|
Excuse my ignorance
I apologise for using a thread, but I'm obviously suffering a senior moment when I see the bottom photograph on this story;
Give this World War II hero a proper send-off: Call for mourners to attend funeral of serviceman who died alone aged 94 | Mail Online To the left of centre, as viewed, there is a chap with a rank badge, which looks like that of a Senior Aircraftsman (SAC) but enclosed within a ring, ala, the "apprentice wheel. I wonder if anyone can tell me what it all signifies, I've been a civilian since 1997 and obviously the world has moved on. I do hope the Army guy gets a good response. If for no other reason than my Grandfather was a dispatch rider with the Green Howard's at the same time as him. I'm certainly trying to make some space in my schedule. Mr Percival was definitely given a good send off. Smudge :hmm: |
|
A bit more here: Senior aircraftman technician - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Thanks for that BN,
I assume then that the rank of Jnr Tech is now "phased out" ? It's interesting to see the evolution of your former service, it's also curious why the Jnr Tech rank is considered inappropriate and needing redefinition. I only ask as I managed to become a Jnr tech on leaving Halton many moons ago. Smudge :ok: |
It's so they can waste money, it's not just badges, everything, all paperwork that has the rank added, QR's etc all have to be amended, and then when the last JT retires / gets promoted you have to go through it all again to remove the rank from the above... Total waste of money for what gain? None I can see.
|
Like you Nutloose, I'm confused as to why they should want to do this. The rank of Junior Technician is well established in the RAF. I wonder if the next move will be the encirclement of Sergeants stripes to denote Technical Sergeant and the expunging of Chief Technician. I suppose it's not for an old crusty ex serviceman like me to question the "modern thinking". I just can't see any logic in the new titles.
Smudge :ok: |
I think you will find this was critical as back in the good old days, I.E. before us mech tech wankers ruined it, a Jt was THE highest an average bloke but excellent aircraft technician could get to.
as such the JT regarded himself/herself (and quite rightly too) as a cut above the rest. A JT was a hard eanred badge of skill and ability, even when I went thru it made a big difference having that fourth blade on the prop. Yes us TG1 were intolerant of external niff naff imposed diciplinary bu****it, wore out hair a bit longer and were a bit scruffier - have the discips do 4 pm till breakfast shifts inside rb199 exhausts doing all nighter boroscopes..... We had high standards and we tried to live up to them, it was a work hard play harder deal with a lot of responsibility, as the years went on this was eroded by the trade sponsors for all the tail talking up their jobs as we were left to do what we did - generate aircraft for the flypro Time moved on and the PTB decided they could stream out the JT and just give the sac a little ring to denote a technical specialisation. even if they pay the same - it is a lesser thing. but then they could not put a value on the mere wording of a rank could they...... oh i'm glad to not be in any more, i can whinge about it on prune like an old fart. FWIW i do more engineering with less support now than i ever did, the importance is the same and i have no-one to directly answer to apart from the operations director. its not as satisfying as aircraft work but more challenging, and i suppose i ought to say thanks to Everyone who ever tried to teach me things, specially Billy the Fish, Cpl Mat the Apo scumbag and Neil the scary ex flem who showed me the line I had crossed as a gobby SAC and then got me v drunk after. Cheers all |
Perhaps the rank of SAC(T) was created to reinforce to them that they are not NCOs, but LCpls are, now that the RAF Regt has LCpls.
|
and Korea
|
JT and CT didn't (and still don't) fit nicely into NATO Rank structures.
It was far easier to get rid of JTs and replace them with much cheaper SAC(T)s. JTs remaining in the RAF were effectively dumped from promotion boards as they didn't fit onto SAC(T) parameters (I believe JTs knew too much about their trade!) CTs are also under fire and have been removed from all but aircraft trades. No more MT, GEF or GRF(CIS Eng) CTs. Seemingly, the RAF can't figure out how to remove CTs from their lists.....should they promote them all to Flt Sgts? (thereby effectively demoting current Flt Sgts) or make them all redundant (too costly nowadays) or should they promote Sgts to cover those gaps that CTs currently fill? (Making some new form of "Senior Sgt"?) Existing CTs are given the same status (in NATO) as Flt Sgts - and the same pension rights too. |
I passed out from Locking as a Junior Technician in 1956. In those days a J/T had one chevron upside down, a Cpl Tech had two chevrons upside down, Senior Tech had three chevrons upside down, and so on to the Master Technician who wore the WO badge. They were not in the command branch and were considered the top technical people in their respective trades.
