Surprise, Surprise.

[jayc530]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10816792/Air-safety-fears-as-RAF-short-of-hundreds-of-technicians.html

[Rigga]

"It's only maintenance!...and they're paid the same as Chef's and Clerks! We probably don't really need that many anyway..."


I wonder when that type of statement will emerge from the powers...?

[reds & greens]

I've shut the stable door, but there's no sign of the horse...

[BEagle]

An RAF spokeswoman said: “These figures represent a brief snapshot during which new aircraft entered service, fleets increased in size with posts being created ahead of needing to be filled and while we reduced our overall number of RAF personnel.

"It is inevitable this would temporarily affect our overall figures but we still have all the people we need to carry out all operational taskings safety.”


Oh of course, dear. So that's alright then - there's nothing about which to be concerned. There, there - Mummy knows best.....:uhoh:

[ProSentia]

Indeed, how very patronising.

Number of warm bodies against established posts is just one measure and quite a crude one at that. These figures do not address the issues of experience-on-type nor whether the established number of posts is actually sufficient for the tasks at hand nor the likely service distractions which so often come in to play.

I really do feel for my former colleagues and wonder at what point commanders can draw a line and say "I have to stop, or at least reduce, my outputs."

[Lima Juliet]

Once, I remember hearing an OC Admin Wg, in all seriousness, saying "It would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with flying"! :eek:

It seems her wish might be coming true at this rate! I honestly believe the rot set in for engineering when we got rid of Apprentices and started 'multi-skilling'. You can bet that as a percentage we are even shorter of the highly skilled Trade Managers.

FRIs for engineers then?

LJ

[Roland Pulfrew]

Slightly off topic, but:
an OC Admin Wg, in all seriousness, saying "It would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with flying"
That's like the OC Admin Wg that said of a CAS mandated, pan-RAF flight safety day to which all but essential duty personnel would attend "I'm not releasing Admin personnel, flight safety is nothing to do with Admin Wg" - or something along those lines.

[NutLoose]

I also see Hammond has announced females are going to be allowed to serve in combat roles, possibly from next year.
The cynic in me wonders if the move is more of an effort to plaster over the shortage of frontline troops due to the less than enthusiastic response of people to join the reserves, than anything to do with equality.
It still amazes me that the think they can sack frontline troops and expect them all to sign up as reserves.

[smujsmith]

From the point of view of someone whose career in Aircraft ground support ended a while ago, I seem to have spent my service life hearing of the imminent demise of the Aircraft Tradesman. As an ex Halton Apprentice, watching the regular political assault on professional training throughout my career, the continuous degradation of real training, in favour of "on the job" training, and the denigration of anyone who criticises, as a matter of "old thinking" is sad to say the least. My training allowed me to understand what it meant when a JP5 pilot told me that the aircraft was flying half a ball right. It gave me an understanding of the principles of flight, the science of metallurgy and a real interest in how it all came together to make a functioning aircraft.

Technology is a wonderful thing, and just as I hope, we never replace the man in the cockpit/flight deck, the man on the ground also has his place, a respected profession, that can be extremely fulfilling when training and knowledge succeeds in ensuring that military operations can be carried out confidently by our aircrew, in the knowledge that the people who maintain their steeds are equally professionally trained, tested and competent. Sorry if I ramble a bit, I hope it makes sense.

Smudge

[Wensleydale]

"Once, I remember hearing an OC Admin Wg, in all seriousness, saying "It would be so much easier if we didn't have to bother with flying"!"

Sounds like the OC Admin at Lossiemouth in the 1980s who, during a TACEVAL, ordered all servicing and turn-round of aircraft to cease overnight and the personnel used to guard the airfield. The aircraft were all still there next morning but they were unable to carry out the full tasking. Rumour control stated that the Staish was not pleased.:=

[Wander00]

LJ/RP - that/those OC Admin Wings needed a kita - or sacked (why did Staish not haul them up short?)- but then I had the advantage of a budgie on my jumper

[Courtney Mil]

...it makes perfect sense, Smudge. :ok:

[Whenurhappy]

I would like to think that this day and age, there are very few Personnel Branch Officer and ORs who would adopt the apocraphal attitude as expressed above; however I also know of a recent OC BSW (OC Admin in old money) who was particularly unsympathetic about the deployed personnel from his station and repeatedly refused to visit them on their dets. Result? OBE and promotion...

