RAF aircraft mechanic training
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF aircraft mechanic training
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Practical time will be a bit longer. There's the big hammer to learn, followed by the effing big hammer.
S-D
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!!
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!!!!
They are then posted to units as AMM's (think flm)
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.
You may remember my tale of the "9-years on Tornado" tradesman who didn't recognise an Aileron when he saw one.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: scotland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gamecock
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!!
AMM's potential is wasted through bad publicity and under-utilisation
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!!
Thank you LMS,
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!
I suspect also proof that once upon a time, the RAF used to train engineers to a Rolls Royce standard.
NVQ = Not Very Qualified
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
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
Oddly enough, I am licenced now on all piston engine types... and work on them
I suspect also proof that once upon a time, the RAF used to train engineers to a Rolls Royce standard.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
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!
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!
Last edited by NutLoose; 19th Aug 2014 at 12:08.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
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.