RAF aircraft mechanic training

[Vendee]

Could someone give me some idea how much classroom theory time there is on a basic airframe/propulsion RAF mechanics course these day?

The reason I ask is that my civilian employer (working on military aircraft) has embarked on a sort of apprenticeship scheme, mainly for young people already employed by the company in roles such as aircraft cleaners and aircraft handlers. There is involvement by a local college (who don't have any aircraft teaching expertise) to get the students an NVQ level 2 qualification, which I think is as useful as a steering wheel on a train. Most of the training is OJT with people like me acting as personal mentors to the students.

Myself and the other mentors have voiced our concerns at the lack of classroom theory content, i.e. theory of flight, propulsion, hydraulics etc. The employer thinks that throwing aircraft engineering books at the students is good enough but there is no way of knowing if the students actually understand the subject matter. The employer has now relented and has arranged for someone within the company to give a........ wait for it....... one hour lecture covering the basics.

I did my training almost 40 years ago and I can't remember how much theory we got but I'm sure it would have been over 100 hours. How much do they get today?

[salad-dodger]

classroom time for riggers and sumpies - not long, attention span of a goat.

Practical time will be a bit longer. There's the big hammer to learn, followed by the effing big hammer.

S-D

[sturb199]

Salad-doger, I shall rise to that one!!!

For a start we are now mechanical tradesmen, so have very much aligned with the civ world. Although I suspect it was for the wrong reasons and gave them a good excuse to shed manpower!!

However I digress, once the new girls and boys have moved to trade training they undertake about 12 week(ish) of basic aircraft training. Pointy end, hot end types stuff and not much more. They are then posted to units as AMM's (think flm) where they undertake 2 years of OJT prior to re entering the training system as either Mech or AV tradesmen. Their trade course takes about 12 months so must be about equal to 2 years at college. Their time there is made up of about 60% theory and 40% practical.

Hope that helps of sorts!!!!

[glad rag]

Training , yep you'll be trained. Along with lots of OTJ.

Don't expect to do more than scratch the surface of any of the "subjects" mind.

[gamecock]

They are then posted to units as AMM's (think flm)

Please do not think 'flm'. It's this mind set that has prevented the proper development of AMMs on their first tours. I'll try hard not to bite next time, it just frustrates me that a lot of the AMM's potential is wasted through bad publicity and under-utilisation.

[Rigga]

Considering the slim variety of aircraft on today's inventory I would think that the 12 month course is quite pointed toward those few types and also thinking that the types flown are quite "innovative" in their control systems, the usefulness of experience on these systems may be less useful than expected when reaching the outside world.

You may remember my tale of the "9-years on Tornado" tradesman who didn't recognise an Aileron when he saw one.

[Saintsman]

Slight thread drift. Many moons ago at Halton, we spent a whole day learning how to use a screwdriver - theory followed by practical.

You would expect most people to know, but in truth, not many did know (Phillips and Posidrive the same thing...).

The point is with these new training courses is that they assume too much and forget to teach the basics. Get them off on the right foot and they'll be set for life. Scrimp on the training and they'll muddle through forever.

Plus, if it's done right, a company will get the return on their investment.

[Vendee]

I remember spending half a day at Halton back in 1976 learning how to solder a nipple on the end of a bowden cable. I remember thinking "I'm never going to have to do this" and, funny old thing, I was right :)

[light_my_spey]

ahem.....

The Pozidriv, sometimes purposely misspelled Pozidrive to avoid trademark infringement, screw drive is an improved version of the Phillips screw drive. They can be unscrewed with a regular Phillips screwdriver. It is jointly patented by the Phillips Screw Company and American Screw Company. The name is thought to be a portmanteau of positive drive. Its advantage over Phillips drives is its decreased likelihood to cam out, which allows greater torque to be applied. In ANSI standards it is referred to as type IA. It is very similar to, and essentially compatible with, the Supadriv screw drive.

Phillips drivers have an intentional angle on the flanks and rounded corners so they will cam out of the slot before a power tool will twist off the screw head. The Pozidriv screws and drivers have straight sided flanks.

