ground branch jobs

[snobody]

OK, OK, starting with an apology (which yes, I do know you should never do...), I'm not aircrew. Nor do I have aspirations to be (gasp!). For various reasons (mainly that I'm ancient), that route is out to me. Although I just registered today, I've been reading these pages for some time, and hope that some of you might be able to help me out.
I want to be an officer in the RAF. I'm looking at applying for supply, but having just received my application form, I see that I can apply for several (up to 6 I think) branches. I was considering also putting down admin and ATC. But I would assume that if I pass all aptitudes and one of those branches is crying out for people, I will be offered that ahead of my first choice. Can anyone confirm this? Could someone please tell me which branches are undermanned and therefore recruiting furiously? And if anyone had any imput on the life of a supply officer (or other similar branch), I'd love to hear it.
Many thanks! :ok:

[Fg Off Bloggs]

I know they're short of Admin (Trg) officers but you would need a PGCE or a teaching degree to fall into that pool. Also I believe that if you have the aptitude for Fighter Controller (not many have supposedly) then they will try to sell it to you. Actually, not a bad choice 'cos it's not bunker based anymore (might be for first tour) and you could end up on AWACs later on in your career (flying despite being ancient!).

Bloggs

[rivetjoint]

Doesn't ATC require you to have the enhanced medical examination?

[snobody]

Medicals shouldn't be a problem (fingers crossed), aircrew is a no-no simply because of age. I would certainly think about fighter controller too, especially as you're starting to dispel my fears that it would involve spending the next 40 years of my life underground ;)

[DSAT Man]

You don't need a PGCE anymore for an Admin Trg commission but you will need a degree and some experience of training will help. We are not 'teachers' anymore, although we still do some instructing, but get involved in many exciting and cutting edge training projects.

[ADIS5000]

Here's my take on things:

If you pass the ATC or FC aptitudes you'll be pushed in that direction (cos not many peeps have the aptitude). Both good branches and exciting jobs, but promotion can be a bit hit and miss (small branches = less senior officer slots). FCs are slowly moving out of the bunkers and E3s are a great job.

Supply and Eng, good promotion and some interesting posting slots available in unlikely places! Also good cross-over prospects to civvy world.

Admin - hard graft, very office orientated and generally unappreciated by the rest of the mob. But can open up some spankingly well paid jobs outside.

Regiment - well you'd have to be mad wouldn't you?!!

Also, if you fill in all 6 boxes you'll be asked questions on all 6 of your chosen branches.

Regards, ADIS

[uknasa]

"We are not 'teachers' anymore, although we still do some instructing, but get involved in many exciting and cutting edge training projects."

DSAT Man - What a complete load of shI^te!! The most exciting and cutting edge things that trainers do is count library books, administer ISS and give out whie board markers. Don't kid yourself mate!

[opso]

Admin - hard graft, very office orientated and generally unappreciated by the rest of the mob. But can open up some spankingly well paid jobs outside. Who'd have thought that an admin job would be so office orientated? ;) Micky take aside, it is also offers the quickest and easiest commissioned promotion opportunities of any of the branches if you decide to stay in rather than jump to an outside job. I know a number of adminers who fully expect that as long as they are doing a fair job and keep their noses clean, they can pretty much guarantee retiring as Gp Capts. Sad thing is, they're probably right. But remember, despite all the blah about all jobs above Wg Cdr being on a common list and awarded to 'the best man for the job', the reality is a bulletproof glass ceiling for all branches except Pilot.

Flt Ops hasn't been mentioned above. It is currently a very disjointed specialisation with little identifiable career structure and therefore vastly variable prospects for individuals (ie from poor to bloody awful for most people just the moment, although a couple of individuals seem to be doing enexplicably well!). Jobs range from the very interesting, high tempo and utterly ops focussed (more so than many of our aircrew on flight decks if truth be told), to the utterly banal backwater rubbish. It is still relatively early days and the specialisation is maturing, but until there is a better standardisation of posts and a sorting of career paths, little will improve. Whether this is the right time to join is hard to tell - it could be the ideal time to catch the wave that will benefit from a re-org and the fact that there are so many hacked off opsos leaving in the next couple of years that feel that they were completely mis-sold the specialisation. These gaps could provide the ideal opportunity to get in on an excellent, interesting and varied career. Job opportunities outside after Flt Ops are very good. I am aware of one Flt Lt opso recently offered an excellent job high up in an airline - higher up the chain than than they were willing to put a Wg Cdr pilot starting with the company at the same time!

