Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

manning levels, the future.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Problem with the Army apprentice school was multi-faceted. Firstly you recruited child soldiers, most without leaving certs. Then you put them through a military school system, requiring all the staff that that command structure brings when better and more relevant training could have been provided in civvy street instructors, on block release. You treated the apprentices like dirt for the duration of their apprenticeships, marked out as lowest of the low with the promise of a technical appointment at the completion of training. Then On completion of training, you change T&C so that the apprentice who started as a Trainee ERA or EA arrives in Haulbowline fully qualified only to be told "No EA or ERA vacancies, you'll be an A/Mech instead, no tech pay. By the way, you are on duty in the Engine Control room tonight. Also, we need you to rig up lights for when we go at anchor for the local regatta. By the way, my house needs to be rewired, when can you fit it in?/ My car needs new shocks, I have the parts, can you fit it when you get a chance.
    No, there isn't any hope you will get tech pay as an EA/ERA, sure you aren't doing the job.
    And so it went on, until the former apprentice notices he can get twice the money and half the abuse on Civvy street and won't have to pay for his own tools and PPE. He happily pays back the cost of his training to go as subby on a nearby building site/maintenance at a nearby Pharma plant where he recoups the cost of buying himself out from his first six months overtime.
    Meanwhile a civvy spark/mechanic who didn't make it into the AAS, but managed to train up on his own time in FAS, applies for a DE EA/ERA competition, enters as a P/O ERA, in charge of the same former apprentices he would have trained with had he gone to AAS.

    You may wish to blame the DoD, but many of what I mention above actually happened, and the DoD had nothing to do with it. The Air Corps treated their apprentices far better than the NS or the Army treated theirs, but most of the Army apprentices managed to get appointments that kept them working office hours in the various base workshops, and on graduation went to a unit relevant to their skillset, and weren't dumped into a Line unit "until a technical vacancy arose".
    If these people had been treated properly, they would have been well suited to operating a Naval Specific apprentice school. But they left before most had 12 done. The best you can hope for is the current arrangement in NMCI, where willing participants take part in high quality technical training with the best of facilities, and return to their normal duties on completion of block release.
    I have many friends who attended the AAS, many Navy, some Army. Everyone hated apprentices, and the Army apprentices (in majority) hated the Navy apprentices. This rivalry was encouraged by instructors. Most former AAS graduates find great delight knowing that not a brick of the AAS remains in place, except for the main gate.
    It's dead. Leave it buried.
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • The pay for those on TTS is probably also at least double that of a DF apprentice

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
        The Problem with the Army apprentice school was multi-faceted. Firstly you recruited child soldiers, most without leaving certs. Then you put them through a military school system, requiring all the staff that that command structure brings when better and more relevant training could have been provided in civvy street instructors, on block release. You treated the apprentices like dirt for the duration of their apprenticeships, marked out as lowest of the low with the promise of a technical appointment at the completion of training. Then On completion of training, you change T&C so that the apprentice who started as a Trainee ERA or EA arrives in Haulbowline fully qualified only to be told "No EA or ERA vacancies, you'll be an A/Mech instead, no tech pay. By the way, you are on duty in the Engine Control room tonight. Also, we need you to rig up lights for when we go at anchor for the local regatta. By the way, my house needs to be rewired, when can you fit it in?/ My car needs new shocks, I have the parts, can you fit it when you get a chance.
        No, there isn't any hope you will get tech pay as an EA/ERA, sure you aren't doing the job.
        And so it went on, until the former apprentice notices he can get twice the money and half the abuse on Civvy street and won't have to pay for his own tools and PPE. He happily pays back the cost of his training to go as subby on a nearby building site/maintenance at a nearby Pharma plant where he recoups the cost of buying himself out from his first six months overtime.
        Meanwhile a civvy spark/mechanic who didn't make it into the AAS, but managed to train up on his own time in FAS, applies for a DE EA/ERA competition, enters as a P/O ERA, in charge of the same former apprentices he would have trained with had he gone to AAS.