The Pozidriv screwdriver and screws are also visually distinguishable from Phillips by the second set of radial indentations set 45 degrees from the cross recess. The manufacturing process for Pozidriv screwdrivers is slightly more complex. The Phillips driver has four simple slots cut out of it, whereas in the Pozidriv each slot is the result of two machining processes at right angles. The result of this is that the arms of the cross are parallel-sided with the Pozidriv, and tapered with the Phillips.

This design is intended to decrease the likelihood that the Pozidriv screwdriver will slip out, provide a greater driving surface, and decrease wear.[11] The chief disadvantage of Pozidriv screws is that they are visually quite similar to Phillips, thus many people are unaware of the difference or do not own the correct drivers for them, and use incorrect screwdrivers. This results in difficulty with removing the screw and damage to the recess, rendering any subsequent use of a correct screwdriver unsatisfactory. Phillips screwdrivers will fit in and turn Pozidriv screws, but will cam out if enough torque is applied, potentially damaging the screw head. The drive wings on a Pozidriv screwdriver will not fit a Phillips screw correctly, and are likely to slip or tear out the screw head.

LMS:8

[sturb199]

Gamecock AMM's potential is wasted through bad publicity and under-utilisation

Having worked with AMM's for a number of years as I'm sure you have too. One of the main sticking points on releasing the AMM's potential is their own crap attitude. Way, way too many of them are too content to poke off once the flying is done and have no interest in their core trade. I have seen it too many times now to hold out much sympathy, they have the offer of trade work and would much rather plug into Xbox live!!!!

So actually, thinking FLM is a kick in the teeth to all those flight line mechanics out there that did well for themselves and proved the system wrong, so to speak!!

[light_my_spey]

sturb199

Agreed!:D

[kintyred]

Thank you LMS,

Highly informative post! I'm straight off to my shed to check my tools!

[Party Animal]

Thank you LMS,




Agreed and proof that you still learn new things everyday despite old age encroaching. I suspect also proof that once upon a time, the RAF used to train engineers to a Rolls Royce standard.

Continuing the theme - didn't GKN come up with something called the 'superscrew' in about 1982? Something in-between a Phillips and the Pozidrive?

Just askin!

[longer ron]

I suspect also proof that once upon a time, the RAF used to train engineers to a Rolls Royce standard.



And now trains them to NVQ standard !

NVQ = Not Very Qualified :)

[gamecock]

sturb/lms

Who is giving them the option to poke off for a start? If we're so short of manpower why aren't they being used as trade assist? 2 techies on one job instead of 1 of each on 2 jobs?

The problem to me starts when they get to the squadron. On my last squadron, myself and the Av TM (who both had experience of teaching AMMs at Cosford so knew exactly what they were and were not allowed to do) formulated a basic set of TAT2s (Trade Ability Tests), which included routine ML1 tasks across Mech/Av trades - battery, igniter, filter, LRI changes etc. This would have forced the guys to carry out all of these tasks (or anything else that came up) as well as becoming competent in the use of hyd rigs, charging trolleys and other GSE in order to progress.

Unfortunately, we were then told that all they needed to do was become line-qualified - therefore reinforcing the FLM misconception. As i say, bad management all round.

[NutLoose]

I remember spending half a day at Halton back in 1976 learning how to solder a nipple on the end of a bowden cable. I remember thinking "I'm never going to have to do this" and, funny old thing, I was right :)


I remember in 1976 at St Athans being taught on the last course that covered piston engines and being told I would never need this as the last of the Hasting etc were about finished...

Oddly enough, I am licenced now on all piston engine types... and work on them :E

I suspect also proof that once upon a time, the RAF used to train engineers to a Rolls Royce standard.


That low huh?

[NutLoose]

Interesting post Gamecock, so they have in all essence dumbed the SAC trades down to a glorified Flight Mech, and the SAC tech is a Glorified SAC dual trade?

I can understand them dissapearing off after shift, especially if they as the Flem's I knew, they often started earlier than the main trades.
Sturb, the problem there is not that they have no interest in their trade, but the fact they are not being allowed to use the skills and training they do have when they are on shift, they are simply being under utilized in a way the trade structure was not designed for.