[Saintsman]

Smuj, it seems the RAF still do 'apprenticeships'. 5 months at Cosford followed by 2 years on the job and then a further year at Cosford (if they make the grade...).

That's not a great deal different to the Mech and Fitters course of old durations.

[Robert Cooper]

Sounds quite a bit different from the 3 year apprenticeship I did in 1953. However, requirements change and I suppose they need different skills these days. I remember one of our practical tests for passing out was to build a radio from scratch - build the chassis, wind the coils, make the dial, calibrate and line up, etc. I can still send and receive morse code at 15 wpm. Had to be able to strip and rebuilt all the radio equipment we were trained on. Was one of the finest training schemes in its day.

Bob C

[Ogre]

From some of the information I was getting a few years ago, the 5 months at Cosford would teach you to diagnose a fault down to LRU level, and nothing more. If swapping a box didn't fix it then who was going to work out what to do next?

As the level of system complexity went up, the level of training required appears to have gone down. If "the computer says no" then you are left with fewer choices as the system in-built test is supposed know everything that could go wrong. System designers have probably made this a selling point "we have better reliability and all you need is a monkey to swop the box the computer tells him to".

Gone are the days of belling out cable looms and back of the fag packet diagnosis, although I have heard of cases where it was not so much "what is broken so we can change it" as "what do we have in stores that we can swop".

[GreenKnight121]

In 1988 the USN/USMC was introducing a new "do everything" computerized avionics test bench that was suppose to replace most of the existing test benches at Intermediate level (squadron sent us the LRU and we chased the fault to the component on the board/wiring harness/whatever, as well as fixing the test benches).

The specific statement from the Lt Cdr who was telling us all about this wonder-bench was "it is so good that a supply clerk could run it. There won't be any need for the expensive electronics training we've been paying for".

That was when I knew I had to get out - because the few of us left would be working double-shifts to make up for the bench's failure to meet the advertised capabilities (and to fix the benches) and the leadership would take years to finally admit it and re-institute specialized electronics training.

I left in June 1989.

[pmills575]

As a Air Radar fitter (18 months BE + 15 Months fitters course) I was well equipped to fix the various problems that occurred on the various aircraft that I worked on. After 14 years I left and entered the computer industry where I found that there were diagnostic programmes to identify any problems. Magic, I thought, this is going to be easy, just run the diags and fix the problems that were pinpointed. Of course I should have known it would never be that easy. Oh, sure sometimes it was just that easy, I was soon employed in the Technical Support, my RAF training and experience as a troubleshooter soon being recognized. In truth the diags could identify the obvious, but when that failed to identify the issue then it required an engineer with knowledge and experience to go beyond the software and sort it out. There was no doubt in my mind (and my employers) that the RAF training had equipped me and my generation with the ability to resolve problems that those trained just to rely on the diagnostics simply couldn't match. I do worry that not training people in the basics and relying on software is very shortsighted and eventually will impact on serviceability and flight safety.

PM575

[haltonapp]

Where will SERCO get its cheap work force from when there will be no trained technicians with a pension to recruit. The sums won't add up when they have to spend some of the money they receive for their contracts on training, and paying a decent wage!

[BEagle]

From 1961:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/1961_zps7d2c5489.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/1961_zps7d2c5489.jpg.html)

£20 per week in 1961 is equivalent to about £20300 per annum today.

[ancientaviator62]

When we got our Lightnings on 92 we had a very large towable test kit (forget the name) with the maker's rep to supervise the use. It was supposed to diagnose faults with the radar and associated systems. By the time it was set up and the self test routine completed we had inevitably solved the problem by using nothing more than our excellent tech training and experience.

[Whenurhappy]

What I find disappointing about the content of the article is that these issues were identified in 2008 in the RAF's response to the Haddon-Cave Report. I recall Air Command (as was) putting all sorts of procedures and practises in place to address gapping, skills fade &c &c...but, from what I can see, the problem has become worse (with redundancies muddying the, err, mud, even more so). What should be done now?

