero (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508358/Give-World-War-II-hero-proper-send-Call-mourners-attend-funeral-serviceman-died-aged-94.html)

And Korea - viz - "Syngman Rhee's Pajamas." LFH

[Rigga]

JT and CT didn't (and still don't) fit nicely into NATO Rank structures.

It was far easier to get rid of JTs and replace them with much cheaper SAC(T)s. JTs remaining in the RAF were effectively dumped from promotion boards as they didn't fit onto SAC(T) parameters (I believe JTs knew too much about their trade!)

CTs are also under fire and have been removed from all but aircraft trades. No more MT, GEF or GRF(CIS Eng) CTs.

Seemingly, the RAF can't figure out how to remove CTs from their lists.....should they promote them all to Flt Sgts? (thereby effectively demoting current Flt Sgts) or make them all redundant (too costly nowadays) or should they promote Sgts to cover those gaps that CTs currently fill? (Making some new form of "Senior Sgt"?)

Existing CTs are given the same status (in NATO) as Flt Sgts - and the same pension rights too.

[Robert Cooper]

I passed out from Locking as a Junior Technician in 1956. In those days a J/T had one chevron upside down, a Cpl Tech had two chevrons upside down, Senior Tech had three chevrons upside down, and so on to the Master Technician who wore the WO badge. They were not in the command branch and were considered the top technical people in their respective trades.

Most Master Technicians that I knew could run rings around some engineers, although I've been out of the RAF for over 30 years and am way out of date.

Bob C

[John Botwood]

Amazing!

All the comments on the link are about

"Give this World War II hero a proper send-off: Call for mourners to attend funeral of serviceman who died alone aged 94."

All comments with us to the badge on one of the volunteers.

I'll go with the Newspaper.

JohnB

[Wrathmonk]

John

All comments with us to the badge on one of the volunteers.

But that is what THIS thread is about! The OP posted the link as an example of what the badge looked like when asking for its meaning. For once a Prune thread has stayed on topic beyond 5 posts!

Back on thread.....didn't JTs get cpl stripes on time promotion and, as promotion to sgt slowed down with the various reductions in force size, didn't it skew the rank structure and mean many cpls were doing a JTs job albeit on a cpls pay but without any of the management/leadership responsibilities.

[longer ron]

Probably - but previously it had been the other way round...back in the 70's when the 'golden bowler' schemes were happening - my unit was short of corporals because of the 'knock on' promotions and I as a relatively inexperienced J/T was given an 'oversigning chit' to countersign maintenance documents - a few years later I would have been made an acting cpl to fill the slot !
At the same time we lost two top class trade managers through the 2 schemes -their subsequent replacements were nowhere near the same calibre (on that particular unit).
In those days it was 3 years j/t to cpl and then 4 or 5 years (?) to sgt for riggers and sooties.

[goudie]

The original exam board for promotion in the technician rank was quite rigorous, consisting of a practical board covering all aspects of one's trade plus a multi-choice paper. Pass mark was 60%. One also had to pass an exam on a specialist subject, of one's choice, ie Canberra fuel system, hydraulics or electrical generating system. I think the pass mark was 80%
So a chief/tech would have three specialist subjects under his belt
It took two attempts for me to pass the cpl/tech exam and one attempt at senior tech although that rank became redundant in '64 and one wore sergeant's stripes.
Along with the rank re-structure of '64 came a complete, in my opinion, dumbing down of the examination standards. The practical boards were discontinued and all that was required was a pass mark on the multi-choice paper. By the early '70's the technical trades were awash with chief/techs and many, including myself were surplus to requirements, hence a generous redundancy package was accepted and I became a pensioner at 37!

[Herc-u-lease]

Cornish, us mech tech tossers were scum and effectively bypassed the years of angst and waiting for the golden ticket fitters course :} But to me that didn't take any of the shine off the rank. It was a great rank to have and one that earned quiet respect. I seem to remember the abolition of JT and CT was called for in the Betts report, although I can't find any reference to it.

My slightly biased view is that the RAF made a complete arse of the transition. The whole SAC prop with a circle is just crap and another way of identifying theoretical technical competence.

What the RAF should have really done is change JT to lance corporal and up skill the rank instead of diluting it. Of course at the time there is no way the self serving command blunties would have stood for this - just look at the erosion of technical pay against other trades (pay 2000) for further evidence of that self interest. The rocks have done well to introduce the rank of L Cpl and I recognise that JT or SAC T is 'allegedly' subordinate to that. My question to the rocks whenever they got all sensitive about the JT rank was 'so what rank did you get promoted to after SAC?' And that usually levelled the field a touch.

The demise of the JT rank and the loss of potential limited supervisory and additional tasks that could have gone with a technical LCpl rank is such a shame.

I saw a JT on the gate a few weeks ago, they can't be far off single figures now.

H

[ImageGear]

JT was the best rank in the RAF unless you were a "lifer"

Having done the fitters course, you were too valuable and so escaped guard duty, funeral parties, and most other tasks but you were definitely not qualified to do Orderly Corporal and other equally odious chores.

However on the way up the greasy pole, the SAC got to do most of the chores unless he was "a boy entrant" with at least 12 years as an SAC then he did'nt give a hoot about anything.

Has the DE fitters course gone now then with the SAC wannabees?

Imagegear

[ian16th]

Rigga said:

Seemingly, the RAF can't figure out how to remove CTs from their lists.....should they promote them all to Flt Sgts? (thereby effectively demoting current Flt Sgts) It wouldn't be the 1st time! Last time it was the Ch. Techs that got screwed.

