Air Engineer Role.
 

Evening all ,

Please excuse me for my ignorance, How come there is no longer a Air Engineer role on the RAF careers website?

Have they been phased out now?

Information will be much appreciated.:ok:

Thank you

Nathan

Oh right , Shame that.

Thanks for the Info.:ok:

AIDU, are you feeling OK? :rolleyes:

Own up, who nicked AIDUs log in?

You're not suggesting that we are going to run out of Air Engineers are you? At least there are no plans to extended the VC 10 or Tristar............................
Anyone got the old Air Eng school lesson plans?

A suitably old and bold Eng did in fact save much of the course (or should that be coarse) paperwork, and recent discussion on producing WSops to fill Air Eng positions found that there was sufficient to provide a pretty basic package to enable this if required. Whilst the idea has been shelved for the time being, it remains a possibility for the future to produce the very limited number required for legacy platforms. I remain a little confused (ok, no bloody idea) as to the success of the WSop trade/posting flexibility idea. ME Fleet draw down gives PMA little chance to move people around, and let's not start PMA bashing as they can only go on the numbers and plans passed on by their lordships, nuff said on that. Yes, one or 2 guys have changed brevet (yeh, I know, but you know what I mean), but there seems to be a moratorium on it now. Have the other fleets seen the WSop thing work, or are people stuck in their roles there as well? Have we managed to scare off the ex-rankers by refusing to give them their choice of role as NCA, or are they still applying? Answers on a postcard please, to 'Confused of Chippenham.........'

Air Eng Lessons!!!
 

I knew an air eng who said he may have some lesson plans of the cranditz course. They wouldnt have made sense to me (move heavy boxes and make sure that they're sort of tied in). I also know the youngest (currently) air eng - and yes he will reach 55 way before the awacs is due out of service. None of the AC planned exit dates slip to the right ever do they....! :oh:
I'm sure that the 'system' will fudge the issue and come up with a way around this - techie to air eng via a double ocu anyone (and if they're good enough to hack it - good luck to them)
To all those in the sand pit - Keep Safe
(14 Greens - I hope my chariot is ok for next week):O

M2MOB

Of course another (temporary) option to fill gaps between the last Air Eng retiring and the last aircraft requiring an Air Eng retiring is to place pilots in the role.

I know, I know, people will kick and scream, but the reality is that pilots are capable of the job. Im not talking about training pilots specifically for the role, just using them as a stop gap.

It worked well for the airlines for many years, with pilots often starting out their career in the third seat before upgrading to the right hand seat.

Seem to remember training an experienced pilot to sit in the middle seat at Lyneham about the same time we were trying to get GE's and Aussie Caribou loadies to do it. Don't remember him lasting very long.
Hope the old and bold have a good price in mind........

Juilet, where do you think we would find these extra pilots? The tri-motor is short of the 2 wing master race at the moment and not many pilots are staying past age 38.
(14 greens is probably crying into his 4x, he's gone to Aus to watch the rugby league world cup!)

Think you'll find that with the introduction of these new-fangled imprests, there is now no kitty - hence no need for the engineer. It was never about flying the plane!!

:}

Throttle pusher,

The fact is the remaining Air Eng lot are getting old and new ones are not being trained.

As I see it there are a few options.

Extend the current Air Engs', assuming they want to.
Train new Air Engs', but what will they do after the retirement of the aircraft? Train techies for the role, but again what is their role after the job goes?
Convert Loadies/GEs/WSOP?
Convert pilots?

In terms of training risk and stress the best option is probably to extend the current crop, assuming they can/will. Failing this it would be to put current pilots into the seat. All the other options, and there will be different options to those I have come up with, incur more of a training burden and risk. They also present a problem in the future in terms of what to do with trained Air Engs'. In the long term the conversion of a Loady to Air Eng and then a reconversion back to Loady (they are going to have to do some sort of OCU) just puts more stress on the training system.

Pilots are in short supply, no doubt about that, but so are many other trades. In some cases though the shortages are on aircraft that have no need for an Air Eng. Some aircraft that do require an Air Eng have potentially some spare pilots due to the ability to provide only a limited number of that type. This is not always the case, but the reality is that some of our types are just not as serviceable as others, and yet have the same or similar manning.

As I said originally, putting pilots in the third seat is not ideal, but in terms of a short term option that can be managed internally by the squadrons I think it is worth looking at.

Fill the empty Eng seats with civil serpents, especially the bean counting variety, maybe then and only then will the forces get more funding for the shortfalls they have.

Civil Licenced Aircraft Engineer to Flight Eng is a couple of weeks course......

Does the VC 10 Still carry a Navigator in the Cockpit to counter ballast the Air Loadmaster down the back? :}

certainly crying in to my beer, england have been rubbish!!!
Watched a good Irish win tho
did bump in to a nice chap in RAAF uniform gave me a good contact number in Canberra for lateral recruitment info tho!!!!

As for the old and knackered going on to the Tri Motor think the next 2 boys coming thro the course will not be too happy with that comment, am sure pretty boy especially!!