[Big Bear]

It may appear to be a small point to their Airships in their ivory towers, but to my mind, pride in the technical trades all but disappeared with the demise of the JT rank. Those who never wore the rank will simply not understand that an SAC badge with a circle does simply not engender the same spirit. :ugh:

Bear

[ian16th]

BB,

What you say is so true, but compared to the USAF the RAF has never truly valued its technicians.

Take a look at the Wiki page comparing NATO ranks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_enlisted_personnel_in_NATO_air_forces
See how many ranks the RAF manages to compress into OR2!

In the USAF the technical skills of the RAF SAC Technical gets you into the Sgts Mess, in the RAF he isn't even in the Cpl's Club!

[glad rag]

Where will SERCO get its cheap work force from when there will be no trained technicians with a pension to recruit. The sums won't add up when they have to spend some of the money they receive for their contracts on training, and paying a decent wage!

:D:D:D:D

spot on.

[glad rag]

It may appear to be a small point to their Airships in their ivory towers, but to my mind, pride in the technical trades all but disappeared with the demise of the JT rank. Those who never wore the rank will simply not understand that an SAC badge with a circle does simply not engender the same spirit. :ugh:

Bear

How true, from my experience of them [and I'm not blaming the kids] they have not been moulded to give them the drive and determination to overcome adversity.

[NutLoose]

Saintsman (http://www.pprune.org/members/64129-saintsman)

Smuj, it seems the RAF still do 'apprenticeships'. 5 months at Cosford followed by 2 years on the job and then a further year at Cosford (if they make the grade...).

That's not a great deal different to the Mech and Fitters course of old durations.


You would like to think so, however, the RAF are now dual trade, so you are in effect halving the training time compared to the old course duration for single trades.

I feel the main falling point apart from skills levels, is the disparity in pay structure where a Tech was valued at the same as a Chef or a pencil pusher, sorry if those in those trades will feel the need to argue the toss, but when they hit Civi street, they wil have their eyes opened between pay grades, flipping burgers or cooking high end cuisine 12 hours a day pays peanuts compared to Aircraft Engineers, chuck in licence pay at an airline and they will be earning more than some aircrews.
That's what needs to be sorted first and foremost, it used to be linked to Civilian equivalent earnings, without that the gate is open and the sun is shining on the other side of the hill.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Where will SERCO get its cheap work force from when there will be no trained technicians with a pension to recruit. The sums won't add up when they have to spend some of the money they receive for their contracts on training, and paying a decent wage!
Haltonapp

:ok: Nail, Head

I recall pointing this out from a Flight Safety perspective in 1992, and that it wouldn't show up for 20 years until drawdown flattened out, but then the Service would be totally f#cked.
It's a bit like building a pretty house on that really cheap land next to the volcano.......

[Roland Pulfrew]

Quote:
Where will SERCO get its cheap work force from when there will be no trained technicians with a pension to recruit. The sums won't add up when they have to spend some of the money they receive for their contracts on training, and paying a decent wage!
Haltonapp

Nail, Head

I recall pointing this out from a Flight Safety perspective in 1992, and that it wouldn't show up for 20 years until drawdown flattened out, but then the Service would be totally f#cked.
It's a bit like building a pretty house on that really cheap land next to the volcano.......

Unfortunately whilst we have a revolving door of politicians as heads of shed, some of whom keep thinking that Defence is a business :yuk: and continually try to impose business practices :yuk: on Defence, whilst believing that more and more of Defence can be farmed out to contractors because that saves money :hmm: and industry are the most efficient :ugh::ugh: way of delivering "stuff" we are doomed to live in an ever decreasing spiral. I had thought that SofS might be on the verge of changing his mind follwoing Defence's bail-out of the Olympics and G4S but unfortunately the "Whole Farce Concept" is being talked about again.

Its not as if we don't have experience of this happening - one of the luckiest bits of Defence "planning" was the closure of RAF Finningley in the 90s - just as the aircraft maintenence contractor was about to have to start raising his bill dramatically because he had to introduce and charge for a tech apprenticeship scheme by used up the pool of retiring RAF techies and pi**ing them off completely by paying such rubbish wages. Those of us who served through the first rounds of contractorization never forecasted this....... Oh Yes. We did. WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Politicians are, sadly, not that stupid. The aim is to save the money in the current Parliament, then hope it all goes horribly wrong when the other Party gets a go at Government. If it goes wrong in your next Government, blame the previous Party. It's an inevitable result of a two/three party system with no rights of recall.
However, 'horribly wrong' is a relative term. Politician's children generally don't go near the military these days, so it isn't their offspring who get shot/killed because of bad training or kit.
Of course, they are assuming the country won't collapse/get invaded. Perhaps that would be 'hoping' rather than 'assuming'. They have a habit of not looking at things they don't like the look of, if you catch my meaning. You know, like the way 2-year-olds cover their eyes to hide from big dogs.

