WSOp Streaming
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chill out m7!!
The fact remains that by streaming once they are in the system as opposed to before it will put some people off, I don't know the stats for recruiting but suggest that if the AFCO'S are telling the truth and it's a big if as we all know they are economical with the truth! then I would think the risk of not getting what you want is enough to put people off all together.
Of course the cyninc in me believes that prospective NCA are told that they will almost certainly get what they want, and it will only be mentioned in passing that they might not! this isn't just true in the NCA world, afco's have been doing this forever to get people in the door.
How else would they get people to be stackers and policemen if they didn't embelish the truth somewhat?
The fact remains that by streaming once they are in the system as opposed to before it will put some people off, I don't know the stats for recruiting but suggest that if the AFCO'S are telling the truth and it's a big if as we all know they are economical with the truth! then I would think the risk of not getting what you want is enough to put people off all together.
Of course the cyninc in me believes that prospective NCA are told that they will almost certainly get what they want, and it will only be mentioned in passing that they might not! this isn't just true in the NCA world, afco's have been doing this forever to get people in the door.
How else would they get people to be stackers and policemen if they didn't embelish the truth somewhat?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 52
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
toddbabe
S'Ok....I'm Chillin' 
I completely agree with your comments and sentiments. I'm also extremely cynical about the AFCO 'hard' sell, and that they are 'economical' with the truth when it comes to NCA issues.
My beef is with those on this thread that think the Generic course has been poorly put together, mis-managed and is a waste of time. As manualtilit eludes to, there was a TEAM of personnel that designed the course who put a huge amount of time and effort to get it right. The course is still in its infancy and will require continuous 'tweaking' to make it better.
Regards M7
I completely agree with your comments and sentiments. I'm also extremely cynical about the AFCO 'hard' sell, and that they are 'economical' with the truth when it comes to NCA issues.
My beef is with those on this thread that think the Generic course has been poorly put together, mis-managed and is a waste of time. As manualtilit eludes to, there was a TEAM of personnel that designed the course who put a huge amount of time and effort to get it right. The course is still in its infancy and will require continuous 'tweaking' to make it better.
Regards M7
...doesn't mean the concept itself is not flawed.
Can anyone explain why streaming is not suitable for WSOps? Seems to work for pilots and WSOs!
As MC7 said it is still bedding in and their have been no complaints from the end user.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they also teach/lecture on some of the specialisations, such as acoustics and non-acoustics, but this is purely to give all students a flavour of the various specialisations prior to making a desision on streaming.
then you will be informed enough to understand whether you believe that the NCA training system is flawed or not.
"seems to work for pilots...."
RP,
Hardly the same is it? Pilots (in the normal way of things) all learn to fly a basic aircraft then specialise. Except for amputees along the way, no-one undertakes unecessary training. They don't all learn to fly a light multi, for example, do they? To take your point, it is appropriate to stream, but it used to be done post AAITC.
Sam
Course critique! What planet are you on? I live on the one where constructive criticism is universally accepted as a good and worthwhile thing. Except by anyone getting criticised of course.
CG
RP,
Hardly the same is it? Pilots (in the normal way of things) all learn to fly a basic aircraft then specialise. Except for amputees along the way, no-one undertakes unecessary training. They don't all learn to fly a light multi, for example, do they? To take your point, it is appropriate to stream, but it used to be done post AAITC.
Sam
Course critique! What planet are you on? I live on the one where constructive criticism is universally accepted as a good and worthwhile thing. Except by anyone getting criticised of course.
CG
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M7 was going on about how far into your career you should be before you critique the training system. What I am saying is, who better to say what is wrong with the course than the students themselves. You might even find that many of them are saying and I got this from a post earlier by M7.
" the Generic course has been poorly put together, mis-managed and is a waste of time." Especially the linguists.
" the Generic course has been poorly put together, mis-managed and is a waste of time." Especially the linguists.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it stands, from a recent ex-generic stude, I don't think there is anything wrong with the cse. I started it pre-streamed as AEOp (hang over from OASC streaming) so I knew I could not be streamed loadie. Doesn't mean I didn't learn something, even if it only opened my eyes to what the rotary and fixed mates do. Thanks for correcting me as to lads moving to loadie, wasn't aware that anyone had. M7, I agree that we need experience but why not let people know what it's like whilst it's still fresh-ish in our minds? As for the cse being flawed, it's only been going for a short while and is bound to need some fine-tuning, hence regular cse critiques. Just thought I'd try to show the benefits to studes of taking the generic cse as opposed to being pre-streamed.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be worse. I did an exchange with a Foreign & Commonwealth Defence Force a few years ago, and their military recruits do not even know which arm of the Defence Force they will end up in after basic training. Their Officers are trained by the UK at one of our Officer training establishments, but a Sandhurst Course followed by helicopter pilot training (Air Wing) is quite pheasable. Bit of a bummer if you want to fly aeroplanes and get a job with the Navy/Coastguard though. It is a 3 year minimum sentence post training even if you hate the job, with no option to PVR.
Those sitting on the fence may wish to research the 'voluntary withdrawl' options should life turn against them. I have no idea what the present state is on that one, so throw the subject in amongst the pack for you to fight over.
Rude: Long time - Hope all is well.
Those sitting on the fence may wish to research the 'voluntary withdrawl' options should life turn against them. I have no idea what the present state is on that one, so throw the subject in amongst the pack for you to fight over.
Rude: Long time - Hope all is well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello, I'd like to join the RAF as a pilot.
I'm afraid it's not that easy sir. You can join as an officer and see where you end up.
Well, where could I end up?
Admin, supply, ATC, or pilot.
That doesn't make much sense. How does that work?
Well you do IOT then a generic officer course, bit of blanket stacking, couple of days in HR, bit of pilot stuff. At the end, we see how many pilots we need and select them from the crowd.
That's very odd. So I don't actually know what job I will be doing until I am a year into my career?
Yes. That's right. It was seen to work for the WSOp's.
Thank you. Goodbye
I'm afraid it's not that easy sir. You can join as an officer and see where you end up.
Well, where could I end up?
Admin, supply, ATC, or pilot.
That doesn't make much sense. How does that work?
Well you do IOT then a generic officer course, bit of blanket stacking, couple of days in HR, bit of pilot stuff. At the end, we see how many pilots we need and select them from the crowd.
That's very odd. So I don't actually know what job I will be doing until I am a year into my career?
Yes. That's right. It was seen to work for the WSOp's.
Thank you. Goodbye
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: My
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to jump in at the end here and not being a WSOp but a chopped WSO.
As far as I could see, each of the WSOp disciplines required different aptitude requirements and as such can be better assessed after practical application in the working environment.
I agree with the way it is now, although I can also understand the frustrations of people joining up to hang out the back end of a Chinook and then being told, sorry you are more suitable to throw sonar buoys out of the vomit comet and heat up ready meals.
I'm living proof that the aptitude test alone does not mean that you are suitable for a role.
I'll await the barrage of abuse (or should I call it opinion?).
As far as I could see, each of the WSOp disciplines required different aptitude requirements and as such can be better assessed after practical application in the working environment.
I agree with the way it is now, although I can also understand the frustrations of people joining up to hang out the back end of a Chinook and then being told, sorry you are more suitable to throw sonar buoys out of the vomit comet and heat up ready meals.
I'm living proof that the aptitude test alone does not mean that you are suitable for a role.
I'll await the barrage of abuse (or should I call it opinion?).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason why the Generic course was developed was to recruit AEOps. Before this course was born the MOD were advertising heavily in Scotland to try and attract people because that is where they would probably end up. Why not have a system where you could apply to be A WSOp CMM or WSOP EW and after a relatively short Airman Arcrew initial training course where SNCO development and operational skills are taught. Then they could move straight to their respective aircraft types and be given the required training.
Why do WSOp CMM and Linguists need a 20 hour dominie package?
Why do WSOp CMM and Linguists need a 20 hour dominie package?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland
It's a 'jack of all' concept which appears to run counter to a growing need for increased specialization. Streaming has always been part of the NCA selection process, it's a question of how and when that streaming is done.
At a time when we are 'streaming' pilots earlier and earlier, we appear to be doing the very opposite with the NCA element. Why? - to try and improve the recruitment and retention of the AEop cadre. - plain and simple. (if it's not, then why has it changed?)
Potentially flawed, because it is unlikely to attract more AEops who want to be AEops, and will positivley discourage those who want to be ALMs, thereby exacerbating the problem. Lets not even mention the resurrection of the Eng!!
The potential for diversity may indeed be an attraction for some, but the inevitable lottery will be too big a gamble for most, especially when that lottery has so many variables and takes place so long after signing on the dotted line. Current allocation figures quoted on this thread do appear encouraging, but it's early days, only time will tell if that trend continues.
As an Eng, I have absolutely no experience of the current end product nor any knowledge of the structure and content of the course, so I would not presume to question those charged with its design or implimentation, they have my respect - and simpathy. I do however have experience of dealing with those who ended up as an Eng by default - not encouraging.
As a distant bystander, I suspect this may well become another 'lessons learnt' fiasco in a few years time.
I am now, apparently, a Weapon Systems Operator!!
- "Oh really Mr Oilcan, and what weapons do you operate?"