Most Master Technicians that I knew could run rings around some engineers, although I've been out of the RAF for over 30 years and am way out of date. Bob C |
Amazing!
All the comments on the link are about "Give this World War II hero a proper send-off: Call for mourners to attend funeral of serviceman who died alone aged 94." All comments with us to the badge on one of the volunteers. I'll go with the Newspaper. JohnB |
John
All comments with us to the badge on one of the volunteers. Back on thread.....didn't JTs get cpl stripes on time promotion and, as promotion to sgt slowed down with the various reductions in force size, didn't it skew the rank structure and mean many cpls were doing a JTs job albeit on a cpls pay but without any of the management/leadership responsibilities. |
Probably - but previously it had been the other way round...back in the 70's when the 'golden bowler' schemes were happening - my unit was short of corporals because of the 'knock on' promotions and I as a relatively inexperienced J/T was given an 'oversigning chit' to countersign maintenance documents - a few years later I would have been made an acting cpl to fill the slot !
At the same time we lost two top class trade managers through the 2 schemes -their subsequent replacements were nowhere near the same calibre (on that particular unit). In those days it was 3 years j/t to cpl and then 4 or 5 years (?) to sgt for riggers and sooties. |
The original exam board for promotion in the technician rank was quite rigorous, consisting of a practical board covering all aspects of one's trade plus a multi-choice paper. Pass mark was 60%. One also had to pass an exam on a specialist subject, of one's choice, ie Canberra fuel system, hydraulics or electrical generating system. I think the pass mark was 80%
So a chief/tech would have three specialist subjects under his belt It took two attempts for me to pass the cpl/tech exam and one attempt at senior tech although that rank became redundant in '64 and one wore sergeant's stripes. Along with the rank re-structure of '64 came a complete, in my opinion, dumbing down of the examination standards. The practical boards were discontinued and all that was required was a pass mark on the multi-choice paper. By the early '70's the technical trades were awash with chief/techs and many, including myself were surplus to requirements, hence a generous redundancy package was accepted and I became a pensioner at 37! |
Cornish, us mech tech tossers were scum and effectively bypassed the years of angst and waiting for the golden ticket fitters course :} But to me that didn't take any of the shine off the rank. It was a great rank to have and one that earned quiet respect. I seem to remember the abolition of JT and CT was called for in the Betts report, although I can't find any reference to it.
My slightly biased view is that the RAF made a complete arse of the transition. The whole SAC prop with a circle is just crap and another way of identifying theoretical technical competence. What the RAF should have really done is change JT to lance corporal and up skill the rank instead of diluting it. Of course at the time there is no way the self serving command blunties would have stood for this - just look at the erosion of technical pay against other trades (pay 2000) for further evidence of that self interest. The rocks have done well to introduce the rank of L Cpl and I recognise that JT or SAC T is 'allegedly' subordinate to that. My question to the rocks whenever they got all sensitive about the JT rank was 'so what rank did you get promoted to after SAC?' And that usually levelled the field a touch. The demise of the JT rank and the loss of potential limited supervisory and additional tasks that could have gone with a technical LCpl rank is such a shame. I saw a JT on the gate a few weeks ago, they can't be far off single figures now. H |
Creeping a little - SAC/JT
JT was the best rank in the RAF unless you were a "lifer"
Having done the fitters course, you were too valuable and so escaped guard duty, funeral parties, and most other tasks but you were definitely not qualified to do Orderly Corporal and other equally odious chores. However on the way up the greasy pole, the SAC got to do most of the chores unless he was "a boy entrant" with at least 12 years as an SAC then he did'nt give a hoot about anything. Has the DE fitters course gone now then with the SAC wannabees? Imagegear |
Rigga said:
Seemingly, the RAF can't figure out how to remove CTs from their lists.....should they promote them all to Flt Sgts? (thereby effectively demoting current Flt Sgts) When the 'New' trade structure came out in 1951, technicians with the ranks of Cpl Tech, Senior Tech and Chief Tech were paid at a higher rate than Cpl, Sgt and Flt. Sgt. So they were each considered to be a promotion. The new rank of J/T was also announced To achieve these technical ranks, a Trade Test had to be passed at each level, and there was an additional 'time in rank' qualification. The time was 5 years between each rank, or 10 years from J/T to Senior Tech and 15 Years from J/T to Chief/Tech etc. The promotion was not automatic on time served, the Trade Test had to be passed. Zig-zaging between the Command and Technical ladders were allowed and encouraged. So J/T to Cpl to Cpl/Tech to Sgt to Senior Tech etc was quite normal. For existing people, time was credited from becoming an 'Advanced Tradesman'. This was the pre-1951 LAC trade test in the Aircraft Trades. It was also promulgated that these new Technical NCO's would NOT be liable for such duties as Ord/Cpl and Ord/Sgt. This didn't last long, but I cannot remember when the Technical Ranks started doing Station Duties again. As a result many exiting Cpl's, Sgt's and Flight Sgt's saw the new technical ranks as a promotion with more pay and a way of getting out of Station Duties. This resulted in many existing Cpl's, Sgt's and Flt Sgt's passing the trade test and being promotd to Technical NCO's. Some time later, to encourage people to 'sign on' the 'time qualifications' were reduced to 3, 7 and 10* years for airmen on an engagement of 12 years or more. Later still this was changed again to include airmen on an engagement of 9 years or more. Me, being an ex Boy Entrant, I was on a 10 year engagement that started on my 18th birthday, and I did the 5 years between J/T and Cpl/Tech, then the rules changed. Two years of 2/6 a day, the difference between Cpl and Cpl/Tech. Real money in 1959! In 1964, the system was changed again. Cpl/Techs and Senior Techs were done away with and these people became Cpl's and Sgt's. But the rank of Chief Tech was retained and became a rank between Sgt and Flt. Sgt. Y'all can imagine how this went down with guys who had been Flt. Sgt's in 1951, put in the work to pass their trade test and now found themselves junior to guys who were promoted to Flt. Sgt many years after they had been! Me, I went from Cpl/Tech back to Cpl on the same pay as the lazy sod's that hadn't bothered or couldn't pass the trade test I'd passed. 10* I am not 100% sure on the 10 years. I am now a falible old fart:ok: |
I left No2 Radio School at Yatesbury after the year long Fitters Course, as a J/T & after a few years was promoted to Cpl. I took the Cpl/Tech exam & was promoted to Cpl/Tech I then passed the Senior Tech exam, but had to wait for promotion.
Like ian16th I had my Cpl/Tech rank & Trade Pay taken away from me, so I protested loudly about the removal of the Trade Pay, which I had earned. An external Organisation took up my case & my Cpl/Tech Trade Pay was reinstated even though I was wearing Cpl chevrons ! The Technician training that we received was second to none, when my 9 year engagement was up, I was told that they would promote me to Sgt if I signed on, but IBM had already offered me a job as a Mainframe Computer Engineer. I worked for IBM for 23 happy years & took early retirement at the age of 50. |
Herc-u-lease -
I completely agree, the RAF should have introduced a LCpl rank for its techs. Army techs are (by and large, but no longer "as of right") granted LCpl rank out of the factory. Cpl follows within a year or two. This is only for techs with long courses, e.g. REME and R SIGNALS techs. The RAF not doing so has repeated the old bollox where a Flt Sgt claims rank equivalence with a WO2 based upon what his next promotion will take him to. The one bit where the RAF bloke wins though is where he DOES get promoted, and a Flt Sgt will leapfrog a WO2 to to WO, which IS equivalent to an Army/RM/RN WO1. Thus he is immediately superior to the WO2. The same for SAC(T)s. They become CPLs, and immediately superior to LCpls. As usual, if the NCO/WO (officers too, for that matter) can't manage men without reference to banana-counting, then he probably shouldn't be in that rank in the first place. |
Shortly before I left the RAF, Halton Apps were coming out already wearing Cpl stripes, which really upset the "old sweats" who had earned theirs the hard way. Anyone got any thoughts on that ?