        You may wish to blame the DoD, but many of what I mention above actually happened, and the DoD had nothing to do with it. The Air Corps treated their apprentices far better than the NS or the Army treated theirs, but most of the Army apprentices managed to get appointments that kept them working office hours in the various base workshops, and on graduation went to a unit relevant to their skillset, and weren't dumped into a Line unit "until a technical vacancy arose".
        If these people had been treated properly, they would have been well suited to operating a Naval Specific apprentice school. But they left before most had 12 done. The best you can hope for is the current arrangement in NMCI, where willing participants take part in high quality technical training with the best of facilities, and return to their normal duties on completion of block release.
        I have many friends who attended the AAS, many Navy, some Army. Everyone hated apprentices, and the Army apprentices (in majority) hated the Navy apprentices. This rivalry was encouraged by instructors. Most former AAS graduates find great delight knowing that not a brick of the AAS remains in place, except for the main gate.
        It's dead. Leave it buried.
        There is probably some truth and some story in your description of the AAS. I was both a school officer , training officer, and was never aware of any policy to short change apprentices as all that came were L/ rates in their trade within months and were PO rank within a year. The exceptions were Carpenters, Electrical, and RRM's who had a L/rate rank in their trade and could only be promoted to fill a vacancy and those vacancies grew with the increasing fleet. Rigging lights at times, and flags is usually a whole crew job supervised by the EA as he has custody of the light arrays. If some did a nixer it usually involved payment and was within his own divison, and within his ambit to complain to his CO through his divisional officer if he felt compromised or unwilling to do such requests. The Service is a disgrace if such was the Norm but so also it was a mistake to civilianise military training and rid the Forces of the AAS and Clancy barracks. I put it on record that neither I or anyone I know hated apprentices, as technicians they were revered aboard ship and held a certain relationship with the Command for keeping things running. Closing technical facilities has to be recommended by those in Authority and sanctioned by the DOD. It 's coming down to making life easier by shifting formative education to a system that has no Service ethic . If what you say is true then maybe there should be a COI to validate or otherwise all rumours.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
          There is probably some truth and some story in your description of the AAS. I was both a school officer , training officer, and was never aware of any policy to short change apprentices as all that came were L/ rates in their trade within months and were PO rank within a year. The exceptions were Carpenters, Electrical, and RRM's who had a L/rate rank in their trade and could only be promoted to fill a vacancy and those vacancies grew with the increasing fleet. Rigging lights at times, and flags is usually a whole crew job supervised by the EA as he has custody of the light arrays. If some did a nixer it usually involved payment and was within his own divison, and within his ambit to complain to his CO through his divisional officer if he felt compromised or unwilling to do such requests. The Service is a disgrace if such was the Norm but so also it was a mistake to civilianise military training and rid the Forces of the AAS and Clancy barracks. I put it on record that neither I or anyone I know hated apprentices, as technicians they were revered aboard ship and held a certain relationship with the Command for keeping things running. Closing technical facilities has to be recommended by those in Authority and sanctioned by the DOD. It 's coming down to making life easier by shifting formative education to a system that has no Service ethic . If what you say is true then maybe there should be a COI to validate or otherwise all rumours.
          I appreciate what you say, but it's fair to say that most of the AAS graduates are now happily earning the civvy salary and wouldn't be inclined to fight the DF system again. Of those I knew who went through the system, from the mid 80s to early 90s, none are still serving, all are approaching or are 50 and the last would have left on completion of contract about 10 years ago. There are other priorities in their lives now.
          While you say that most were L/rates within months, there was a period when they came down from Naas and weren't even made A/EA or ERA! Mech branch yes, but not at the appointment they were promised when they signed the dotted line. By the time they got their EA/ERA grades, they had little interest in heading off to Kilworth for a few weeks doing Tactics and COFD while someone else took their appointment at sea.
          I'm sure you or your colleagues had no dislike for apprentices, but there was an Anti-Navy ethos amongst other apprentices in Naas, and this was not dealt with by staff there. We must remember that it took an unpopular study by a serving DF officer for the DF to reluctantly accept there was a tradition of bullying within the force, and in the 20 years since, some who served at the time still say his report was an exaggeration, and refuse to accept what was the norm.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            The fault has to lie with the pundits in DOD and those that have acquiesced with recruitment strategy for technical apprentices in particular. The PDF needs an Apprentice school in order to imbue a service ethic into apprenticeship training. As far as all recruitment and retention is concerned there must be a mix of good pay, and up to date living conditions and facilities. There also needs to be a quota system to leave Service for all ranks and / or trades. DOD expenditure is too low and leads to imbalanced decisions such as barrack closures causing congestion elsewhere. Failures in Equipping and re-equipping units is weakening output capability. Our PDF expenditure needs to be in the order of 3bn per annum to reach modern standards and stop the present regression.
            The latest "Trade" shortage has stopped the departure of a ship on carrying out it's operation order. Train more people to GMDSS level and use officer/nco to operate the outwards/inwards comms on board until matters can be resolved.