- "fuel cocks, and I'm f*ckin' deadly!"
It's a 'jack of all' concept which appears to run counter to a growing need for increased specialization. Streaming has always been part of the NCA selection process, it's a question of how and when that streaming is done.
At a time when we are 'streaming' pilots earlier and earlier, we appear to be doing the very opposite with the NCA element. Why? - to try and improve the recruitment and retention of the AEop cadre. - plain and simple. (if it's not, then why has it changed?)
Potentially flawed, because it is unlikely to attract more AEops who want to be AEops, and will positivley discourage those who want to be ALMs, thereby exacerbating the problem. Lets not even mention the resurrection of the Eng!!
The potential for diversity may indeed be an attraction for some, but the inevitable lottery will be too big a gamble for most, especially when that lottery has so many variables and takes place so long after signing on the dotted line. Current allocation figures quoted on this thread do appear encouraging, but it's early days, only time will tell if that trend continues.
As an Eng, I have absolutely no experience of the current end product nor any knowledge of the structure and content of the course, so I would not presume to question those charged with its design or implimentation, they have my respect - and simpathy. I do however have experience of dealing with those who ended up as an Eng by default - not encouraging.
As a distant bystander, I suspect this may well become another 'lessons learnt' fiasco in a few years time.
I am now, apparently, a Weapon Systems Operator!!
- "Oh really Mr Oilcan, and what weapons do you operate?"
- "fuel cocks, and I'm f*ckin' deadly!"
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 52
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which "AEOp crap" should be left out?
Would that be the airmanship crap, the SNCO development crap, the flying crap???
Would that be the airmanship crap, the SNCO development crap, the flying crap???
Read the above quote from akula. This is exactly what the course is intended to do - particularly the 20 hr Dominie package. I'm guessing from your posts that you may be a linguist, which is your specialisation within the NCA cadre. As such you are AIRCREW and therefore, like all other aircrew in all specialisations, you need to undergo 'FLYING TRAINING'!! Are you really suggesting that the Linguists should have a totally separate flying training regime (that would increase training costs by a very large sum of money the RAF does not have), where you can be assessed solely on your language skills and not on your awareness, capacity, SNCO qualities and other aviation skills that require you to achieve whilst under pressure?? I am sure that on your aircraft type, you are expected to be as professional and competent in all aspects of aviating as all your other brethren aircrew are in their specialisations. If you are indeed a linguist, I am absolutely astounded that you feel that you can bypass all this so you can sit on your aircraft and 'just' be a linguist.
M7
samauri,
The short answer is that they don't. However, a flying package is an integral part of any course of initial aircrew training.
There are many benefits of a flying package(demonstration of skills taught, capacity, airmanship and SA to name but a few) and the final product is far superior to those who did not have the opportunity to undertake an applied phase. Proof of this comes directly from the next units in the training system(OCU's,DHFTS), who comment that the current students are more capable that their predecessors. Further proof comes from students who feel better prepared for the rigours of conversion training.
On a lighter note how did you get on with your Dominie package?
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Why do WSOp CMM and Linguists need a 20 hour dominie package?
There are many benefits of a flying package(demonstration of skills taught, capacity, airmanship and SA to name but a few) and the final product is far superior to those who did not have the opportunity to undertake an applied phase. Proof of this comes directly from the next units in the training system(OCU's,DHFTS), who comment that the current students are more capable that their predecessors. Further proof comes from students who feel better prepared for the rigours of conversion training.
On a lighter note how did you get on with your Dominie package?
ALWAYS assume NEVER check
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SH-UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New generic WSOP trgn.
Having been through the new generic WSOp system, I could agree with a lot of people on this issue but not with others. When we went through 55, wanting to 'hang off the back of a chinook', we knew that we could be sent to rods and our course motto was even going to be 'we knew the risks.' Around 85-90% of us got what we wanted and the rotary wannabees who got rods yes were very disappointed but now have thrown themselves into it and are doing well.
Before I take some fire though, I agree this is easy for me to say having got my choice of streaming.
I would also strongly agree with keeping your nose clean and not pissing instructors off whilst on 55 but also A sqn. This could inadvertently lead to the start of your demise !!!
Oh and to add my comment to the strand above, I enjoyed the dominie package. Good introduction to as you say SA, airmanship, CRM!, ATC Comms etc etc.
Before I take some fire though, I agree this is easy for me to say having got my choice of streaming.
I would also strongly agree with keeping your nose clean and not pissing instructors off whilst on 55 but also A sqn. This could inadvertently lead to the start of your demise !!!
Oh and to add my comment to the strand above, I enjoyed the dominie package. Good introduction to as you say SA, airmanship, CRM!, ATC Comms etc etc.