For what its worth a civilian pilot/ owner can probably carry out more maintenance tasks than a RAF mech is allowed to, and they have no training!

[Wander00]

ISTR the FLMs at Binbrook in early 80s being a VERY unhappy bunch, not least because opportunities for Further Training were very limited

[turbroprop]

Sorry Nutloose, but Apprentices were still taught Piston Engines after 1976 at Halton and we got the Q annotation Q-APE.

[NutLoose]

Single engine trades if I remember correctly stopped teaching it though, for what it was worth the RAF were still doing the likes of Griffon courses at Halton in the 80's for the Shack.

[Rigga]

To continue the modern training thread:
I believe that aircraft type courses are no longer in vogue now, and that courses are run on System/ATA Chapters to cut down on time away from the Line.

I personally think this is dangerous because it will invite anyone working under pressure to exceed their authorisations "just this once" or more.

I also believe that Cpl's and above are allowed on 'Snag courses' to learn the in's and out's of type specific faults and their remedies (what we used to call "defects. :ok:

[Q-RTF-X]

I am both saddened and appalled reading the outlines illustrating present training methods. I was a Boy Entrant and in our “workshops” phase we were expected to grasp many fundamentals and work to tolerances with hand tools. I was by trade an A Mech/Fitt W (i.e. Armourer) but in my days people were often presented with openings to step outside the box; I myself had a cracking spell at Akrotiri on Visiting Aircraft, I did a couple of years on Lightning first line as NCO of a composite turn-around team (usually doing Man C Armament at the same time) and when promoted to the dizzying heights of Sergeant, still on Lightning’s assumed control of a first line shift; by then I had a pretty good broad knowledge of the aircraft as a whole. At another location I had also been presented with an opportunity to have a spell in a unit operations department. Looking back, I can see how we were nurtured to broaden our horizons from an early start. Officers and SNCO’s were seemingly looking out for those with potential and ready to harness such. It needs a robust training system and active nurturing in the field. People need to be stimulated and their potential developed. My time in the Air Force as a “grunt” without question prepared me for a latter life in ground handling and also flight operations. I have come across many who followed totally different paths to mine but with the strength of a solid background behind them. I very much fear that much has been lost in the present system.

[mymatetcm]

Training 10 weeks basic at RAF Halton, then about 6 months at RAF Cosford, then about 18 months on a Sqn, then a further 12 months course to get your technician qualification back at Cosford

All jobs gone for AMM and Avionics this financial year. However if your guys are keen to apply go via the Careers website so you don't miss out on the next set of processing. all the info on there

If they want to work on Lightning 2 and A400 try ICT trade, they needs lots of ICT techys to keep them going.

[salad-dodger]

If they want to work on Lightning 2 and A400 try ICT trade, they needs lots of ICT techys to keep them going.
If they want to work on Lightning, A400 or any other aircraft, then don't choose the ICT trade, it's not an aircraft trade.

S-D

[salad-dodger]

If they want to work on Lightning 2 and A400 try ICT trade, they needs lots of ICT techys to keep them going.
If they want to work on Lightning, A400 pr any other aircraft, then don't choose the ICT trade, it's not an aircraft trade.

I bet you work in a CIO tcm :eek:

S-D

[AARON O'DICKYDIDO]

If I remember rightly - my Mechanics Course at St Athan in 1969/70 was;

16 x 5 day working weeks, each consisting of a 8 hour working day, this was both theory and practical.
Including 8 Hours of PT/Sport per week including Wednesday afternoons.
So that comes out at 512 Hours of trade instruction. I think!
Plus the odd Saturday morning parade!

This was followed some years later (In my case 1974) by a Further Training Course to Technician level consisting of;
A 26 x 5 day working week each consisting go a 8 hour working day, this was both theory and practical.
Including 10 weeks x 4 hours 'Education' learning various theories and such like.
Including 8 Hours of PT/Sports per week including Wednesday afternoons.
So that comes out at 792 Hours of trade instruction. I think!
Plus the odd Saturday morning parade.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Aaron.