[gr4techie]

I've witnessed this happen first hand, on my unit 270 people in trade group 1 PVR'd in 18 months. Approx 35% of the stations TG1 strength. Thats 1500 years worth of experience. And people are still leaving.

I've questioned this at every opportunity and the answer I've always received is the airships denying there's a problem. As they do not differentiate between a 17 year old kid who's currently going through training and an experienced, highly skilled and qualified NCO who's PVR'd. To the airships it's just a game of numbers... Bums on seats.

The problem is not caused by the oil and gas industry pulling people out. But the RAF's lack of loyalty and no longer looking after it's own manpower, this is what pushes people out. I can't think of any other employer that pays it's technicians less than the chips and beans cook who works in the canteen.

Even though I have seen some old guys turn their nose up at the new kids coming through. I do not blame the kids when their training has been cut back. Nowadays the priority of training schools is to make the bean counters happy and a fast turn over time, rather than provide high quality training. I don't think the old guys attitudes of moaning about the recruits help, because if they are not happy with the quality of the recruits, what have they done to bring on and develop theses guys?

I am disappointed that todays work is all about removing black boxes and send them off, rather than having the ability to repair the black box ourselves. This has caused the problem of waiting for spares to arrive on unit.

The modern apprenticeship is really only an apprenticeship in name form only, it's one of those govt schemes that pull the wool over peoples eyes, it sounds nice on paper but in reality it's not worth the paper it's written on. For example, the govt is seen to be training youth, but in reality the training is a token effort.

From my experience, the problem with being dependent on test-sets is when the serviceability of the test-set is is questionable... Does the fault lay within the aircraft or is it the test-set playing up? This happens a lot with pitot-static test-sets that often leak. A fitter then has to waste considerable man hours going around in circles trying to get a serviceable test-set together.

[denachtenmai]

the problem with being dependent on test-sets is when the serviceability of the test-set is is questionable..
I remember a flight safety poster back in the 60's about a railway "Wheeltapper" who tapped all of the wheels on all of the trains that came into his station and they changed 88 (insert any number you wish:hmm:) wheels before it was found that his hammer was cracked!
It was a reminder that Test Sets needed calibrating and servicing as well as installations.
Regards, Den.

[thing]

When we got our Lightnings on 92 we had a very large towable test kit

Had a similar thing on F4's. Spent three years on them and I think I took the cover off it once to see what it looked like.

I left in '96 but as a member of RAFFCA I started flying three years ago from the last unit I served at. My how things have changed...apart from the aircraft of course, they are exactly the same ones that I left bereft of my technical knowledge in '96. It's a totally alien Air Force to the one I left and might as well be from another galaxy cf the one I joined on May 14th 1974. 40 years ago this Wednesday. Scary.

[NutLoose]

In what way different?

[thing]

Off the top of my head: Pay as you dine, techies being payed the same as scribblies, Painter and Finishers gone (have the Squippers gone too?), OM totally empty on Friday evening, the ratio of Officers to Airmen, the amount of hi viz vests you see being worn, the amount of business speak I hear in everyday conversation, stakeholders (are we back to chucking spears then?), envisioning, corporate entity etc etc. If I thought for a while I could probably fill two pages.

As to how it's changed since '74. Well, several things spring to mind. Flying the Lossie station volleyball team in a Shack down south for a match, a jock on Harriers in Germany nipping home to UK in a GR3 one weekend to buy a house, putting on a VC10 for me and three colleagues who needed to get from Brize to Luton in superquick time. The bean counters hadn't been invented then and Things Got Done No Questions.

The people were different too. On my first unit which was F4's, there was an instructor who had flown Mustangs during WWII, my WO was an ex Air Gunner on Lancs and the Flight Eng on the BofB flight Lanc was actually a Flight Eng on Lancs during the war. Different people, different ethos, different times.