|
There were two types of apprentice you had the apprentice that was dual trade and did three years? Who passed out a JT and was promoted a Corporal after 1 year having been judged to have done the time in training, you also had the Supertech that did five years training and passed out as Cpl, they were a Engines Airframes Electrics Radio Radar? But it was a short run trade.
|
Both of those apprenticeship schemes ceased quite some time ago and most Supertechs have left, or are about to leave, the service. I know of two Supertech retirees still attached to the military but no longer in it.
DE courses also finished some years ago and now all RAF aircraft mechanic and technician courses are conducted at Cosford. I believe ALL techies are now started as Mechanics. - No Appo's, no Short Techy Courses. ...and all courses are now heavily modular - even type courses. |
Yep probably said through the years but dumbing down of the job, I was taught to repair parts and fault diagnose, these days it's plug and play, without knowing really what each item does. I am surprised how much simple knowledge they do not have these days when they come out.
|
Nut Loose,
Possibly true in later years, but, the Tech Apps retained the original Halton Apps entry number system when they were introduced and passed out as Cpls after 3 years. The Craft Apps started the 2xx entry numbers and did 2 years, leaving as a J/T. There were, for a short while, Mech Apps starting with a 3xx entry number who did 1 year and left as an S.A.C ( mech ). Thereafter, it was 3 yrs to Sgt and 4 to C/T for the tech.apps..or, for the craft.apps 3 years to Cpl and then as per the techs. All subject to passing exams ( the easy bit ) and then the wonderful assessment system the R.A.F had in place in those days, which ensured you were at the whim of the woefully incompetent Eng.O cadre. I only met two who were actually capable of being, and understanding, engineers and both of them left the R.A.F prematurely to get a decent role in the civilian world. The time promotion resulted in a serious promotion stagnation, due to the surplus, of engineers in the late 70's / early 80's, and a high PVR rate at one time. I have never forgotten the complete look of shock and inability to understand on the face of a Flt.Lt from Innsworth who briefed (if you could call it a brief, more a hectoring lecture) us at Bruggen as to why Cpl was the rank to be in the future....the cheers and clapping from the front rows, the old cooks, admin, MT trade groups were in stark contrast to the wall of ice and " far from acquiescent " vocal response from the rear.....all engineers. The poor dear had probably never met engineers in person before...but he did then. |
Originally Posted by smujsmith
(Post 8157558)
Like you Nutloose, I'm confused as to why they should want to do this. The rank of Junior Technician is well established in the RAF. I wonder if the next move will be the encirclement of Sergeants stripes to denote Technical Sergeant and the expunging of Chief Technician. I suppose it's not for an old crusty ex serviceman like me to question the "modern thinking". I just can't see any logic in the new titles.
Smudge :ok: |
Hence the circle around the props. Quite a movehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif |
OK, so being an ex Craft Apprentice, familiar with the apprentice wheel, is that what it's all now based on ? Fair do's if that's the case, and none of the qualified tradesmen suffer as a result. I would have happily been an AC2 Ground Engineer, purely for the experience, but the application form demanded a minimum rank of Sgt, and at least 12 months currency on type. Loads of response here that is worthy of note, and most seems to reflect that it was not done for the benefit of tradesmen who do their best. I apologise if I used the photograph from the sad funeral story to illustrate my question. I certainly meant no disrespect, and, was delighted that, as usual, fellow comrades did not let him down. I'm very proud that I achieved the requirements of the service to be promoted to both Junior Technician and Chief Technician in my time. If the ranks are to be removed it has to be to the detriment of aircraft tradesmen and the Royal Air Force, in my humble opinion.
Smudge :ok: |
So does this mean an SAC tech does not do further training as a JT would, hence they stay on establishment, what has replaced the annual assessment?
|
Noddy question - Is a Chief Tech superior to an RAF Sgt in a non-tech trade (e.g. MT)? By superior, I mean in the strict military sense, i.e. can Chf Tech X order (non-tech) Sgt Y to carry out a task?
Or are they equal in rank in the context of QRs? |
I believe (I'm no expert) that SAC(T) courses teach basic systems to deeper levels than Mech's. But I also believe that they only teach Black Box systems - Specialist get courses to know what's inside the box/component.
Cpls go on Modular Type Courses studying each system as a separate course. It is rare (again, so I believe) for a single person to do all aircraft systems. Fault Diagnosis Courses are a Cpls domain (again, I'm not sure if these are individual system based) I say this from personal I spoke to and experiences when employed on a military contract. I may of course be completely wrong but that's the way I understood what was said. R280: Yes, they can. |
Roadster,
Whilst I would accept that the ranks of Junior and Chief Technicians are anomalous for some trades. That reflects the need for a more "simplified" rank structure, more understandable for those employed within them. Notwithstanding that, it might have done the RAF some good if all ranks and trades were standardised and maintained throughout the years. I ask one question only, in December 72 I was posted to RAF Akrotiri. The posting was dependant on my attending, and passing a Vulcan Airframe Q course. The course lasted around 5 weeks, had an exam and failure would have stopped my posting, and affected my career. Did MT techs! Mechs, Drivers etc have such courses ? Or was a posting to Akrotiri simply that from an MT point of view ? It would be interesting to see where non aircraft trades were subject to such courses and what effect they could have on career progression. I'm sure there must be some examples. Smudge |
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 8159044)
So does this mean an SAC tech does not do further training as a JT would, hence they stay on establishment, what has replaced the annual assessment?
The SAC(T) is an ab initio technician - there is no need for FT. The training school release the SAC(T) having met what is referred to as the training performance standard (TPS); FT in effect having been delivered up front. Progression to operational performance standard (OPS) is achieved under Modern Apprenticeship framework - work place assessors act as verifiers to confirm candidate has met the standard. So once the SAC (T) arrives on the Sqn, he remains there until posted - no loosing the guy/girl for 13 months whilst bearing him/her on your establishment without a replacement. Once qualified i.e OPS he/she goes into the Cpl promotion board - annual assessments remain unchanged. Now, I've been out for a few years so some points of detail may have changed. |
So how does a SAC mech get promoted?
How long is an SAC techs training? We did a mechs course followed by a fitters course that was 12 months and included lots of fault diagnosis as a JT was expected to do that. Then type courses that were about 6 weeks in length. I take it SAC Techs do not do EGR's? As a lot of my work would have involved ground running for both my and other trade fault finding. Seems like an SAC Tech, and I mean no disrespect to them is a seriously dumbed down intermediate rank |
Smudge,
I don't get your complaint. Each trade has entirely different "trade specific" requirements and so they should. If you were employed solely within a GD branch similar to that on the commissioned side then perhaps you may have had a point but the RAF does not employ generalists in the non commissioned ranks they employ specialists designated and paid by trade specialisation. I think it is therefore entirely valid that your posting was dependant on completion of a Q course etc. The commissioned side are paid under the so called 'band of brother' arrangement so a Flt, Sqn Ldr, Wg Cdr pay is identical irrespective of branch (exceptions Medics etc) - specialist pay of course is separate. Sorry if I have misinterpreted you. Anyway I take it you passed and enjoyed your sunshine tour:ok: |
Shortly before I left the RAF, Halton Apps were coming out already wearing Cpl stripes, which really upset the "old sweats" who had earned theirs the hard way. Anyone got any thoughts on that ? |
Nutloose
I don't believe Mechs are recruited anymore - stand by to be corrected by those more current than me. Tom |
Thanks Tom, so if they pass out as SAC Tech, do they skip LAC? Added more to my last post.