Oh, by the way. I wouldn't count on the FCs keeping loads of seats in the back of the E3D - surplus F3 navs will need to go somewhere and the FC world has been shooting itself in the foot by stating that they don't consider the E3D to be a front line tour. Whereas hiding underground in Norfolk is! If the posts aren't core business, they are easy to take away...

[SpotterFC]

Opso

Who on earth has been saying that about the E3? I'd say that and 1 ACC are the only places that are considered truly front-line (911 notwithstanding)

snobody

My advice is to hammer on a CIO door and demand a Realistic Job Preview visit to every branch you are considering. You will then get a feel for the people, places and jobs, along with a chance to speak to people who do the training and are being trained - all over several pints in the Officers Mess. Otherwise you have no idea whether the CIO people are selling you a pup - not that they'd do that - obviously.

[Vapour]

Oh, by the way. I wouldn't count on the FCs keeping loads of seats in the back of the E3D - surplus F3 navs will need to go somewhere and the FC world has been shooting itself in the foot by stating that they don't consider the E3D to be a front line tour. Whereas hiding underground in Norfolk is! If the posts aren't core business, they are easy to take away...

Even with surplus ex-F3 navs coming through I would expect the FC branch to retain a significant number of positions on the E3s. After all, once you've cut all the F3 squadrons and you've run out of surplus WSOs, who's going to go onto the jet then? I can't see any economic sense in training up ab-initio WSOs simply to send them to the Sentry as WCs and IDOs.

Anyway, if you want a really exciting non-aircrew job, you could always join the navy. On the plus side, we aren't cutting loads of jobs. On the down side, there aren't many people left to cut anyway. Bugger!

P.S. If anybody is still hiding down a hole in Norfolk, they are indeed a very, very long way from the front line.

[Pontius Navigator]

I thought ADS5000 (?) gave a very balanced picture.

Agree with Opso tho. Aircrew accepted OpsO jobs as there was always light at the end of the escape tunnel, either back to flying or out to civvy street. The other reason was it gave a break from flying that might just be p*ss*ng the memsahib off a tadge.

Gave a good variety to life.

As a professional OpsO on a station there is often no light at all.

[SpotterFC]

PN

ADIS5000 - Air Defence Information Service (variant of RIS and can't now remember the details) to base of 5000', FIS below. (apologies if that's not what the ? was for)

Vapour

I think there only be ghosts of brave Norfolk firefighters down that hole now.

[STANDTO]

The thing that worries me soemwhat is, If I joined at 36, would I be tearing my hair out withn 5 years, or manage to see 16 out, benefitting from transferred pension rights from other Govt service?

What's it REALLY like these days?

[DK338]

Don't Believe all you hear about civvy prospects for OpsOs. I have just left the service albeit as a FOM and it is no exaggeration for me to say that my knowledge and experience far surpassed most if not all Flt Ops officers I encountered, as is the case, I believe, with most FOMs.

However, Civil Aviation is a very difficult thing to get into at a reasonable level at first and although you may have all the right technical ticks in the box, the one thing you won't have is commercial experience - sadly a significant handicap. There will always be stories about individuals winning good jobs but these are more the exception than the rule and usually have been embellished somewhat, also don't think that the equation of senior postition=high salary, because in civil aviation it doesn't. My knowledge of recently retired FOMs and Flt Ops Officers is a somewhat different experience.

My advice to you is steer well away from Flt Ops, as OpsO has inferred the branch has a long way to go, many peeps are shagged off with the crap employment prospects, there is virtually no career planning, guidance et al. Also they are pretty much despised by many of the SNCOs for being operational biffs with zero credibility and for stealing their jobs.

I am aware that my final paragraph may seem somewhat contentious but hey, there you have it.:ok:

[bigley]

DK,

I'm not flt ops but I have to take exception to your last post. Whilst you are correct that career prospects in the branch are still developing at the moment, much of the disgruntled feeling has been borne out of the initial recruitment drive over inflating the career/ promotion prospects in the first place. The truth is that Flt Ops Officers are, and always have been, in direct competition with the other 5 specialisations in the Ops Supp branch and have been penalised somewhat by the fact that even the system does not know what it wants the Flt Ops Officers to do. Ergo, how can a training package to properly prepare these individuals for their profesion be created? This has been identified and approval for a TNA on Flt Ops training is soon to be conducted. There is also no denying that the specialisation was established with no staff/policy foundations to steer it properly as it developed. This, I can assure you, is being rectified, albeit slowly and in relation to the budget allocated.