[Willard Whyte]

In what way different?

Really...?

[NutLoose]

Yes Williard, I was interested in how he perceived things had changed, thank you for telling me thing, I appreciate your answer.

[Willard Whyte]

Always a pleasure to take this forum less than seriously.

[Red Line Entry]

thing,

A huge amount has indeed changed in the 40 years since you joined. But when you joined, how much time did you devote to worrying about how the RAF had changed since 1934?

"It's all gone downhill since they brought in jet engines, used to be a sooty could strip and rebuild an entire engine in 2 days, with just one screwdriver and 2 spanners. As for the social life, since they let TVs into the Mess, the bar's empty. What was wrong with the weekly Clark Gable film projected onto a bed sheet hung on the outside wall? And who allowed airmen to own their own vehicles?!!"

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but this website is too often filled with laments for times past, viewed firmly through rose-coloured (or whisky) glasses. I have no doubt that in 1974 there were plenty of retirees moaning about the state of the RAF, the only difference was that they were doing their moaning in the confines of the RAFA club and those serving didn't have to hear them!

[1.3VStall]

RLE,

I have just re-read thing's posts. Can't spot a moan anywhere, he's just pointing out how many things have changed over the past 40 years - granted, most of them for the worst!

[thing]

A huge amount has indeed changed in the 40 years since you joined. But when you joined, how much time did you devote to worrying about how the RAF had changed since 1934? Oh absolutely none, and it has always been so. Humans don't like change as a rule and while ever life continues to be a sequence of change and adaptation tben people will complain. Part of what we are I suppose.

How many times have you returned to a place that you visited many years ago having enjoyed the experience the first time around only to find it completely different? The buildings may be the same by and large but the people and ethos are different. You're not really returning to the place as it is now, you're returning to a memory, and that memory belongs in the past. Hence the oft quoted 'never go back.'

I wasn't complaining as such, simply pointing out that things have changed and in which way I thought they had changed. I'm sure that some things have changed for the better, some for the worse. The RAF still has a 'can do' attitude as far as I can see, it's just that these days the 'yep we can do that' is usually followed by 'who's going to sign off the risk for it?'.

It's a brave new world.:)

[NutLoose]

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, but this website is too often filled with laments for times past, viewed firmly through rose-coloured (or whisky) glasses. I have no doubt that in 1974 there were plenty of retirees moaning about the state of the RAF, the only difference was that they were doing their moaning in the confines of the RAFA club and those serving didn't have to hear them!

I just can't understand why my question has caused so much interest, I simply asked as I've never been back to a service establishment per se since I left and was just curious to see a contemporaries take on the changes. As for your comments re piston engines, Interestingly since you brought it up, I was one of the last courses of Sooties to cover them, all be it by the time I did my course it had shrunk to a few days on the course and I never touched one during my service career... And yes I can rebuild aircraft piston engines, and have worked on various and I am Licenced on every type of piston engine in aircraft. ;)

[oldmansquipper]

Quote:
Where will SERCO get its cheap work force from when there will be no trained technicians with a pension to recruit. The sums won't add up when they have to spend some of the money they receive for their contracts on training, and paying a decent wage!
Haltonapp

Nail, Head

I recall pointing this out from a Flight Safety perspective in 1992, and that it wouldn't show up for 20 years until drawdown flattened out, but then the Service would be totally f#cked.
It's a bit like building a pretty house on that really cheap land next to the volcano......

One of my last jobs in `glider` command was to audit civilian maintenance contracts. I recall in the out brief with the civilian "OC Eng Wg low cost option" at a Northern training establishment, saying pretty much the same as the comments above... Unsurprisingly the response was totally underwhelming.

The laws of diminishing returns and the dangers of short term expediency were being ignored even then... I believe the contractor now builds trains.....

[jayc530]

Why are so many aircraft technicians wanting to leave?

[RumPunch]

People are leaving as they feel very let down from the powers above. Undervalued might be the word, but for years people have asked the same question but nobody wanted to listen and here we are it's too late. As more leave an increasing burden is left on those remaining, those left see others successfully moving into civvy street and being happy adds to the problem as they leave. It is irreversible now , past the point of a serious flight safety risk IMHO as too much experience is gone. It is sad to see but the heirachy were aware of these burning issues years ago and failed to act. Personally I left as I hated it in the end, walked into a job that pays double and endless career opportunities but I do miss it in some ways. Money will always win though

[Rigga]

"Why are so many aircraft technicians wanting to leave? "

Quite simply:

Undervalued; underpaid; overstretched.

The work patterns run all the people down. There are no long term incentives, no morale and those that are married are unlikley to have any real home/family life.

There is the percieved lack of career path - even for the RAF which has always had the slowest of Armed Forces career paths, I suspect due to the drawdown in size.

This manpower shortage should have been prioritised when the Big-Wigs saw the damage that occurred at Lossie two/three years ago when the OCU was stopped operating.

In my (apparently poor) opinion few line maintenance tasks were done 'correctly' - the quick-fix is prime and has become the Norm. (Do anything to get another Sortie off - and repeating the same fix for (yes) hundreds of hours.)

I classified most of the work methods as a subtle form of BDR (although, clearly, no external patches or broomsticks were visible)

This is not the guys' fault - the training in schools is mainly fine (and in most parts it's in-line with Civvy standards) but, as soon as they get to a Line environment, the "proper" way to do jobs is taught to the new guys and they lose most of their training Standards (this happened to me in the 1970's too, btw, so it's not a new phenomenon) but nowadays the Line has been practising OTRs for months on end, In-Theatre and in training.

The Army-style pay deal has severly undervalued their worth and, for some, their integrity.

Sure, some still do give their all...but how long can they do that for?

So they leave, in droves, for home lives, stability, money, conditions, a quiet life, a future under their control...and who can blame them.

[glad rag]

Options for change in 1990 was the beginning of the the process leading to the final decimation of UK Armed Forces.

B@stard Tories........again. :mad:

Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_for_Change

[Phil_R]

I can't think of any other employer that pays it's technicians less than the chips and beans cook who works in the canteen.

The film industry. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/midnight-rider-accident-sarah-jones-death-gregg-allman-685976)

[Red Line Entry]

Well, for the apparently terrible state of technical training these days, it seems like No 1 School of Technical Training can still put on a damn good parade, as Princess Anne gave them a new Queen's Colour yesterday.

Well done to all the guys and girls at Cosford! Only one flt lt as parade commander, all other major roles filled by trainees, including the two Colour bearers and the flight commanders. :D


u2xreQTFr-g

[500N]

That's some pretty impressive drill.

Thanks for posting.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Having extra ranks to jump through for the tech branch without a financial reward for technical skills has always been a big bug bear of mine.

A non TG1 or TG2 can achieve FS rank relatively easily by age 47 and get signed on for a full career to age 55 whilst a Tech may be stuck at CT rank and have to leave at age 47.

Is that fair? :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I had a great time doing what I did but I'm glad I jumped early even though I was in till age 55.

I could go into the degradation of training and lack of career development but I think that's been covered.

[Ogre]

Red Line Entry

I wonder how much "training time" was taken away practising for the parade....?

Well done for the standard achieved, but I bet it was the highest priority task for a while.

[Ogre]

Red Line Entry

Well done for them achieving the standard they did, but I wonder how much "training time" was lost practicing for the parade?

[dctyke]

Times change, however a/c still get wet and corrode. A/c still leak fluids and wiring rots. How many times over the last four decades have I been told 'this a/c will never go wrong'. Having LRU's is fine however it's the bits in-between that link them, you still need sound engineering skills.
Around 15yrs ago 'Battle Damage' training started to wain and more or less came to a standstill. As I still believe the ultimate reason for having the RAF is 'battle' I would be interested to know what training is done these days to repair a/c damaged by enemy action.

[Red Line Entry]

Ogre,

Good point, but isn't the job of Cosford to push out people with BOTH technical skills AND with the proper Service ethos? If it were just to tell them how to fix aircraft then we might as well civilianise Cosford entirely and have done with it!

[haltonapp]

Where's the pipe band in the video?

[ian16th]

Well done for them achieving the standard they did, but I wonder how much "training time" was lost practicing for the parade? Why any?

For the Coronation Route lining in 1953, we Boy Entrants at Yatesbury did all of the extra drill in the evenings after tea!

No training time lost.

A well done for the current guys at Cosford.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

... did all of the extra drill in the evenings after tea!

Well Ian16th, that was so public-spirited of you all to volunteer; I'll bet your drill sergeant was surprised & impressed ;)

[500N]

I always found (Army wise) if you had people who wanted to be there
and were switched on, it didn't take much time to get it right.

A lot of pride taken by the trainees in doing it, a lot of motivation
to put on a good show ????

[dctyke]

A good read.

http://www.bainessimmons.com/tlp/air-clues-summer-2013.pdf

[Rigga]

DCTykes Link is to a good (and true) story...but you don't have to read between the lines too much to see what a pickle there was for this "success" to be published.

The true story, however, is in the manpower, man-management and technical procedure failures that created the need for this eventual "success".

[gr4techie]

Was there really any success? Or any change?

[ian16th]

Fox3
that was so public-spirited of you all to volunteer

We were informed that we were privileged to have been selected:ok:

[enginesuck]

The report is interesting however it was a sticking plaster fix as the squadron in question disbanded shortly after. I was there until just before this happened, one of the TG1 NCOs who decided to walk. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Rigga]

As Enginesuck says, the report shows a that there was a short interval of sticking plasters being thrown at Lossie to get them through the recognised dip - but nothing of substance for any longer term nor even a review of anything else for the rest of the RAF.

This was indeed a PR success as it looked like "they" actually did something positive - but - in reality nothing was done and the "fixes" faded to nothing within a month or so....

MOD's just waiting 'til the next time then?

[Madbob]

In 1940 a certain Sqn Ldr Bader took command of 242 Sqn at Coltishall. Prior to his appointment the Sqn had taken a mauling care of the Luftwaffe and they had no ground support equipment/tools/spares etc.

All Bader had was 14 brand shiny new Hurricanes but he had the balls to refuse to declare to Group that his squadron was ready for ops until he had got said spares etc.

Not surprisingly he got summoned to Group HQ for tea and no biccies with the AOC pdq. There he made the valid point that with no fitters/ground crew/spares etc. the squadron would be unable to sustain any ops for more than a day or two.

The result? He got his spares/groundcrew/tools etc. within a couple of days and more importantly he got the respect of both his squadron and his AOC! I can't see any Wg Cdr or Gp Capt doing the same today yet squadrons are expected to perform as normal when seriously under-strength, due to cuts and/or a serious exodus of experience and we are still expected to field a "Premiership" team......it's like trying to play professional football with only 8 (or less) in the team. Doubtless, there are still good "players" in the RAF but if under-strength, how can we possibly win unless we opt for five-a-side and forget playing in the league any more?

I really do feel sorry for those having to cope with the stress of having to compromise their standards because of the pressures of being expected to maintain flying rates/serviceability states/targets with insufficient resources. Small wonder morale is so bad and retention so poor.

MB

[5 Forward 6 Back]

enginesuck, gr4techie et al, this all happened after my time at Lossie... but as people at the forefront, do you think there was anything that could have been done to stop the exodus? What, if anything, would have kept you there?

[Hangarshuffle]

I have to but in at about post 68 but theres a reason for all this. War is unlikely.
Serious significant war among the powers that really matter is unlikely.
It will interfere with money, business and commerce in the global village. (the posh end of the village, not the council houses-they can go and rot, same as ever).
You are just splitting hares, same as ever. Poor old hare.

[enginesuck]

5 forward - Nothing would have kept me there, the work life balance had gone. As a Squadron we had only 28 weeks between 4.5 month tours in KAF, in that time the first round of redundancies had kicked in and the squadron lost many experienced guys, this was supplemented by posting in guys from another disbanded Squadron and the cohesion and teamwork just wasn't there.

I remember being told to go on a Q course a week after returning from Ops - to live in a Portacabin at Marham , further months away from family, and I would have to pay food charges for the privilege ! - I refused to go. In two years at Lossie and two Ops tours I had not done one Tornado specific technical course - there wasn't the time ! By the time I'd left I was one of the most experienced NCOs on the squadron ! I know it's not quite the same but imagine aircrew on ops without completing the OCU !

I and many others saw how the guys who had left via PVR and the first tranche, had got on in the big bad world and it was pretty encouraging.

We were 1 month into our second tour when Volunteers were asked for the second round of redundancies were trawled. It was a no brainer.

