Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Becoming an officer?

slim said:
Thanks for the information Ninja, as normal a good clear answer.
So I suppose that we will have to wait about ten years and then look at percentages of engineering officers promoted from the ET branches to decide if the training is as acceptable as the old Tiff/Mech branches.
We can't afford to wait that long...
The RN will still need about as many officers extracted from ETs as it did from tiffs....this year, next year and so on. The new ETs joining have just about as much chance, therefore of being selected, at some stage, all things being equal.
Are all things equal? There's an assumption that the mix of people joining as ETs is the same educational/intellectual mix as for a combined entry of tiffs/stokers, is this a reasonable assumption? I dunno, but I suspect that the recruiting brochures don't attract those that would have been the top end of the tiffs, faster track to officer.
I reckon that the ETs overall, through their career, get the same training (if not better) than their tiff counterparts, they just wait longer top get all the academic/theory stuff, I guess it's more akin to a mech...
I think the jury's still out on how we get the brighter ETs selected for officer (upper yardy school again?)
 
scabz said:
slim said:
Thanks for the information Ninja, as normal a good clear answer.
So I suppose that we will have to wait about ten years and then look at percentages of engineering officers promoted from the ET branches to decide if the training is as acceptable as the old Tiff/Mech branches.
We can't afford to wait that long...
The RN will still need about as many officers extracted from ETs as it did from tiffs....this year, next year and so on. The new ETs joining have just about as much chance, therefore of being selected, at some stage, all things being equal.
Are all things equal? There's an assumption that the mix of people joining as ETs is the same educational/intellectual mix as for a combined entry of tiffs/stokers, is this a reasonable assumption? I dunno, but I suspect that the recruiting brochures don't attract those that would have been the top end of the tiffs, faster track to officer.
I reckon that the ETs overall, through their career, get the same training (if not better) than their tiff counterparts, they just wait longer top get all the academic/theory stuff, I guess it's more akin to a mech...
I think the jury's still out on how we get the brighter ETs selected for officer (upper yardy school again?)

The reason that the service was able to utilise and promote many Tiffs and Mechs to Engineering officer was as much due to the quality of their training as the quality of individual. As the training is now carried out to a lower level it may be that the RN will need to recruit far more officers with engineering degrees. Though individuals may have the personal qualities required for an engineering officer they may not have the depth of engineering knowledge
 
As POREL(A) it was possible to get promotion through the SD route to SD AV officer. Several of my friends did this. However you were then outside branch and could not become an SD AEO, this was the domain of the Tiffs & Mechs. In fact a Scottish mate of mine who was a mechanician was promoted SD AV and caused more than a little upset at the time, he was told that as a Mech he should have gone the AEO route, he thought that though he had the potential to be an officer, he did not think that he would make a good AEO. I don't know whether it was his honesty or what but he became the first mechanician to go down this route.
I automatically assumed that POMEs and the like would have had similar prospects for promotion to SD officer in general service.
SD AV officers carried out many and varied jobs such as Transport officer, Safety Equipment officer, Officer i/c fire station and Range safety officer ashore. At sea many become FDOs
 
slim said:
1. Can anyone answer the simple question that I asked previously.
What length of academic training (in weeks) in a shore establishment (classroom, lab and workshops) will the new breed of ET have completed when rated Petty officer?

2. For any artificers still serving>
Do you consider that your replacements are going to be given the depth of training that you have received? If not do you believe that the service will suffer because of this or not?

Slim this is actually quite difficult to answer in all fairness to Karma, I don't think he is being evasive he genuinely doesn't know and certainly with regard to the Wafu world because the whole thing is still in the air (unless the long awaited DIN has been issued in my week long absence from work!

Needless to say the amount of academic work with regard to Maths, Science and particularly English is considerably reduced to what I did on Tiff's course. The RN has suffered a philosophyy change with regard to training particularly within the engineering trades. Sound engineering principles and solid engineering practice are things of the past, the philosophy ceases to recognise training as an investment but as a cost and resource drain.

In line with civilian practice we now invest in the short term, ie we train people to do the job they will then do and at each stage of promotion we train again, the philosophy is called: Select, train and promote. There are certainn advantages to this in our modern approach to maintenance, we no longer strip things down and repair them at component level, but merely replace U/S components, the duff one's are returned to the manufacturer. Current ET's will never be fully trained in the way a tiff/ mech was before, their entire career is a training cycle. My Tiffs course of 27 months will now consist of: 9 months LAET course + 6 month POAET course + 4 week CPOAET course, apparently the blatant difference is made up with a task book and rationalisation. I can honestly say I'm not convinced.

I believe a huge mistake has been made, in the past the technical expertise but inexperience of the tiff was fairly balanced by the leadership, knowledge and experience of the mechanic, sadly this will no longer be the case. The all technician workforce is an impractical ideal, its reality is a mostly half trained workforce of inexperienced fitters and mechanics.

But there again I'm just a cynical and disillusioned old mechanician who can still convert imperial to metric measurements in my head, weld steel, cut a thread with a lathe, know how to SHT, anneal and normalise a metal and set up a milling machine. Incidentally those are but a few of the things which will no longer be taught to AET's unless they happen to be sent on a sheet metal repair or machinists course.

I think you can deduce how I feel it will all pan out, then again I've been wrong before.
 
Thanks Chief Tiff
Your clear explanation is what I needed. From all the information gleaned so far it seems that the RN ( or at least the FAA ) is going to end up with senior rates who may be better qualified than the old Air Fitters ( though I'm not sure that they will be ) be nowhere near as well qualified as the Tiff & Mech. I can see the advantages cost wise and also the fact that qualifying courses will drain less manpower. Whether this is a good thing or not only time will tell.
In your opinion will these new senior rate AETs have the skills needed for promotion to AEO, or will they now need much longer engineering courses?
In the case of the small ships flight the SMR was normally an experienced Chief tiff and effectively acted as an AEO. Will the CAET have the necessary engineering experience?
 
I don't think much willl change at AEO or CPO/WO2 level to be honest. The standards required for SMR/ ACC holder haven't changed and in all honesty I think the guys of the future at this level will as good as ever, I do think it will be somewhat more of a steep learning curve to go from PO to CPO though, hopefully the promotion system will remain vigorous at this level. The need to draw from the ET branches at an early stage (pre 26) is still there and they will go on to complete an Engineering Degree. I think perhaps SD officers will probably come from CPO/WO2 level at a later stage (ie they will be older) but the ground has already been set for that with SUY eligibility extended to 46 (I think)

I see problems at LAET and POAET level, the rate of promotion is startling at the moment, which is good, but that quick promotion is not in my opinion supported by a rigorous training solution, it is a compromise developed because we can't afford to hold people in the trainng system any longer, there simply aren't enough people anymore.

PS For Helios: An artificer is a tiff (old fashioned well trained and more importantly overskilled technician) The word means military engineer. CAET or more correctly CPOAET is a Chief Petty Officer Air Engineering Technician.
 
Also, just wondering, gathering by many of the posts in this thread I'm guessing the standard of professional training to become an AET or ET isn't as good as it used to be and thus anyone with a basic grip of math and an ability to learn quickly will find the training, not easy, but comfortable. True, false? It's just that I sometimes worry about how difficult the training will be, and yet sometimes I'm confident I'll pass. I don't know what to expect from the training because of the conflicting posts I read about training on this forum. Ttoo much time on my hands to worry!
 
Helios said:
Also, just wondering, gathering by many of the posts in this thread I'm guessing the standard of professional training to become an AET or ET isn't as good as it used to be and thus anyone with a basic grip of math and an ability to learn quickly will find the training, not easy, but comfortable. True, false? It's just that I sometimes worry about how difficult the training will be, and yet sometimes I'm confident I'll pass. I don't know what to expect, too much time on my hands to worry.

I wouldn't personally use the term "isn't as good" to be honest it's just less extensive, I'm sure the subjects that are still taught are just as good. If you have a fair grasp of Mathematics to the higher GCSE syllabus by the time you get to your Leading Hands professional course you will have absolutely no problems, all the engineering mathematics you need is well taught on the courses albeit more theorised than practically applied as it used to be both in the classroom and in the workshops.

Don't worry about things you can't change, just work hard and put everything into it, these two things will get you further in the RN than a brain the size of a planet. Good Luck and remember work hard with enthusiasm and interest, don't be half hearted, trust me you'll go far and get recognised for your efforts.
 
By the time an ET finishes his POET's course, he will have received pretty much all the training modules that a tiff would have received and more, in some cases.
The difference is that an ET will do practical stuff up to LET and then more theory on POETs course. The comment "as the training is now carried out to a lower level" is just not accurate; you could argue that an POET will be better trained, because he'll have the ability to consolidate his training at each rate before being selected & trained for the next rate. This way an ET's training will be relevant and utilised (not like the cram and dump techniques on tiffs course, where all the stuff taught early in the course is completely wasted), well, I guess that's the theory.....I reckon that a POET's overall professional training (throughout his career to date) will be easily as good as, if not better than a PO tiff's.
 
scabz said:
By the time an ET finishes his POET's course, he will have received pretty much all the training modules that a tiff would have received and more, in some cases.
The difference is that an ET will do practical stuff up to LET and then more theory on POETs course. The comment "as the training is now carried out to a lower level" is just not accurate; you could argue that an POET will be better trained, because he'll have the ability to consolidate his training at each rate before being selected & trained for the next rate. This way an ET's training will be relevant and utilised (not like the cram and dump techniques on tiffs course, where all the stuff taught early in the course is completely wasted), well, I guess that's the theory.....I reckon that a POET's overall professional training (throughout his career to date) will be easily as good as, if not better than a PO tiff's.

Whilst I would love to agree with you scabz I'm afraid that's just not true, at least not in the AET world, the new system is a compromise, even now two years after the Air Engineering Branch Development the system is changing. Not because we are developing it for the better but because the system became unworkable due to the amount of time people were required in the training pipeline. The result is a course where we no longer train people in many of the more practical aspects but we rely on them being mentored through a task book.

This is not an ideal situation, the quality of their training now becomes reliant on the quality of their mentors which will vary with little standardisation. The simple fact is, like it or not, that in an operational environment training becomes a secondary or even tertiary priority whereas in a training environment quality and standardisation are always the primary concern. Mentoring and OJT should be a consolidation process, not a learning process.

I don't know what the end product will be, but I do know their training will be neither as extensive or rigorous as that of their predecessors.
 
Ah, [shoulders slump] the AE branch. .... I simply don't understand why, with all of this ET stuff, the AEs had to go off and do it differently. I think the MEs & WEs (GS&SM) are doing their best to align their practices but AE is different.
I've tried to avoid being branch specific but, I've got to admit, I think the AE world is very different in the way they've implemented ET.
For my world, my comments stand, I'll defer to your experience of the AEs though, Chieftiff.
 
scabz said:
Ah, [shoulders slump] the AE branch. .....

Yep, always got to be different! I think our issues are complicated by aviation legislation, the significant effect of joint aircraft operations and our (too) close links with civil industry. I'm not suggesting for one minute that the people involved aren't doing their best only that to a certain extent we can no longer see the wood for the trees and the tail is now wagging the dog!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top