When the 'New' trade structure came out in 1951, technicians with the ranks of Cpl Tech, Senior Tech and Chief Tech were paid at a higher rate than Cpl, Sgt and Flt. Sgt. So they were each considered to be a promotion. The new rank of J/T was also announced

To achieve these technical ranks, a Trade Test had to be passed at each level, and there was an additional 'time in rank' qualification. The time was 5 years between each rank, or 10 years from J/T to Senior Tech and 15 Years from J/T to Chief/Tech etc.

The promotion was not automatic on time served, the Trade Test had to be passed. Zig-zaging between the Command and Technical ladders were allowed and encouraged. So J/T to Cpl to Cpl/Tech to Sgt to Senior Tech etc was quite normal.

For existing people, time was credited from becoming an 'Advanced Tradesman'. This was the pre-1951 LAC trade test in the Aircraft Trades.

It was also promulgated that these new Technical NCO's would NOT be liable for such duties as Ord/Cpl and Ord/Sgt. This didn't last long, but I cannot remember when the Technical Ranks started doing Station Duties again.

As a result many exiting Cpl's, Sgt's and Flight Sgt's saw the new technical ranks as a promotion with more pay and a way of getting out of Station Duties. This resulted in many existing Cpl's, Sgt's and Flt Sgt's passing the trade test and being promotd to Technical NCO's.

Some time later, to encourage people to 'sign on' the 'time qualifications' were reduced to 3, 7 and 10* years for airmen on an engagement of 12 years or more. Later still this was changed again to include airmen on an engagement of 9 years or more.

Me, being an ex Boy Entrant, I was on a 10 year engagement that started on my 18th birthday, and I did the 5 years between J/T and Cpl/Tech, then the rules changed. Two years of 2/6 a day, the difference between Cpl and Cpl/Tech. Real money in 1959!

In 1964, the system was changed again. Cpl/Techs and Senior Techs were done away with and these people became Cpl's and Sgt's. But the rank of Chief Tech was retained and became a rank between Sgt and Flt. Sgt. Y'all can imagine how this went down with guys who had been Flt. Sgt's in 1951, put in the work to pass their trade test and now found themselves junior to guys who were promoted to Flt. Sgt many years after they had been!

Me, I went from Cpl/Tech back to Cpl on the same pay as the lazy sod's that hadn't bothered or couldn't pass the trade test I'd passed.

10* I am not 100% sure on the 10 years. I am now a falible old fart:ok:

[VIProds]

I left No2 Radio School at Yatesbury after the year long Fitters Course, as a J/T & after a few years was promoted to Cpl. I took the Cpl/Tech exam & was promoted to Cpl/Tech I then passed the Senior Tech exam, but had to wait for promotion.

Like ian16th I had my Cpl/Tech rank & Trade Pay taken away from me, so I protested loudly about the removal of the Trade Pay, which I had earned. An external Organisation took up my case & my Cpl/Tech Trade Pay was reinstated even though I was wearing Cpl chevrons !

The Technician training that we received was second to none, when my 9 year engagement was up, I was told that they would promote me to Sgt if I signed on, but IBM had already offered me a job as a Mainframe Computer Engineer. I worked for IBM for 23 happy years & took early retirement at the age of 50.

[Roadster280]

Herc-u-lease -

I completely agree, the RAF should have introduced a LCpl rank for its techs. Army techs are (by and large, but no longer "as of right") granted LCpl rank out of the factory. Cpl follows within a year or two. This is only for techs with long courses, e.g. REME and R SIGNALS techs.

The RAF not doing so has repeated the old bollox where a Flt Sgt claims rank equivalence with a WO2 based upon what his next promotion will take him to.

The one bit where the RAF bloke wins though is where he DOES get promoted, and a Flt Sgt will leapfrog a WO2 to to WO, which IS equivalent to an Army/RM/RN WO1. Thus he is immediately superior to the WO2. The same for SAC(T)s. They become CPLs, and immediately superior to LCpls.

As usual, if the NCO/WO (officers too, for that matter) can't manage men without reference to banana-counting, then he probably shouldn't be in that rank in the first place.

[sled dog]

Shortly before I left the RAF, Halton Apps were coming out already wearing Cpl stripes, which really upset the "old sweats" who had earned theirs the hard way. Anyone got any thoughts on that ?

[NutLoose]

There were two types of apprentice you had the apprentice that was dual trade and did three years? Who passed out a JT and was promoted a Corporal after 1 year having been judged to have done the time in training, you also had the Supertech that did five years training and passed out as Cpl, they were a Engines Airframes Electrics Radio Radar? But it was a short run trade.

[Rigga]

Both of those apprenticeship schemes ceased quite some time ago and most Supertechs have left, or are about to leave, the service. I know of two Supertech retirees still attached to the military but no longer in it.

DE courses also finished some years ago and now all RAF aircraft mechanic and technician courses are conducted at Cosford.

I believe ALL techies are now started as Mechanics. - No Appo's, no Short Techy Courses.


...and all courses are now heavily modular - even type courses.

[NutLoose]

Yep probably said through the years but dumbing down of the job, I was taught to repair parts and fault diagnose, these days it's plug and play, without knowing really what each item does. I am surprised how much simple knowledge they do not have these days when they come out.

[Krystal n chips]

Nut Loose,

Possibly true in later years, but, the Tech Apps retained the original Halton Apps entry number system when they were introduced and passed out as Cpls after 3 years.

The Craft Apps started the 2xx entry numbers and did 2 years, leaving as a J/T.