As for your comment regarding the SNCOs who despise and think they know more than the JOs, I challenge you to name a branch where this is not the case! For the record I am an ALM!!:*

[Inspector Dreyfuss]

"the FC world has been shooting itself in the foot by stating that they don't consider the E3D to be a front line tour. Whereas hiding underground in Norfolk is! If the posts aren't core business, they are easy to take away..."

That is one of the most factually incorrect statements that I have read for many years on this site. How ignorant!

The FC specialisation has worked very hard to provide personnel for the E-3D and we have consistently carried gaps at the CRCs in order to do so. Although homeland defence of the UK, the operational role of the one remaining bunker, is an essential military task, it is widely recognised that No 1ACC and the E-3D represent the operational, expeditionary arms of air command and control. For the more experienced officers, including flt lts, there is a large representation of FCs in the JFAC(HQ) as well.

[Fg Off Bloggs]

Yer, Ah (k)now!

Bloody FC Branch - they get where water can't!

[Itsrainingagain]

Probably not an option - they are fully manned and not likely to take on many, if any. People who fail in other branches have left the service as there was no space for them in the branch they choose to swap to - Flt Ops! ATC and FC both have spaces - you have to have enhanced medical for both (better eyesight and an ECG every 5 years is about the only extras) and both need you to pass their aptitude tests. You can join both if you are older - up to 30 or 35 I think - check RAF careers website, it lists them all with ages. Check it all out first though cos despite what they tell you - it's not easy or even possible to swap once you are in!

[opso]

That is one of the most factually incorrect statements that I have read for many years on this site. How ignorant! I can only tell you what I get told at High Wycombe - as it's apparently wrong, I happily retract it. Instead, I'll wait and see how many ex-F3 navs end up still living in their Lincoln homes for the daily commute to work.

[Skeleton]

As a recent ex FOM have to back DK and his post re the Flight Ops Branch.

It may never have been properly set up at the start.I remember visiting Strawberry at the time it was - and that was a constant beef from the school of the people they would be working with.

But that is really no escuse for what I saw as the Ops FOM on almost a daily basis, and that put simply was a refusal to get involved with anything the assistant's were doing career wise, and only if they thought they might get in the sh*ite, would they get involved on a daily basis. To a man they were all the same, and the reasoning when cornered into an answer, "the assistants were never mentioned at the school"

Armed with those facts may give you a clue as to why they are treated as a breed apart in the Ops world - put simply they are, because there lords and masters set it up that way.

Shame really because most of them were nice people.

[Mr C Hinecap]

I suppose it depends what you want to do in the RAF as an Officer.

If you want to be a leader and manager, then come Supply. You get troops there and every single job you go to will be different - if you want it to be. We have skills that are in increasing demand outside. You can get to go to interesting places - we still have some good jobs & exchanges elsewhere in the world.

I think the people that attract more crap than Stackers are Admin! If you want to know more about the Supply Branch specifically, drop me a PM.

[JessTheDog]

"the FC world has been shooting itself in the foot by stating that they don't consider the E3D to be a front line tour. Whereas hiding underground in Norfolk is!

This had me scratching my head somewhat - most FC officers would happily crawl naked over broken glass to get a whiff of a beer-soaked Waddington flying suit!;) I would also be greatly surprised if the branch ever lost this aspiration.

However, there is a wider political context. I had heard it said - on good authority from a horse's mouth, so to speak - that TG12 does have a view similar to the one expressed! This indicates one of the major pitfalls of the TG/Branch structure the RAF "enjoys" - that of consistency between the officer and non-commissioned ranks working in the same, or closely related, roles. Also, it would not be surprising if other TGs and re-employed F3 navs have their eyes on the slots on the jet. However, the F3 nav issue would be a one-off manning "windfall" (someone at MoD has probably thought in such crass terms) and it is unlikely a sustainable manning policy could be built on this, although it would be impossible to deny the prospect of a short-term imperative to fill seats on this basis to avoid wastage.

Finally, there is no point at FCs getting bitter and twisted at the crew mix issue, as different specialisations add to the combined knowledge of the crew, and this is to be welcomed. However, any suggestions that the E3 or the FC branch would be better-off without each other is wide of the mark to say the least!

[Canary Boy]

As has been mentioned earlier, AFCO should be able to arrange for a look at the various training establishments - there's no substitute for talking to the people involved to get a balanced picture.

One of the main concerns with ATC has been that it didn't, necessarily, allow you to take your skills and experience/qualifications into a career in civ control. That is being addressed (albeit only to a limited extent) by the introduction of an 'ESARR5' compliant course. In essence, parts of the JATCC will count towards any future civ training.

Concur with observations on the Flt Ops specialisation (don't do it :ok: !)

Historically, the best prospects whilst in and for taking outside, were to be found in Admin and Supply.

There's a lot of other specialisations that we haven't touched on - use a visit to a Unit to ask loads of questions after doing some research on-line.

Good luck...

[DK338]

Bigley,

I am more than aware of the policies (or lack of therein) surrounding the formation of the Flt Ops Branch and the subsequent actions to address the various issues that continue to plague it.

Clearly every SNCO worth his weight, irrespective of trade, will look down his nose at all commissioned officers and view them as worthless until proved otherwise; as an ALM you should know this. That is the lot of the professional SNCO and long may it continue. However where Flt Ops is concerned, it is not a case of the SNCO cadre thinking they are better qualified and experienced, they know and are, FACT!

Without exception, all Flt Ops Officers I have encountered since the inception of the branch have proved to be professionally inept, however this is not a fault in the individual but the system, the training is insufficient and mainly irrelevent and the instructors are clueless. It beggars belief that a training course that is slated for 14 weeks has only nine and a half weeks of instruction, the rest is made up of 'Visits' to pad out what is in effect a poorly designed course. The assistants training, by comparison is eight weeks! As you have quite correctly pointed out this is now being addressed, but in my opinion this is too late, the reputation of the branch is poor and thus with it the credibility of it's people. With all the waifs and strays that found themselves in the branch it is not without good reason that FOTS is referred to as 'Failed other training systems'.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

DK, I would take issue with your statement:

Without exception, all Flt Ops Officers I have encountered since the inception of the branch have proved to be professionally inept,

I have personally encoutered a significant number who are extremely effective. The diffierence is that these people, without exception, have all been ex-opsies.

I understand that CATCS recently transferred responsibility for TG9 basic trg (the old TTF) to the Flt Ops Trg Sqn. Unbeliveably, this Sqn was somewhat reticent to take on the responsibility for training TG9!

back to the original thread, if I were joining in a ground branch again I would be a Stacker. They seem to enjoy themselves and also have their proverbials in a nice neat pile.

[snobody]

Many thanks for all the help and advice. Feeling good about my first choice of supply, still debating which, if any, other branches to put down too.
Anybody know whether Supply is in need of officers at the moment? Or are they oversubscribed?
Cheers again!

PS. Mr C Hinecap - I've sent you a PM (or at least tried to), let me know if it hasn't worked.

[Skeleton]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand that CATCS recently transferred responsibility for TG9 basic trg (the old TTF) to the Flt Ops Trg Sqn. Unbeliveably, this Sqn was somewhat reticent to take on the responsibility for training TG9!

Incredible. I am truly gobsmacked, hand responsibility over for the training of the assistants to the people that have made it quite clear all along they want nothing to do with them.

Nice move.... beggars belief to be honest.

:sad:

[SpotterFC]

DK338 Wrote:

Clearly every SNCO worth his weight, irrespective of trade, will look down his nose at all commissioned officers and view them as worthless until proved otherwise; as an ALM you should know this. That is the lot of the professional SNCO and long may it continue.

OT but I can't let it lie!!!

DK. Contempt will breed contempt. Although the statement in QRs refers specifically only to WOs, I believe it is incumbent upon all SNCOs to contribute to the professional development of junior officers, especially those straight out of training. If a newbie Flt Ops officer is met with an SNCO who clearly thinks and acts like he doesn't rate the officer, is obstructive and unhelpful, then not only will that officer 'grow up' to distrust and even resent SNCOs, but this attitude will inevitably rub off on the SNCOs subordinates, which will not prepare them proerly for their duties as SNCOs and so on ad infinitum. As you imply, the RAF won't run without professional SNCOs, so as an experienced SNCO I hope you are trying to bring these young officers on? I have been extremely fortunate throughout my career to be able to depend on numerous SNCOs (and JNCOs), who have occasionally (OK regularly) bailed an enthusiastic but 'professionally inept' officer out before he barelled in where angels would fear to tread. I get the impression your assistance and advice (if offered?) has been ignored - their loss :cool:

On another note, do you think ATC and FC get fully professionally competent operators out of the door of the schools? Not a hope. Speaking only for FC it takes on average a couple of weeks for them to get an operating endorsement, and even then they operate as part of an established team. It takes a further 12 to 18 months for them to get to CR. I get the impression the junior FO guys and girls are left to sink or swim, with little in the way of a hierarchy to support them as there is in ATC and FC.

