Stop Moaning!!
 

Get a grip people - I thought Ops Officer bashing was ancient history.

There are some excellent Ops Officers out there who make a major contribution to the running of the RAF. Yes, the Branch suffered on creation primarily due to some crazy recruitment procedures i.e. you have to go ATC first and only if you fail can you go with your first Branch choice. And Desk Officers haven't helped when they post people with little, or no experience, into challenging roles.

Good luck AlphaWhiskyRomeo and hope your eye sight meets the required criteria. Don't let the negativity here put you off.

As for making tea / coffee , I thought that was the holding officers job.

Thanks for the related replies to my original post.

Although I've not yet taken the exact test that the RAF have asked me to, I've previously taken part in tests and research for university and CAA purposes. The results identified me as a dichromat - meaning I have moderate to severe colour blindness of the "Red-Green" variety.

Due to what's been mentioned above, I'm going to work on the fact that the CP2 standard still stands and I will have to consider another career.

I refer you to your previous post.......

Run for cover...
 

Flight Ops can't be that hard. The TA will be doing it soon...

:}

So no change to the calibre of Flt OpsO's then...... all wannabe's! :}

Round objects

Anybody requiring driving on an airfield must be CP3 minimum (requires a "lantern test" at the Med Centre) or CP2 SAFE.

The reasons being, the traffic lights on the airfield are low level lights (red & green side-by-side), and the fact that ATC or Runway Caravan can transmit 1 light at you.
If you can't tell red/green/white apart, you would be a danger on the airfield as you could enter an active runway!!

Within the last 2 weeks, I have personally refused an airfield user permit F600A to a contractor who was as colour-blind as a bat (at his own admission and confirmed by an Ishihara Test (coloured numbers and dots and lines))

All TG9 are required to be CP2 SAFE and I believe all Flt Ops Branch should also be CP2 as they have a remit to be Incident Commander/SLOps/Wg Cdr Ops as part of their career progression.

AIDU

I think the point Uncle Nelli was making was that the inabillity to differentiate between red/green could have and has had serious consequences. Just because someone thank goodness saw fit to put you out to grass at AIDU and you have forgotten the implications of someone who misidentifies signals, don't diss the man breaking the link in the chain. Now, run along and steal someone elses oxygen, boy.

I thought I might add my opinion on the related debate on the usefulness of OpsOs.

It's always amusing when the same tired old "all OpsOs are rubbish" comments are trotted out. Yes I know this is an internet rumour site and therefore uninformed comment and jumping on the bandwagon are are often integral to the discussion but the standard "my mate was once on a sqn which had a first tourist Plt Off OpsO straight out of Shawbury who was sh*t" really isn't much of a story is it?

The Flt Ops specialisation is like every other; some within it are good, some are bad and the remainder sit somewhere in the middle. It has suffered (and continues to do so to a lesser extent) as a consequence of a recruiting policy which on occasion looked like a request to send the RAF's sick, lame and lazy into the specialisation. The posting policy was equally questionable at times, replacing experienced GD personnel in keys posts with shiny first tourist DE OpsOs was always going to lead to failure on occasion - but whence lies the blame?

All the while OpsOs are cheaper to employ than Fg Branch personnel they will remain; equally, as long the specialisation lacks a staff structure, strategic plan and in particular robust post-graduate-training (and STANEVAL procedures) it will suffer from the inability to remove those who are failing to perform.

If your OpsO isn't up to scratch have you helped in their education and training or simply logged onto an internet forum and had a moan? If you see a knowledge or skills gap in an individual (and this doesn't just apply to your OpsOs) that you are able to address then take the time to do so, don't just walk away moaning about it. Yes you're busy and yes it's probably not directly in your TORs but as professionals don't we all have a duty to improve the knowledge and skills of those around us?

Enough of my soapbox, thoughts on the above?

MB

You mean homework?

Homework, on the job training, distance learning, ground school (lite) or a combination of them all. Whatever is necessary in order to provide structured Phase 3 training. And lessons in not giving po-faced responses on PPRUNE!

MB, I admit my initial experience was with the initial introduction. We had two Admin branch transferees and two ex-SNCO. One SNCO quickly made sqn ldr.

The Admin branch officers exhibited little keeness to learn the trade. A horsey, knitting circle was the prefered option rather than head in the books of which there were many.

One upbraided her 1st RO that he had not given her any jobs to get her teeth into. His response was that much work was available and she could have used her initiative and sought work herself.

The ex-SNCO re-wrote the crash-disaster plan from first principles as a self-generated work.

More recently I asked a question that had been common knowledge 10 years ago and wanted confirmation that the system was still in use. None of the Ops Os had every heard of it. The SOpsO, to give her her due, researched the question and found the answer. The procedure still exisited but it was no longer done on station. That is where breadth of experience comes in.

I agree with the Staneval type approach. Does the OpsO have the spatial awareness of nearby airfields? Nearby could be 2000 miles or more away for the ST and AT force. What is their met awareness? Can theyt anticipate conditions leading to early deterioration of visibility before the forecaster calls them? And so on.