There were, for a short while, Mech Apps starting with a 3xx entry number who did 1 year and left as an S.A.C ( mech ).

Thereafter, it was 3 yrs to Sgt and 4 to C/T for the tech.apps..or, for the craft.apps 3 years to Cpl and then as per the techs.

All subject to passing exams ( the easy bit ) and then the wonderful assessment system the R.A.F had in place in those days, which ensured you were at the whim of the woefully incompetent Eng.O cadre. I only met two who were actually capable of being, and understanding, engineers and both of them left the R.A.F prematurely to get a decent role in the civilian world.

The time promotion resulted in a serious promotion stagnation, due to the surplus, of engineers in the late 70's / early 80's, and a high PVR rate at one time.

I have never forgotten the complete look of shock and inability to understand on the face of a Flt.Lt from Innsworth who briefed (if you could call it a brief, more a hectoring lecture) us at Bruggen as to why Cpl was the rank to be in the future....the cheers and clapping from the front rows, the old cooks, admin, MT trade groups were in stark contrast to the wall of ice and " far from acquiescent " vocal response from the rear.....all engineers.

The poor dear had probably never met engineers in person before...but he did then.

[TomJoad]

Like you Nutloose, I'm confused as to why they should want to do this. The rank of Junior Technician is well established in the RAF. I wonder if the next move will be the encirclement of Sergeants stripes to denote Technical Sergeant and the expunging of Chief Technician. I suppose it's not for an old crusty ex serviceman like me to question the "modern thinking". I just can't see any logic in the new titles.

Smudge :ok:

The removal of the ranks of Jnr Tech, Plt Off and I believe Marshal of the RAF was recommended by the Bett Report mid 1990s. From memory, the intent was to bring some form of rationalisation/standardisation to the services rank structures and as part of the push for the draw down. The introduction of SAC(T) followed as a recommendation of the 1995 Logistics Trade Review. The SAC(T) training route was, amongst other things, to remove the depletion effect of manpower from squadrons when SACs went off to the schools on their JT courses. While undergoing their JT course the manning count was borne by their sqn even although there was no guarantee the airman/woman would return to the sqn. The original intention post Bett was that the rank insignia would be that of the extant SAC. However, the engineering trade sponsors successfully argued that an additional identifier would be useful to identify and separate those SACs who had met the operational performance standard i.e fully qualified from those who were not. Hence the circle around the props. Quite a move:ok:

[goudie]

Hence the circle around the props. Quite a movehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Amazing leap of the imagination too:rolleyes:

[smujsmith]

OK, so being an ex Craft Apprentice, familiar with the apprentice wheel, is that what it's all now based on ? Fair do's if that's the case, and none of the qualified tradesmen suffer as a result. I would have happily been an AC2 Ground Engineer, purely for the experience, but the application form demanded a minimum rank of Sgt, and at least 12 months currency on type. Loads of response here that is worthy of note, and most seems to reflect that it was not done for the benefit of tradesmen who do their best. I apologise if I used the photograph from the sad funeral story to illustrate my question. I certainly meant no disrespect, and, was delighted that, as usual, fellow comrades did not let him down. I'm very proud that I achieved the requirements of the service to be promoted to both Junior Technician and Chief Technician in my time. If the ranks are to be removed it has to be to the detriment of aircraft tradesmen and the Royal Air Force, in my humble opinion.

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

So does this mean an SAC tech does not do further training as a JT would, hence they stay on establishment, what has replaced the annual assessment?

[Roadster280]

Noddy question - Is a Chief Tech superior to an RAF Sgt in a non-tech trade (e.g. MT)? By superior, I mean in the strict military sense, i.e. can Chf Tech X order (non-tech) Sgt Y to carry out a task?

Or are they equal in rank in the context of QRs?

[Rigga]

I believe (I'm no expert) that SAC(T) courses teach basic systems to deeper levels than Mech's. But I also believe that they only teach Black Box systems - Specialist get courses to know what's inside the box/component.

Cpls go on Modular Type Courses studying each system as a separate course. It is rare (again, so I believe) for a single person to do all aircraft systems.

Fault Diagnosis Courses are a Cpls domain (again, I'm not sure if these are individual system based)

I say this from personal I spoke to and experiences when employed on a military contract.

I may of course be completely wrong but that's the way I understood what was said.

R280: Yes, they can.

[smujsmith]

Roadster,

Whilst I would accept that the ranks of Junior and Chief Technicians are anomalous for some trades. That reflects the need for a more "simplified" rank structure, more understandable for those employed within them. Notwithstanding that, it might have done the RAF some good if all ranks and trades were standardised and maintained throughout the years. I ask one question only, in December 72 I was posted to RAF Akrotiri. The posting was dependant on my attending, and passing a Vulcan Airframe Q course. The course lasted around 5 weeks, had an exam and failure would have stopped my posting, and affected my career. Did MT techs! Mechs, Drivers etc have such courses ? Or was a posting to Akrotiri simply that from an MT point of view ? It would be interesting to see where non aircraft trades were subject to such courses and what effect they could have on career progression. I'm sure there must be some examples.

Smudge

[TomJoad]

So does this mean an SAC tech does not do further training as a JT would, hence they stay on establishment, what has replaced the annual assessment?