            Comment


            • Latest report makes it sound like they were short a PO/RRT.
              With so many vital sensors aboard it isn't just a question of training more operators.
              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                Latest report makes it sound like they were short a PO/RRT.
                With so many vital sensors aboard it isn't just a question of training more operators.
                If it breaks down send one by road or call-in a civilian on call radar man. The costs may squeeze attention if they have to have contracts permanently with repair staffs from manufacturers lists.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  If it breaks down send one by road or call-in a civilian on call radar man. The costs may squeeze attention if they have to have contracts permanently with repair staffs from manufacturers lists.
                  Not as straightforward as that. Ships don't sail without a po/rrt. End of.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                    Not as straightforward as that. Ships don't sail without a po/rrt. End of.
                    Not sure if anyone knows but can a ship sail with an A/RRT or L/RRT? I know the track to PO is rapid for them but if they are waiting on PNCO or a Standards course?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                      Not sure if anyone knows but can a ship sail with an A/RRT or L/RRT? I know the track to PO is rapid for them but if they are waiting on PNCO or a Standards course?
                      I think (open to correction) they are only EA until they specialise and are promoted. Hopefully "A/Tel" (username not rank) will be able to enlighten us. Last time I checked there were no seagoing RRT below the rank of PO, and PO/RRT have always been scarce, 10 years or more ago there was only 15 in the NS. It's a particular set of skills, their progression used to be army (CIS Workshops) until qualified, not sure if it's the same these days.
                      Not to be confused with the PO/Comop.
                      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                        I think (open to correction) they are only EA until they specialise and are promoted. Hopefully "A/Tel" (username not rank) will be able to enlighten us. Last time I checked there were no seagoing RRT below the rank of PO, and PO/RRT have always been scarce, 10 years or more ago there was only 15 in the NS. It's a particular set of skills, their progression used to be army (CIS Workshops) until qualified, not sure if it's the same these days.
                        Not to be confused with the PO/Comop.
                        Electrical Artificers and Radio Radar Technicians are two different streams. They may work in harmony on areas where systems meet. EA's are Electrical Branch and RRT's are belonging to Comms Branch . The former do electrical power and distribution the latter keep radar, radio, and all associated systems running. There may be elements of gun control ascribed to each since I left. Comops do the operators role , visual signalling, and intership/shore communications.

                        Comment


                        • The PO/RRT has a more important role lately in the days of satellite communication and a networked fleet. He/She is also responsible for maintenance of electronic navaids, and as all ships now use ECDIS, there is a bit more pressure on.
                          That's before mentioning the most important device on the ship.... The TV...
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
                            Not sure if anyone knows but can a ship sail with an A/RRT or L/RRT? I know the track to PO is rapid for them but if they are waiting on PNCO or a Standards course?
                            A/RRT and L/RRTs can and do go to sea as part of their training. Trainee RTTs can go to PO about as quickly as they can get loaded on the relevant career courses.

                            A/RRTs and L/RRTs do go to sea as part of their training and as understudy where required. The at sea appointment is of course for a PO/RRT.

                            I was just wondering if the appointment could be filled on a temporary basis for a patrol by sailor who is fully qualified but not yet a PO.

                            Comment


                            • As the RRT at sea is a day worker they do other jobs, as they don't do watches. Can an LS do the job of a boarding PO? I think the legislation covering them is rank specific in some cases. I know the new customs act specifies PO. Not sure if NS acting as fisheries officer has the same restriction.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                                Latest report makes it sound like they were short a PO/RRT.
                                With so many vital sensors aboard it isn't just a question of training more operators.


                                No, a PO/Commop was the issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X