What leaving has meant for me is that now I have a job where I am treated as an adult, I have quality time with my children and Wife, I earn so much more than I did when in the service, if I have training to complete I am accommodated in suitable hotels, flights home at weekend, a corporate credit card means I never have to spend my salary on work related expenses.

The RAF can't and won't compete.

[red zebra]

One of the other reasons for the shortfall is that when it was announced that Leuchars was to shut and everything was moving to Lossie people started leaving in droves, I know about a dozen or so guys (C/Tech down to SAC) who got new jobs and put their notice in, a very good friend of mine was out in 1 month, a very experienced Typhoon leckie, manager & trainer, lost because of some ginger gits political agenda.
Several pilots also left because they didn't want to move and civvys are moving on too because they don't want the move north, I'm one of them, the most experienced man in my section, no incentive from my company to move, no incentive to stay till the end. I start my new job next month, not losing out financially and don't have all the hassles of a house move.
Unfortunately, as with everything of this nature, nothing will be done until someone gets hurt (or worse), then the finger of blame will still not be pointed upwards at the right people.
After a 30 year association with the RAF, either serving or as a civilian contractor I am leaving it all behind, there are many that will follow this route too, the politicians will get their reduced numbers and be happy and we will be left with a dearth of experience and talent from top to bottom and the RAF will become a dangerous company to work for.
I'm not going to miss it and that, for me, is the saddest part.

[gr4techie]

5 forward 6 back. To answer your question...

I second Enginesuck observations in post (my keyboard doesn't have a hash key) 69.

I would like to add the biggest problem for me is that loyalty and respect should be a two way thing.... Some shiny in P1 demands respect, integrity, service and excellence from me. But when I'm working my balls off in unpleasant conditions I'm not seeing any of that back. There just is no incentive or recognition.

Also, when I come across cases like Enginesuck's course at Marham, I often think "would any civvy company put up with this s***"? The X factor pay falls way way short of compensating for it.

[ancientaviator62]

gr4techie,
when I studied constitutional law loyalty was defined as a two way street. The allegiance owed by those 'below' and the protection provided by those 'above'. We hear plenty of calls for the former but very few signs of the latter. Probably it was always the case to some extent but appears to have become worse in recent years.

[smujsmith]

My time ended in 1997, and all I've heard from both former colleagues, and more recent entrants to civvy street is the feeling of not being valued, a total esteem killer for blokes who are working their goolies off. I spent several years as a C130 AGE, something I volunteered for, and was able to avoid home on average for 270 days a year for six straight years. The thought that just about everyone is being hit with that sort of "time away, whilst also being affected in the wallet must be bloody galling. I like many watch the cutbacks, the delays in contracts and the general sacrificing of our Military forces on the altar of austerity and saving the economy. All the while seeing billions thrown away in foreign aid and EU subscription. I feel very sad that we have reached this parlous position.

Smudge

[Ogre]

One of the problems we have faced over time is that the "operational necessity to get us through a specific task" becomes "that's how we do business". The term "Normalising Deviance" is used to explain how we start by patching things up with the best intent of doing it properly, but we never quite get round to fixing it and the patch becomes the norm.

So did the shortage of techies (and here I count myself as one who jumped) get masked by the "Can do" attitude the RAF is famous for, until we have passed the point of no-return?

[SOSL]

I've just read all the posts in this thread and found

It may appear to be a small point to their Airships in their ivory towers, but to my mind, pride in the technical trades all but disappeared with the demise of the JT rank. Those who never wore the rank will simply not understand that an SAC badge with a circle does simply not engender the same spirit.


No more JT's - arrgh aargh aaargh I can't believe it!


Back in the day when I was a JO I was looking after a big flight of mechanics and technicians; boys and girls of all sorts of trades. One tradesman in particular stood out. He was the best engine technician I've ever met. He was a JT but he was chronically unable to pass the Corporal exam - when faced with an exam paper he just blanked. We coached him, we gave him mocks which he sailed through but come the day he just blanked again. Meanwhile he was designing procedures which improved the effectiveness of the Spey 202 by 25%.


We couldn't get him promoted, but when I was allocated one silver jubilee medal for my flight (of 120 tradespersons) I nominated him. He retired as a 55 year old JT with a medal on his chest,


Rgds SOS