NutLoose,

The SAC(T) is an ab initio technician - there is no need for FT. The training school release the SAC(T) having met what is referred to as the training performance standard (TPS); FT in effect having been delivered up front. Progression to operational performance standard (OPS) is achieved under Modern Apprenticeship framework - work place assessors act as verifiers to confirm candidate has met the standard. So once the SAC (T) arrives on the Sqn, he remains there until posted - no loosing the guy/girl for 13 months whilst bearing him/her on your establishment without a replacement. Once qualified i.e OPS he/she goes into the Cpl promotion board - annual assessments remain unchanged. Now, I've been out for a few years so some points of detail may have changed.

[NutLoose]

So how does a SAC mech get promoted?

How long is an SAC techs training? We did a mechs course followed by a fitters course that was 12 months and included lots of fault diagnosis as a JT was expected to do that. Then type courses that were about 6 weeks in length.
I take it SAC Techs do not do EGR's? As a lot of my work would have involved ground running for both my and other trade fault finding. Seems like an SAC Tech, and I mean no disrespect to them is a seriously dumbed down intermediate rank

[TomJoad]

Smudge,

I don't get your complaint. Each trade has entirely different "trade specific" requirements and so they should. If you were employed solely within a GD branch similar to that on the commissioned side then perhaps you may have had a point but the RAF does not employ generalists in the non commissioned ranks they employ specialists designated and paid by trade specialisation. I think it is therefore entirely valid that your posting was dependant on completion of a Q course etc. The commissioned side are paid under the so called 'band of brother' arrangement so a Flt, Sqn Ldr, Wg Cdr pay is identical irrespective of branch (exceptions Medics etc) - specialist pay of course is separate. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you. Anyway I take it you passed and enjoyed your sunshine tour:ok:

[Tankertrashnav]

Shortly before I left the RAF, Halton Apps were coming out already wearing Cpl stripes, which really upset the "old sweats" who had earned theirs the hard way. Anyone got any thoughts on that ?

Somewhat like the early "green shield" flight lieutenants who attained that rank rapidly by virtue of their (then) scarce university degrees. This led to some bizarre situations, such as one we had on my nav course having to address one of the instructors as "sir", as was customary, in spite of the fact that said instructor was still a flying officer!

[TomJoad]

Nutloose

I don't believe Mechs are recruited anymore - stand by to be corrected by those more current than me.

Tom

[NutLoose]

Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.

[Kitbag]

This is how it works:
Aircraft Technician (Mechanical)



I do this job (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/airtechmechanical.cfm?tab=idothisjob)
The Facts (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/airtechmechanical.cfm#)Available roles (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/findjobs.cfm?showOpenJobs)

Job description: Maintain aircraft and their mechanical systems, including engines

Pay after one year: £17,485
Joining age: 16 – 29

Category: Airmen/airwomen
Usual service: 9 years
Open to: men or women

Similar civilian jobs:


Aircraft maintenance
Aircraft manufacturing


Qualifications you need: 3 GCSE/SCEs at Grade C/2 minimum or equivalent in English language, maths and an approved science/technology-based subject.
This role requires a physics based science subject. Please check by reading this document (https://cms.raf.mod.uk/careers/rafcms/mediafiles/3CE9DC7D_5056_A318_A8864069CC5C468E.pdf) (opens in a new window).

Qualifications you can gain: NVQ Level 3 in aeronautical engineering; Advanced Apprenticeship in aeronautical engineering
Nationality: Citizen of the UK or Republic of Ireland, or a Commonwealth citizen since birth
Save (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/myraf/savedjobs.cfm?action=addjob&id=2E9E032A-FC9A-1CB9-F0D6105C075A7D9B&location=jobDetail)




The job

Aircraft Technicians (Mechanical) are responsible for the complete range of mechanical components and structure of the aircraft including the engines, gearboxes, flying controls, landing gear, hydraulics, air conditioning, anti-icing and fuel systems. You could examine, test and repair engines and propulsion equipment on everything from fast jets to multi-engined aircraft and helicopters.
Initially, you will be trained and serve as an Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic, where you will gain valuable experience of working around aircraft and be part of a team preparing aircraft for take-off, as well as checking them for damage and wear after they return from a flight. During this phase, you’ll be given the opportunity to assist with the replacement of both mechanical and avionic components, regardless of your future technician trade.
Following a period of further training, you will then be a qualified Aircraft Technician (Mechanical) and able to carry out the full range of responsibilities of the job, including diagnosing and repairing more serious faults and carrying out complex maintenance tasks.
Your future

Career Prospects

You’ll initially join the RAF for a period of nine years. After a year you’ll be eligible for promotion to Senior Aircraftman/woman if you pass a trade ability test. Further promotion to the rank of Corporal and beyond is by competitive selection once you have successfully completed the technician training course.
There are two options for those who are not selected for, or fail, technician training: you could either transfer to another job in the RAF for which you have the necessary aptitude, if there is a vacancy available; or you could leave the RAF.
Transferable skills

The NVQs and Apprenticeships that you can earn are as valuable in the civilian world as they are in the RAF – which means that whenever you decide to leave the RAF, you’ll be well placed to find a job in engineering.
Your training

Recruit training

Your career will start with a 10 week Basic Recruit Training Course (BRTC) at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire. The course is designed to help you adjust to a military environment. As well as fitness and military training, you’ll also learn about the RAF lifestyle.
Specialist training

The next step is a specialist training course at DCAE Cosford, near Wolverhampton, which lasts about five months. This course is designed to give you a basic understanding of your role, which includes aircraft handling and safety procedures. You’ll complete this course as an Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic (AMM) and then get your first posting, where you’ll remain for about two years to gain the necessary experience needed for the technician training course. You will also be enrolled on an Intermediate Apprenticeship during which you may achieve an NVQ Level 2, Technical Certificate Level 2 and functional skills level 2.
Your first tour

