ground branch jobs

[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 !)

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]

thanks

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.

[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

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.

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!

[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....

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

[Skeleton]

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

[Canary Boy]

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

[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.