|
This is how it works:
Aircraft Technician (Mechanical) Job description: Maintain aircraft and their mechanical systems, including engines Pay after one year: £17,485 Joining age: 16 – 29 Category: Airmen/airwomen Usual service: 9 years Open to: men or women Similar civilian jobs:
Qualifications you need: 3 GCSE/SCEs at Grade C/2 minimum or equivalent in English language, maths and an approved science/technology-based subject. This role requires a physics based science subject. Please check by reading this document (opens in a new window). Qualifications you can gain: NVQ Level 3 in aeronautical engineering; Advanced Apprenticeship in aeronautical engineering Nationality: Citizen of the UK or Republic of Ireland, or a Commonwealth citizen since birth Save The job Aircraft Technicians (Mechanical) are responsible for the complete range of mechanical components and structure of the aircraft including the engines, gearboxes, flying controls, landing gear, hydraulics, air conditioning, anti-icing and fuel systems. You could examine, test and repair engines and propulsion equipment on everything from fast jets to multi-engined aircraft and helicopters. Initially, you will be trained and serve as an Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic, where you will gain valuable experience of working around aircraft and be part of a team preparing aircraft for take-off, as well as checking them for damage and wear after they return from a flight. During this phase, you’ll be given the opportunity to assist with the replacement of both mechanical and avionic components, regardless of your future technician trade. Following a period of further training, you will then be a qualified Aircraft Technician (Mechanical) and able to carry out the full range of responsibilities of the job, including diagnosing and repairing more serious faults and carrying out complex maintenance tasks. Your future Career Prospects You’ll initially join the RAF for a period of nine years. After a year you’ll be eligible for promotion to Senior Aircraftman/woman if you pass a trade ability test. Further promotion to the rank of Corporal and beyond is by competitive selection once you have successfully completed the technician training course. There are two options for those who are not selected for, or fail, technician training: you could either transfer to another job in the RAF for which you have the necessary aptitude, if there is a vacancy available; or you could leave the RAF. Transferable skills The NVQs and Apprenticeships that you can earn are as valuable in the civilian world as they are in the RAF – which means that whenever you decide to leave the RAF, you’ll be well placed to find a job in engineering. Your training Recruit training Your career will start with a 10 week Basic Recruit Training Course (BRTC) at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire. The course is designed to help you adjust to a military environment. As well as fitness and military training, you’ll also learn about the RAF lifestyle. Specialist training The next step is a specialist training course at DCAE Cosford, near Wolverhampton, which lasts about five months. This course is designed to give you a basic understanding of your role, which includes aircraft handling and safety procedures. You’ll complete this course as an Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic (AMM) and then get your first posting, where you’ll remain for about two years to gain the necessary experience needed for the technician training course. You will also be enrolled on an Intermediate Apprenticeship during which you may achieve an NVQ Level 2, Technical Certificate Level 2 and functional skills level 2. Your first tour For your first tour, you’ll be posted to a flying station where you’ll handle, refuel and maintain aircraft. You’ll also check for damage and wear, and may be called on to make minor repairs. You could also work in hangars or workshops with experienced technicians, where you’ll help with more complex maintenance tasks. Ongoing development After your first tour as an AMM and, providing you achieve the required specialist standards, you’ll return to DCAE Cosford for a year-long technician training course. You’ll also be enrolled on an Advanced Apprenticeship in Aeronautical Engineering – the Key Skills element of which will be completed during training. On successful completion of this part of your specialist training you will be qualified as an Aircraft Technician (Mechanical). In addition, once you’ve demonstrated your ability as a technician, you may be eligible for an NVQ Level 3 in Aeronautical Engineering. The award of this NVQ also signifies the completion of your Advanced Apprenticeship. Is it any good? Its certainly different to the traditional training regime. I would say however, that the kids being brought in are on the whole no different to the wee maggot I was 30+ years ago (in other words, brilliant:ok:) |
smujsmith wrote:
…..It would be interesting to see where non aircraft trades were subject to such courses and what effect they could have on career progression….. In answer to your question, the answer was 'Yes' for us lowly stackers. For example, I had to do an 'X' course as a pre-requisite for a posting that I had. Failure would have meant a re-posting to a non-specialist role and negative comments on my F6442. Also had to do the 'F' course, failure of which would have resulted in the same, with the consequential impact that would have on one's career. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.