For your first tour, you’ll be posted to a flying station where you’ll handle, refuel and maintain aircraft. You’ll also check for damage and wear, and may be called on to make minor repairs. You could also work in hangars or workshops with experienced technicians, where you’ll help with more complex maintenance tasks.
Ongoing development

After your first tour as an AMM and, providing you achieve the required specialist standards, you’ll return to DCAE Cosford for a year-long technician training course. You’ll also be enrolled on an Advanced Apprenticeship in Aeronautical Engineering – the Key Skills element of which will be completed during training.
On successful completion of this part of your specialist training you will be qualified as an Aircraft Technician (Mechanical). In addition, once you’ve demonstrated your ability as a technician, you may be eligible for an NVQ Level 3 in Aeronautical Engineering. The award of this NVQ also signifies the completion of your Advanced Apprenticeship.


This system also applies to the Av Techs.

Is it any good? Its certainly different to the traditional training regime.

I would say however, that the kids being brought in are on the whole no different to the wee maggot I was 30+ years ago (in other words, brilliant:ok:)

[4mastacker]

smujsmith wrote:
…..It would be interesting to see where non aircraft trades were subject to such courses and what effect they could have on career progression…..


In answer to your question, the answer was 'Yes' for us lowly stackers. For example, I had to do an 'X' course as a pre-requisite for a posting that I had. Failure would have meant a re-posting to a non-specialist role and negative comments on my F6442. Also had to do the 'F' course, failure of which would have resulted in the same, with the consequential impact that would have on one's career.

[smujsmith]

Tomjoad,

Thanks for that, I think! I believe that I was trying to suggest that the reason that the aircraft technical trades had the anomalous J/T and C/T relates to the need for extra levels of training and experience for those trades. I was certainly not complaining about the Vulcan course, it kept me on my toes. I do suspect that to some degree all RAF trades had precedence in the RN and Army, and therefore their rank structures may have dictated the set up I was involved with. Hopefully someone better qualified than me could explain where these ranks came from, why they were maintained and why the modern service has decided to ditch them. For me, at 60, it has little consequence, just historical interest.

Smudge:ok:

PS. 4maststacker, exactly what I wondered. If other trades were subject to such exigencies, then was there a need for the "extra" ranks.

[TomJoad]

Shortly before I left the RAF, Halton Apps were coming out already wearing Cpl stripes, which really upset the "old sweats" who had earned theirs the hard way. Anyone got any thoughts on that ?

Ah the 'hard way" - the clarion cry of the 'I went to the university of life " brigade who ware it as some kind of badge of honour. Just like the laws of physics, "the hard way' is relative to those making the statement. Seen good uns and muppets from both routes - its all to do with the individual. IMHO:ok:

[NutLoose]

Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.

Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.

The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.

[TomJoad]

Smudge,

I believe you are correct, I always understood the additional ranks on the tech trades was due to requirement for extra tier of supervision, ect. Never could understand why it applied to the musicians though!

[TomJoad]

Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.
I must say ii finding it a bit sad it's all been dumbed down.

Incidentally my civilian licences cover me for Airframe, Engines, Electrics, Instruments, Compasses and basic radio.

The licence is Airframe Engines, the rest come under that.

Nutloose, again I retired a few years ago so may be out of date here. When I left the SAC(T) graduated from the schools with the SAC rank. LAC being held for short time under training. I don't agree with the dumbing down assessment - different times requiring different solutions - things that don't evolve die. The old system was designed for the cold war era - it did not suit the emerging deployable airforce. The training on both FT fitter courses and the apprentice courses was by the operational performance standard overgenerous and costly.

[smujsmith]

Tomjoad,

A diversion if you will allow. When I went through Halton as a Craft Apprentice I also played Trombone in the Apprentice Brass Band. The Bandmaster was a Chief Technician called Ron Galloway, a fellow trombonist, but, he had a line that always went down well in polite circles. He was an ex Nav Inst Chief Technician, and always pointed out that he had remusterd from "Instruments to Instruments", he always made the point that dropping a few trade groups ensured he was earning less. A smashing bloke. But the trade group mish mash throws up loads of other trade/pay anomalies. Is it really true that Pilots are TG21, the same as guardroom staff ? You would need a degree to sort it all out, and perhaps that's what the service is trying to do now.

Smudge :ok:

[Roadster280]

Rigga - thanks for answering my Q.

Smuj - I have no axe to grind, was just curious.

I do wonder why the RAF doesn't adopt a rank structure consistent either within itself or within the Armed Forces in general. The RN, RM & Army have WO2s, the RM, Army and RAF Regt have LCpls.

Wouldn't it make sense for the RAF to make SAC(T)s LCpls, what are now Flt Sgts be WO2s, and have Flt Sgt as a rank equivalent to Chf Tech? That would fit in with the RM & Army's progression of

Pte
LCpl
Cpl
Sgt
SSgt
WO2
WO1

The RN has almost the same (less LCpl).

It would be far more coherent in joint environments, and allow for more frequent promotion for the RAF (i.e. more ranks to attain). Of course if WO1 comes at age 50, then maybe not!

[smujsmith]

Roadster,

Perhaps just go down the road of the "E" system as used for NATO equivalent ranks would make sense. E1 to E7 for the non coms, and O1 to O7 for the Royals. Everyone on the planet might know here they stand then. I was once severely bollocked for not wearing my beret on the aircraft pan at Topcliffe. The bloke who dished out the bollocking was big, knew loads of offensive words and only had two stripes, with a squiggly thing. I was a Sgt at the time and had no idea if this scooter was in ascendancy. Regardless, I put my beret on, because there were no jets around. Point being, inter service wise it must be bloody confusing, I'm sure due to my youthful appearance he thought I was an ATC cadet.:sad:

Smudge:ok:

[TomJoad]

Smuj,

'Instruments to instruments' - I like that good sense of humour, he sounds like a good bloke. :D

Yep I guess the trade structures were/are a bit of a nightmare and that is without considering all the attentional Q-annotations. I must admit thought when I was serving you got used to it at a working level, I guess having a really good understanding of your own area and less so of others. I'd be surprised re the Pilot TG 21 tag, never heard that before. The O side is not organised by trade, aircrew were administered under the General Duties (GD) branch, believe still are. All Os below Wg Cdr belonged to their own branch specialisation eg Eng, Admin, Regt etc - all on a common pay scale. On promotion to Wg Cdr all transferred to the GD branch - believe that is still the case. As always, stand by to be corrected.

[TomJoad]

Roadster,

' had no idea if this scooter was in ascendancy. I'm sure due to my youthful appearance he thought I was an ATC cadet.:sad:'

Smudge:ok:

No shame in that. I have a confession! As a very wet behind the ear FO I came out of the mess at Cranwell (2 days after graduating) and saluted an LAC. We both looked at each other and exchanged that knowing smile. :ugh:

The worst situation for me was down at Abbey Wood I was not very good and had no real interest in the other service rank slides - I ended up waving at everybody. It's a game.

[NutLoose]

Tom, I wasn't meaning necessarily in skills but in rank, it does seem a total dumbing down, as an SAC if you were detached to a Luftwaffe station you would be expected to dine in the conscripts restaurant and I use the last word with a pinch of salt, hence everyone would be given SGT stripes to wear for the duration. It seems to have done the replacement for a JT a disservice in effect demoting the trade qualification.

I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.

[smujsmith]

TomJoad,

The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.

Smudge :=

[TomJoad]

I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.

Didn't know that but quite rightly so, would have been honoured to do so. Can't be many who hold it while alive. Lance Cpl Beharry springs to mind.

[TomJoad]

TomJoad,

The reference to TG21 (General Duties) was something that was always rumoured throughout my 30 years. That aircrew were mustered into TG 21 ( General Duties) as were the staff in the guardroom. If I spent 30 years in ignorance of the real facts, I apologise to any aircrew mates who might read this thread. But I like the principle.

Smudge :=

Well you weren't that far off they are in the GD branch. I think they would have taken it in good spirit. Let's face it most of the folk you come across in your service career, irrespective of rank or trade, were all good folk. I'll never forget the old and bold Chf Tech armourer who kept me straight while in Saudi - absolute salt of the earth and a more decent human being you could not meet. God bless you Jack.

[kaitakbowler]

Back in the day before the '64 trade structure, the list one, technical trades wore their stripes inverted, chief techs with a crown above, their next rank being Master Technician, a Warrant officer technician, Following the '64 review they (the Chf techs) had their crowns removed and they then had to go through the Flt Sgt rank, they were mighty miffed. A Chf tech was at the top of his trade, IIRC Master Tech posts were few and far between and much coveted. It should also be remembered that there were technician ranks in most trade groups pre '64, I roomed with a J/T supplier in Cyprus in 1970, he'd had an "interesting" career. There was IR much resentment in most trades, I think the review in '64 succeeded in hacking off most ground trades, it seems to me that the tradition of cocking up ground trades is continuing.

PM:sad:

[goudie]

chief techs with reversed stripes and a crown
In those days chief/ techs were Gods and mightily respected. By the time I left (as a chief/ tech) many were doing the job of a J/T, of which there was precious few!

Over the last 50 years or so, compared to the RN and Army, the RAF seems to have certainly messed about with it's non-com ranks, especially in the technical trades. The other two services have also had to contend with technical advancements but have managed, more or less, to do so within their traditional rank structure.

[Tankertrashnav]

I believe an officer salutes any rank who holds the VC first and he acknowledges it.


In fact there is nothing in writing anywhere about that - not in QRs or as far as I know any other regulations. However it is certainly a tradition, and you'd have to ask someone like Johnson Beharry VC if it is still commonly observed. I believe a similar tradition exists in US forces with the holders of the Medal of Honor.

Never had the good fortune to meet a VC holder when I was serving (or since, for that matter) so I never had the opportunity to observe the custom.

[teeteringhead]

TTN - I think you are right but IIRC the saluting the MoH thing is a rule rather than a tradition.

Never met a VC and only met a MoH holder once - in a bar in Key West. Neither of us was in uniform, but it was quite an afternoon/night - I think .......:ok:

[rotaryeng]

Smuj, I'm confused. In your original post you state that you became a civilian in 1997. In post 30 you speak of your 30 years service. As the 214th entry were at Halton from 1969 - 1971 either your demob date is incorrect or your alleged 30 years service is incorrect, which is it? ;)

[smujsmith]

Rotary Eng,

Depends how you want to quantify it. My attestation date was 8 Jan 1969, whilst my last day at work was in October "ish" 1997, my official demob date was actually in February 1999, ( medical discharge). I really don't care whether it's counted as 28 or 30 years. It has no importance to anyone. My reference was simply to date attested to date ended service. I do hope that answers your query, I'm sure it us of little interest to many other PPruners.

Best wishes

Smudge :ok:

[rotaryeng]

Smuj
Well that means you served 30 years. Sorry to hear about your reason for discharge but even at that date there were few of us around who attested on that cold day in January 1969".

[downsizer]

Just to add some current information to the "I think" type comments here.

Today, nobody can join as an Ab-Initio SAC(T) other than Armourers. All other TG1 (and this now encompasses all of what was 2&3) join as AMMs. These are Aircraft Maintenance Mechanics, or FLMs of old. Leave Cosford as LACs and are advanced to SAC upon completion of TATs. After 18 months they go back to Cosford to be trained as A Tech M or A Tech Av. Almost like....a fitters course. They leave Cosford as SAC(T)s. We have gone full circle.

Armourers do not go back for further training as they do not have to pass through the AMM hoop and leave as LAC then advancing to SAC, and on Completion of their NVQ are advanced to SAC(T).

[smujsmith]

Rotaryeng,

A bloody cold Wednesday as I remember. With around 170 of us having to parade at the Med centre in the afternoon for the start of the jabs. The shortening of my career was "one of those things" I suppose and unworthy of attention. Suffice that I still have a lot of contact with former comrades and value that above most other things.

Downsizer,

Crikey, it's only a few years, since I left, but even I do not recognise the career structure you now exist in. I'm sure that the lads and lasses understand what they are signing up for, and therefore the "spirit" of our service is maintained. We are really lucky in Great Britain that we do not need to rely on conscription to man our military requirements, long may it remain so, I for one will always back our servicemen and women in their tasks.

Best to both

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

Thanks downsize how long is the tech course, does it take them off establishment?

Suprised they have gone the flem route again, although it's not exactly the same as a flem was a trade structure originally up to Sgt, when they binned it they could choose a trade and they went through a mechs course, finished it on a Friday then started a fitters course on a Monday. Poor buggers who got it did both courses back to back.

[gamecock]

These are Aircraft Maintenance Mechanics, or FLMs of old.

A common misconception which has led to most of the AMMs being criminally underemployed on their 1st tour. Even their SNCOs didn't (and possibly still don't) understand that although streamed as Av or Mech, they all did the same AMM course. As well as flight line training, they covered both Av and Mech 1st line maintenance tasks (replacing batteries, igniters, oil filters, LRIs etc), and because of this they will retain 1st signature capability in both trades throughout their careers.

Instead of being given the opportunity to assist the trade desks, developing their own skills and knowledge (SAKS?) and becoming a productive tradesman, most were treated as line swine. You can't complain down the line when they are your new Cpls and no effort has been invested in them.

Leave Cosford as LACs and are advanced to SAC upon completion of TATs.

And their TATs consisted of.....becoming Line trained! An object lesson in sending out all the wrong signals. Most of them may as well have gone back for FT after a couple of months.

[TomJoad]

Cheers downsizer, thanks for the update. Under the LTR which introduced the SAC(T) the original entry points were Mech Mech and Mech Tech. Mech Techs, from what I remembered, were recruited with a guarantee of attending their SAC(Tech) course following their initial first tour. The courses were stripped down versions of the old FT courses and hence were shorter. The Mech Mech I believe could be offered an FT course based on performance and aptitude. LTR also looked at multiskilling from which came the amalgamation of the trades.
After graduating the SAC(T) would then progress through their modern apprenticeship by work placed evidence being assessed by on station verifiers (SNCO level). Pay breaks at certain points were designed to provide some additional motivation. Progression beyond SAC(T) was by competition through the annual promotion board system. At the time I left it had settled down and all seamed to be working well. Interesting to see how it has developed.

[NutLoose]

Yep just read the RAF careers page on the web, states a. Sac tech course is three years BUT. That includes everything, the Mech Tech course appears cut down as it is listed as 5 months, and that must cover AF and Engines, in my time a single mech course would cover the same time period. Then your first tour is counted as part of your apprenticeship, followed by a year at Halton, which again previously covered just one trade, so training wise it has reduced in effect by half.

Aircraft Technician (Mechanical) - Engineering and technical careers - RAF Careers (http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/airtechmechanical.cfm)

Interesting to see basic training is now 10 weeks, that's up from 6 when I went through it.

[Laarbruch72]

Basic training has been ten weeks for a long time now, I retired over a year ago and even 4 years before my end date I had first tourists reaching my unit that had done ten weeks basic. That policy must have come in at least 5 years ago now, maybe more.

[Fitter2]

I seem to recall in 1960 Basic was 10 weeks (I arrived at Bridgenorth in September and posted out of there to Yatesbury for a direct entry fitter course in early December).

Then 9 months trade training AC2 to J/T.

Then out into the real RAF to start the real learning process....

[flipflopman RB199]

Nut loose,

The 5 month 'specialist' course referred to on the RAF website is the AMM course, which gives the students a very basic glossing over of all of the trades, but not to any great depth, concentrating mainly on aircraft operation and line tasks. This does not really compare with the single trade Mech course that you or I would have completed, as it designed to get the AMM's up to a good enough standard to mainly carry out line tasks, and give basic trade assistance across all trades. At this point it does not go into depth in either the Mech or Avionics specialisations.