Its mine. All mine !!
 

Im not old, and I'm certainly not bold. but 4 years ago or so I was told to "get rid" of all training notes and software.. I obeyed.. "I got rid" to my pc, and it remains stored on disc.

I've got a piece of paper( legally) that now says that I own these documents..and there was no objection from the Crown.

It wont take a rocket scientist to reproduce a lot of it. but it will take many thousands of man hours, and who can afford that these days.? Its interesting stuff if nothing else, but the short-sightedness of PMA astounds me.

Hi goneeast
 

I may know you - did you perhaps/maybe once mention to a driver airframe that you didn't need an aircrew knife - coz you could ring his neck with your bare hands?:O If it is you - long time no see and hope things are going well for you.
m2mob

Thats me!!

I was quite annoyed that he'd asked me where my knife was, I wasnt in Akrotiri and therefore didn't need to open any charlie bottles.

To my original post, I didnt mean that I own the material, just the discs it is stored on. I dont think you can own the Rolls-Royce Dart Fuel system. The material could be built again (as I said , many man - hours). Theres 24 weeks of lessons /exams there.
Just a shame noone officially thought it worth storing for future use, the attitude was "get rid of". There was years of effort in the lesson packs and Dominie school material. (Didnt keep AEPT stuff, as I didnt forsee anyone bussing students to Newark Air museum for a sortie).

The idea of training A.N Other trade popped up few year ago, when I was still in. The CAA would probably have an interest, as they did back then, as the guys need a formal course of some type. They are not terribly interested in WSop as they dont operate the aircraft as such (no offence, but its way authorities see it I think). Also, I have seen/taught the generic groundschool, and Air Eng standards it is not!! So there may be some work for someone in the future.

Excuse the ignorance of a non aircrew/techie interloper, but how difficult would it be to convert a GE to a temp AE?

Air Eng training
 

It's not as if this has come as a surprise to the RAF (well, maybe it has) but their airships were told on many occasions that Engineer training should not have been curtailed when it was.

All the course material is available (I put aside the AEPT stuff) but the main problem is implementing a course. The AEPT is now no more than a large amount of widely dispersed pieces, and the pool of experienced instructors is also widely dispersed.

To run the course the RAF would need to withdraw Eng's from the front line to be instructors which will only exacerbate the current manning problem. However, for a suitable fee (!), I'm sure I could get sufficient, instructor qualified, retired Engineers together to run a suitable course! It's all part of my retirement plan!

Sadly, I doubt the bean counters would put forward sufficient cash for my pet project so I suspect I may have to graft elsewhere for a little longer.

I'll walk down to your office tomorrow klubman. :ok:

A few conditions though.. make the training base somewhere nice (that excludes Scotland and The Far East of England).. Errr Doncaster International? And no Aircrew Knives allowed!

goneeast
 

Sounds like deal, mate!

I have been informed that there is no shortage of us....................

.....withering on the vine....

So all that money (rate ones) and time that they/I spent getting the AEPT together in one piece has now been wasted as its now spread around places......
They will never learn the lesson will they. Glad that someone had the foresight to keep at least most of the stuff on a disc......Maybe they could find an Argosy to play with and really step back in time (dump seal spill 19500 485 or some thing like that).
Best of luck to those out there trying to pick up the pieces of the shambles that could be comimg your way. At least there are very few flying jobs outside that will entice anyone away and in this current economic climate there will not be that many other jobs for people to go too so the problem will still manage to stay hidden. Until there are better jobs available outside then watch the early leavers go.

you heard it here first...
 

Don't worry, there will be 2 Sqns of Air Engs becoming available from a secret Lincs airbase after PR09 is announced.

Hey ADIRU (?)...I'd like to correct your initial statement that goes "..the C130J and C17 that do not need an Air Eng (read Flight Engineer).." to something along the lines of "the C130J and C17 that do need a Flight Engineer, but are not configured for one.."

Also...Let me tell all that will listen that it takes substantially more than "a couple of weeks" (as in the case someone said to Xtrain a GE), or anything short of 5 or 6 months to Xtrain a qualified-on-type pilot to be anything resembling a competent Flight Engineer.

In the RAAF, they have an FE course for qualified GEs to the middle seat in their P3Cs that takes 6 months, and that is an extremely intensive course, with a pass rate of around 80%.
They turn out a real quality product that can hold their own anywhere in the world.
It's not good enough to be just able to 'flick a few switches', he/she must have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works, and how to get the best out of it, when it matters.

All this talk is seriously undermining the job of the professional Flight Engineer!

FD

"Evening all ,

Please excuse me for my ignorance, How come there is no longer a Air Engineer role on the RAF careers website?"

Simple. They are being replaced by FADEC, and and a cross bleed valve. BBrrwwwahahahahaha:}

FD,

I have seen some rather silly things posted on here but......

"to something along the lines of "the C130J and C17 that do need a Flight Engineer, but are not configured for one.."