My 2p

PS - Inspector Dreyfuss, check your PMs

[JessTheDog]

I get the impression the junior FO guys and girls are left to sink or swim, with little in the way of a hierarchy to support them as there is in ATC and FC.

This is not surprising, given the resources required to develop and maintain a comprehensive syllabus for training, and the well-established habit the RAF has of neglecting such details!

[Skeleton]

Spotter - Well said and very astute. Has to be said they did seem to spend there lives swimming in shark infested waters with little or no top cover on a lot of occasions.

The wise ones took any help that was offered, some, however, did not deem advice or help from anyone on the Ops side of TG9 as worthy of any notice.

Hence on more than one occasion I watched the wise old JNCO pass Sir a shovel as he dug deeper and deeper. :ugh:

I found it hard not to give up on them at times, in fact if I am honest I did on one of them, not a proud event for any SNCO, but particularly galling for me as I knew I was directly affecting the assistants that worked for me in Ops who had to suffer this fools actions.

[Shjustme]

Ah, that ole chestnut, interlopers scrambling to get a job in branches for which they are not suited!!!

Back in the 70s and 80s the ******************* Branch nearly sank out of sight due to unsuitable interlopers being parachuted in. My God, how the PVR rate increased amongst the experienced NCOs, in total despair at the chopped aircrew climbing aboard and bollo@ing things up!.

[opso]

DK338:Without exception, all Flt Ops Officers I have encountered since the inception of the branch have proved to be professionally inept I am genuinely sorry to hear that you have this view based on your experiences. I suspect that you may be at a location where you receive a disproportionate number of first tourists (as most FJ stns ops rooms do) and if so, you're at a location that is failing in its responsibility develop everyone, regardless of trade, straight out of training. There is a very variable amount of effort put in to development and utilisation by different stns across the RAF - just compare Marham and Coningsby as a prime example regarding the Flt Ops world. I would contest that few people in the RAF are actually 'professionally inept' (ie not capable of doing the job for which they have been trained and employed) but that the vast majority of first tourists of all trades and branches fall well short of a quality professional output - mainly through a lack of experience and development.
If however, you are somewhere that doesn't have a high proportion of first tourists and have gained this impression, I am much more concerned as it goes against the general feedback from across the Service, where Flt Ops personnel are reported as performing well in a variety of more demanding jobs such as those in the RCC and ITOC. If you fancy a laugh, come along and have a bash at my job - my FOMs have got enough sense to steer clear of the amount of juggling that I need to do constantly and if you can find anyone that understands the job and genuinely considers me 'professionally inept' I'll stand you a beer without any hint of malice. :)

[Skeleton]

I for one certainly bare no malice toward any first tourist OpsO. I would have been failing if I did.

I think the point being made is that the training they received about the assistants was at best inept, and I still have my suspicions that they were told to steer clear of the assistants because they were a different branch with a different set of priorities.

I am bound to say that in my opinion the people who set up the Flight Ops branch failed because they did not see the need to embrace the airman, ops "side" of TG9. They had a ready group of airman that needed good leadership because they by the very nature of the trade were always going to play second fiddle to the controlling side of the branch.

I did however use to enjoy watching a certain Ex WO, Flight Commander of Scottish persuasion "juggle 6 balls whilst balancing upside down on a tightrope." When I used to tell him that was his punishment for trying hard at school he used to pull out his last payslip!! B**ger even left it on my desk once, and then in the photocopier, then on my PC, in the end I got the message! :ok:

[FOMere2eternity]

FOM to OC FOTS circa 2001:

FOM: "Sir, what is your course chop rate?"

OC FOTS: "We don't have one - everyone passes."

The question was a set-up - recent experience of 2 particularly poor graduates of the course had already confirmed that 'breathing' was about the only test they had to pass.

In fairness the defective individuals probably should have been routed out at OASC or IOT, but they must have managed to sustain a reasonable bluff until 'professional' training. They ended up in Flt Ops where they could do less damage.

Since then I've met a couple of people who are genuinely good in Flt Ops posts, but that's more a credit to their personalities than the course. Several certainly remain an undue burden on oxygen supplies.

[Canary Boy]

Can we detect a bit of a new thread developing here....:confused:

Might be worth kicking it off - could be a whole new 'movers v loadies' thing. :ok:

[Skeleton]

I think if you do that most of the threads on this board would need to be removed :uhoh:

[Canary Boy]

:O Doh!

'Might be worth kicking it off '

As in starting it off - not booting it off!!

note to self: check meaning before posting

[Skeleton]

ahhh, sees wood through drunken haze....

Sorry Canary

:ok:

[jwca]

As with civilian jobs, all ground branches have their pros and cons. If you wish to progress professionally, both in rank and through promotion then their will be certain jobs that you will have to do to build up your professional portfolio. Some of these you will find interesting and rewarding and others less so but just as important to the RAF and your career aspirations.

If I had my time again that I would definitely take a longer look at becoming a Supply Officer. The range of roles is impressively wide, whether in the UK working at an MOB or in a deployable role such as 2 MT Sqn or TSW or UKMAMS. I have seen suppliers on a number of different operations in many of their various guises and fully appreciate the pivotal role they play. Without timely delivery of J4 assets any Op will grind to a halt.

Now, as an Ops O myself allow me to turn to the part of this thread pertaining to my own specialisation; the quality and ability of the Flt Ops Officer. As with any walk of life we are a mix of abilities; some good, some bad and most of us somewhere in the middle. The other point to be made is that the cadre of personnel recruited from other part of the RAF into the specialisation on it’s formation in 1997 has changed and that DEs are increasingly the norm. As a consequence it is incumbent on us all, as we should do with any inexperienced service person, to assist in their personal and professional development rather than simply disparage what may well be their best effort. That’s not to say that you don’t give a telling off if it is deserved but make your judgement in the context of that individual’s training and experience.

Many of the complaints levelled at the quality of personnel within the Flt Ops specialisation have, in the past, been warranted. In the main this was due to the need to remove GD personnel from the Ops Room in order to get them airborne and attempt to redress the manning imbalance. Now that professional Ops Os are gaining experience then I believe that the quality of both the individual and the job that we are doing is improving dramatically. However, we have no reason to be complacent.

My personal axe to grind is the lack of standardisation. Once an Ops O (and other ground branch specialisations) is in productive service then the only comment made on their ability is in their OJAR and that may be more concerned with their performance as OIC Mother and Toddlers club than their in their primary role. We all have job specs, TORs and the competencies for each specialisation are all laid down. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to introduce some form of standards regime. Ops Os in operational posts (such as stn ops or on a sqn) and whose performance directly impacts upon flying operations should be checked out and their competence assessed. I for one would welcome it, a STANEVAL style ground cat of professional knowledge could be a starting point. Thoughts on that anyone?

I do take exception to the “Aircrew in Ops Room = Good, Ops O = Bad” argument. As I have said on this forum before, if we are not doing something right, tell us to our faces and as professionals we will learn and move on.

[SpotterFC]

FCs and ATC are STANEVAL'd - why not Ops Os? Practical element could be observation of daily ops and things like demonstrating actions on RASDA following (God forbid) a fatal accident etc then a theory test based on the day-to-day and specialist ops docs used - ie similar format to the other 2 branches.

In fact I'm surprised that such a system doesn't exist already - people only respect that which is checked.

[Canary Boy]

STANEVAL of Flt Ops.

Whereas ATC and FC service-wide have rigid rules (nay - laws) which govern virtually everything they do, (and are, therefore readily examinable), how can you utilise such a regime for Flt Ops? Surely it would have to be at a local only level and thus not standardising across the board?

[Skeleton]

The other point to be made is that the cadre of personnel recruited from other part of the RAF into the specialisation on it’s formation in 1997 has changed and that DEs are increasingly the norm.

Hate to say it but there was a lot of moving of goal posts over this very issue, I well remember asking a FOTS Sqn Ldr (nav) why they had promised to recruit from within TG9 and it was not happening, as I remember he felt a sudden need to shuffle his feet and inspect his shoes. Then he remembered an urgent phone call :}

Have to agree with your comment that things will improve with time and I certainly agree that just because your not ex aircrew you can't be any good at the job.