After around 18 months to 2 years, the AMM's return to Cosford for Further Training, much in the same manner as the Mech Tech stream did, with the difference that they are now posted from their previous unit and are on Cosford's strength. The Mech 1235 course is then an amalgamated Airframe/Propulsion course that while not as in depth as the old school 'Fitters Course' - remains a little more in depth than the old 'Mech's Course'. This course currently comprises 13 months at Cosford including the Engineering Science and Academic Principles phase. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, the course still requires the students to carry out fault finding tasks and exercises throughout the different phases, culminating in an assessed 'Consolidation Exercise' in the final week of the course which is designed to consolidate the student's ability to fault find, raise and complete paperwork, and carry out corrective maintenance in a safe and satisfactory manner and hopefully put together everything they have learned over the previous 13 months! :ok: Completion of their NVQ then leads to the completion of a Modern Apprenticeship.

:ok:

[TomJoad]

Nut loose,

with the difference that they are now posted from their previous unit and are on Cosford's strength.

:ok:

that's a definite strength of the new system.

[NutLoose]

True, but that could have been accomplished at the stroke of a pen under the old system, also it must mean you are just about guaranteed a posting as the establishment will have been filled while you were away. My case I was to go back to the station I came from but they were going to post me to a maint hangar, my boss kicked up a fuss and I came back to the Squadron.

I remember 1 guy who being an ex flem (jags all his career) who did the mechs course, then a FT course directly afterwards and at the day they tell you your posting was asked do you want the good or bad news, he asked the good to be told there wasn't any as he had put down Jags as his preference. Ist bad news was he was going to Shacks and second bad news was he now had another 6 weeks at Halton doing a piston course.

[TomJoad]

Nutloose, ultimately anything can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen - if the willingness to sign the cheque was there,funds to back it up, and the manning cap limit was removed sure. The introduction of SAC(T) was cost neutral - the clever part was achieving the posting of the individual from the Sqn's establishment so that the Sqn would not need to carry the loss. The manning headroom to do this was found by redesigning the old FT courses.
Trust me, that was a massive improvement over the old system. Being posted back to a different unit can equally be argued to be a positive - the individual has a new sheet from which to build his/her reputation - a good start to his/her new position. When all is said and done I think the new system works well and was overdue in terms of how it better matches the needs of the service today. I was at High Wycombe when the LTR team came round to brief and everyone in the audience accepted the rational for SAC(T) as an obvious direction to go - there was a lot of cautious hesitation though regarding the proposals for multiskilling.

[NutLoose]

Multi skilling as in dual trade? Well that had been proved already in service, so it wasn't a leap of faith to go the whole hog.
I often thought single trades were a waste, after all there was so much overlap in certain areas that the training part could have be reduced in combining the trades, I found it quite straight forward when I came out to "add" the missing parts to my knowledge base to go multi trade, as they did indeed overlap. Single trades in the RAF could be a hinderance to those coming out and into the civil side of things, I think I was lucky as my experience covered helicopters, fighters and airliners which gave me a broader spread, indeed the VC10 courses as a "Sootie" meant I would do runs for all trades so the courses rightly had to cover systems etc for those other trades.

[TomJoad]

Multi skilling as in dual trade? Well that had been proved already in service, so it wasn't a leap of faith to go the whole hog.

Exactly, it made sense. The LTR was the product of the engineering trade sponsors - it was designed by those best placed to know what was required and what would work. I think that very much lay at the heart of its success.:ok:

Tom

[ricardian]

In my time in the Civil Service (after 12 years RAF service) I met an old chap who had been in the Royal Navy in 1944. After his initial training as a Telegraphist at HMS Mercury (Hampshire) he was posted to a ship in Scapa Flow (Orkney). The journey north took 3 days in crowded trains and a very rough crossing of the Pentland Firth. On arrival at his ship he was told that he had to attend a specialist course commencing in 7 days time - at HMS Mercury.

[TomJoad]

:D:D:D:D Priceless, although not surprised.

[Robert Cooper]

Nutloose

There was an attempt at what you might call multi-skilling in 1965/66 or thereabouts. At that time I was a GWF at REU Henlow and took a theoretical exam on radar to become a Radio Fitter , or Radio Tech, can't remember the exact designation now.

Anyway, it didn't last too long and things changed again the following year.

Bob C

[Fitter2]

I seem to remember a period in the late '60s when 'system fitters' or were they technicians were in vogue. Intended to know enough about everything to intercede between the trades on new complex aircraft systems. In practice (rumour had it) didn't know enough about anything to be useful.

The most efficient posting I was on was 'Borneo Jet Force' during Confrontation. Two of each trade needed, 24 hrs. on, 24 off so there was always 1, and cross trading to help the one who knew what he was doing when two or more sets of hands needed. Air Radar Fitters doing engine changes, etc. Seemed to work very well.

[Red Line Entry]

What's the view from the front line on the quality of the AMMs and SAC(T)s who are coming through the system now? Are they up to the job or undertrained (or even overtrained)?

[goudie]

I seem to remember a period in the late '60s when 'system fitters' or were they technicians were in vogue. Intended to know enough about everything to intercede between the trades on new complex aircraft systems

I believe these were the new breed of technicians destined for the TSR-2!

[smujsmith]

I think Goudie has it correct here. The Tech Apprentices, entry number (at Halton anyway) was in the 100 series, Craft Apps 200 and mech Apps 300. The Tech Apps did 3 years in training, covered 2 if not 3 trades and passed out on successful completion of the course as Corporals. Craft Apps, like me , were single trades, 2 years and passed out as Junior Technicians. The Mech Apps did one year and passed out as SACs. I also believe that the Technician Apprentice was envisioned as a "super" tech, and designed as a multi function fault finder, at line level, for TSR2. Perhaps others will know better.

Smudge :ok:

[NutLoose]

We had some super tech which were 5 trades they did 5 years and passed out as corporals, a/f eng electrics radio radar?