Obviously both LM and Boeing got this one totally wrong so go on, give us the benefit of your vast wealth of of C17 and J model Op's and tell us exactly what said AE is actually going to do on either aircraft....................you couldn't write some of this sh1te :rolleyes:

Flight Detent, I'm just a humble fast jet spanner-monkey so please excuse my ignorance but....

"Also...Let me tell all that will listen that it takes substantially more than "a couple of weeks" (as in the case someone said to Xtrain a GE)...to be anything resembling a competent Flight Engineer."

In the case of a ground engineer, why's that then?

"In the RAAF, they have an FE course for qualified GEs to the middle seat in their P3Cs that takes 6 months..."

Why does it take half a year? I read this as being in addition to the type-specific aircraft maintenance engineering training he/she has already had - six months seems an awfully long time.

"...It's not good enough to be just able to 'flick a few switches', he/she must have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works, and how to get the best out of it, when it matters.

All this talk is seriously undermining the job of the professional Flight Engineer!"

No, I would not suggest that it undermines anybody's professionalism. However, are you suggesting that a ground engineer who spends, I am led to believe, at least six months learning how the aeroplane works, plus God knows how many years prior to this gaining general aircraft maintenance experience on quite possibly a range of types might not be up to the task of doing it in the air, or perhaps does not "have a really sound understanding of how the airplane works"?

I, too, really am intrigued to know what is is that an air engineer does that a suitably qualified ground engineer cannot do.

TrickyTree
 

TrickyTree, it's relatively simple.

In addition to all you've mentioned the FE needs Airmanship.

OK?

Ah! Of course! Airmanship :p

Which of course your average GE has none of......................:rolleyes:

Indeed. So my question(s) still stand.

And the RAF Air Eng Training course was almost 18 months from start to fully turned out able, to do it on their own type of dude!! But that's all history now.
:ok:

But do what on their own.................................:confused:

Tricky Tree

The Ge’s job and that of the Air Engineer require a different mindset.
It is one thing diagnosing and rectifying faults on the pan with the steps in. It is quite another handling emergencies, or appreciating the repercussions of perhaps several unconnected faults, when at 35000ft three hours flying time from the nearest suitable airport.

It would take longer than a couple of weeks as the conversion to type alone would be in the region of 20 sim’s plus flying training. Add on all the essential extras such as met, navigation CRM and other aviation related subjects and it’s easy to see where a figure of six months come from.

I have worked with many GE’s who I thought would have made excellent Air Eng’s although I myself would make a lousy GE. (could never sleep on an aircraft) It would be possible to train suitable GE’s, we used to get a lot of our air eng’s from the ground trades anyway, but it would not be a quick crossover.

Remember. Being an Air engineer is like driving a Wells Fargo Stagecoach. You spend most of your working day sat behind two horses ar@e! :;)

Ok, let's all admit that most aircrew jobs aren't that difficult (please note the 'most'). And what were half our NCA before they went aircrew? (Pre WSop, of course). Yep, serving personnel. And what makes good aircrew? Personally, I'd suggest a basic level of aptitude, with a bucket load of experience thrown in on top. Of course we can train just about anybody to fill a FE position, same as we can take most recruits and turn them into NCA. There is a different perception/perspective towards aircrew systems operation and techie operation, but that's surely due to the background of their training and work experience, and it's hardly insurmountable. And is it even a major problem on the larger ME aircraft, where there is less flexibility in operation and systems management (drills are FRC driven, and you can't go around pulling CBs as they impact on multiple systems - remember the airbus with a broken back on its ground runs?). With reference to the old airline manning, with a new pilot operating the 2nd officers position, that worked fine, and I bet they never tried to engender a FE's perspective. So can we train techs to fill FE positions in the future? Of course we blooming well can. Will they be as good as an experienced FE. Nope. Will they be as good as a newly qual'd FE? Probably not far off. Will they gain airmanship? Course they will, just like all new aircrew do.

Mind you, one thought. Has anybody even wondered if the techs will want to fill in for a few years?

The Flight Engineer not only requires an understanding of aircraft systems but requires an understanding of met, performance, navigation and a myriad of other subjects which, when added together can be classed as airmanship. He has to be able to OPERATE the aircraft, learning a set of SOP's, as well as being able to carry out a variety of drills of varying importance when things go wrong. To make sure he can carry out these drills he has to be able to carry out multiple emergency drills in a serious of ever more demanding sims. It is this that takes time. He also has to keep an eye on ever younger and more enthusiastic pilots, which are let's face it the only thing on the aircraft likely to kill you. I have both fixed aircraft and flown aircraft and the differences are in outlook on what is and isn't acceptable would surprise you. Not one of us believe that we are better than GE's and not one of us believe that some GE's couldn't do the Flight Eng job but I can guarantee that not all GE's could and that those that could would require the full 6 months, if not longer.

Isaneng,

Absolutely spot on :ok:......... unlike a few of your rather precious brethren. Outstanding analogy throttle pusher, another CRM classic :rolleyes: