Does the RN need the RNR?

Does the RN need the RNR?

  • Yes, but changed from the way it is today

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, a waste of money and valuable training time

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    178

WarMonger

War Hero
We are going to need Merwex's, Seamanship weekends to break the bordom me thinks which means being able to have more access to the lead schools.....dont think thats going to happen do you!!!!
 

all_purple_now

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
I reckon a few of you blowing the RNR trumpet need a bit of a wake-up call!! There is so much I would like to reply to, however for starters....
I recall a previous thread in which Nelsons Blood started sounding off about the RNR.

May I suggest DNFTT?

APN
 

beer_bosun

Lantern Swinger
GCYZ said:
Aggree completely. When MW training took place at Dryad the RNR where on the key list for Coniston Building. We opened up Sat and Sun, conducted training as required, even cleaned ship on sunday PM. Now at Collingwood we need a babysitter, who comes in and gets on with his own thing, does not contribute (or is required to ) to training. (Those involved are happy to volunteer as it takes them off the weekend duty roster.)
Ah memory lane, the heady days of MW in Coniston. That would be when we got the same training as the RN lads just over weekends. Excellent weekends, well attended and worthwhile.

Shame we couldn't retrain on the new hunting technology. Would have given us a few options including "SPO".
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
WarMonger said:
We are going to need Merwex's, Seamanship weekends to break the bordom me thinks which means being able to have more access to the lead schools.....dont think thats going to happen do you!!!!
Having been a Merwex instructor for more years than I care to mention, the whole Merwex programme needs revitalising. The current offerings don't fully meet the needs of either GSSR or CIS.

To amend the offerings and comply fully with MWS SOs will not be easy. For example, current MWS SOs require that all lessons be instructed using the centrally held PowerPoint presentations (to ensure quality control); only people who have valid userID from Flag$hip can access the servers; in April (it may have changed recently) it was too difficult, i.e. expensive, for Flag$hip to implement a scheme whereby RNR instructors could be granted temporary access at weekends; the ukltimate conclusion is that no classroom training can be given by the RNR to the RNR; its not that we're unwilling to train ourselves, its more that the system won't let us!
 

GCYZ

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
. There is obviously a requirement for the RNR, however, I suggest that the mindset of the RNR needs to be altered with expectations lowered as to what the RN will require from you. GSSR etc is a good idea, however if your training is not up to spec then you cannot expect to be sat around the table negotiating the solution to the middle-east problem.
You seem to have the opinion that the RNR has invented itself and the roles it carries out.

The RN have told us what they require from us but run away and hide when we asked for proper training to be designed/put in place to enable the RNR to reach OPS.

If our 'training is not up to spec' it is because the RN are not providing it, not because we are aimimg too high. No-one is suggesting for example the we could train as PWO's or Pilots from scratch at weekends.

The RNR's 'mindset' comes from the RN asking us to carry out a role, it (the RNR) does not decide for itself what it wants to do then go cap in hand to the RN.

(and finally-I didn't realise the RN where involved in negotiating a solution to the Middle East problem, must have missed that one in news reports from the UN! :wink: )
 

dubaipusser

Lantern Swinger
[/quote]

That's not a two year long training package, but that's the lead time for the production of the package by the lead school. That means for the next two years (at least) the RNR will continue in limbo, not being trained according to the RN requirements and therefore not being allowed to do the job! CIS threatens to take longer :([/quote]

It is a systemic problem - the training design has to go through the proper procedures - identifying OPS (Operational Performance Statement (ie what the 'customer' wants the individuals to be able to do) which then translates into a TPS (Training Performance Statement) so that the key modules reflect what is needed. Several stages further on it all gets signed off by a bunch iof grown ups who agree that the training design can actually start in terms of lesson plans, documentation, assessments etc.

It takes time and isn't a weekend's work to put it all together - especially when the Training Design resource needs to be funded separately from a non-existant budget line.

The fact that sometimes the pretty obvious seems to take as long as the pretty difficult can be very frustrating but not as frustrating as some of the old and bold RNR-DIY attempts at training (which I have been on the wrong end of on too many occasions) where some well intentioned individual got agreement to a 2-week course slot and then tried to cram stuff into it with the end result being a total WOFT!

I sympathise - and I am sure that there will be a number of people who will instantly jump in saying that there are perfectly good RN courses (or RNR elements) that could be adapted - and there probably are - but that doesn't mean that we can afford to take shortcuts and ignore the due process which confirms the relevance of the training, the need for the trainees and the desired role to be filled by the RNR specs involved.
 

WarMonger

War Hero
Although slipping from the thread..I must admit the Merwex weekends I have done were quite poor especially the GSSR ones. Even sat in on the fleetwork trainer due to a cock up with the GSSR weekends....good bit of tech but as you say if those billoted in the ivory towers will not assist then "pissing into the wind" seems an appropriate turn of phrase!!
 

bunnyjumper

Lantern Swinger
all_purple_now said:
nelsons_blood said:
I reckon a few of you blowing the RNR trumpet need a bit of a wake-up call!! There is so much I would like to reply to, however for starters....
I recall a previous thread in which Nelsons Blood started sounding off about the RNR.

May I suggest DNFTT?

APN
Obviously someone who calls himself Nelsons Blood, will be unable to function outside of the RN. Suggest therefore he is probably likely to want to join the RNR. Perhaps then he will change his views. :wink:

Or perhaps he will be able to give us the benefit of his experience.
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
dubaipusser said:
It is a systemic problem - the training design has to go through the proper procedures - identifying OPS (Operational Performance Statement (ie what the 'customer' wants the individuals to be able to do) which then translates into a TPS (Training Performance Statement) so that the key modules reflect what is needed. Several stages further on it all gets signed off by a bunch iof grown ups who agree that the training design can actually start in terms of lesson plans, documentation, assessments etc.

It takes time and isn't a weekend's work to put it all together - especially when the Training Design resource needs to be funded separately from a non-existant budget line.
I know :( Its complicated further when the Training Design is sub-contracted to a civilian organisation at Colingrad (I think I've mentioned them enough today!) who then turn round and say that they are only contracted to produce ISPECs for the RN, that they aren't able to be used by the RNR and that they are unable to do any TD work for the RNR for at least the next 3 years.

dubaipusser said:
The fact that sometimes the pretty obvious seems to take as long as the pretty difficult can be very frustrating but not as frustrating as some of the old and bold RNR-DIY attempts at training (which I have been on the wrong end of on too many occasions) where some well intentioned individual got agreement to a 2-week course slot and then tried to cram stuff into it with the end result being a total WOFT!

I sympathise - and I am sure that there will be a number of people who will instantly jump in saying that there are perfectly good RN courses (or RNR elements) that could be adapted - and there probably are - but that doesn't mean that we can afford to take shortcuts and ignore the due process which confirms the relevance of the training, the need for the trainees and the desired role to be filled by the RNR specs involved.
While I agree that it is important that due processes exist and are followed, those same processes should be appropriate to all organisations affected and should be flexible enough to allow short-term deviations to get over deficiencies. The CIS specialisation has just issued an interim ratings task book based on an RN OPS; its not actually a task book in the traditional sense, it does however give CIS ratings visibility of what their job involves and also some idea of what their training will cover. If we'd followed the strictly correct approach, CIS would be silent for the next 2-3 years!
 

dubaipusser

Lantern Swinger
[quote While I agree that it is important that due processes exist and are followed, those same processes should be appropriate to all organisations affected and should be flexible enough to allow short-term deviations to get over deficiencies. The CIS specialisation has just issued an interim ratings task book based on an RN OPS; its not actually a task book in the traditional sense, it does however give CIS ratings visibility of what their job involves and also some idea of what their training will cover. If we'd followed the strictly correct approach, CIS would be silent for the next 2-3 years![/quote]

Thanks FW - Pleased to hear about the CIS initiative and don't get me wrong, I am a pragmatist and proud of it - if the system doesn't work then change it - but be aware of why the system operates the way it does.

The danger remains that the CIS workaround is just that - a workaround and pressure still needs to be sustained to ensure that the spec gets the TD input it deserves to ensure that the training is relevant and 'accepted' by the RN. "Based on" is a start but doesn't sit comfortably with me - but then neither does being "silent for the next 2-3 years"
 

mazza_magoo

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
I reckon a few of you blowing the RNR trumpet need a bit of a wake-up call!! There is so much I would like to reply to, however for starters....

1. Funding is tight everywhere within the MoD therefore training for reserve forces will never be the No 1 priority, no matter how much you feel you need it.

2. Training for the reserve forces generally prevents regulars from seeing their families during a weekend off, or are you suggesting that this should be the case?

3. Members of the RNR employed in a full time (FTRS) capacity are certainly of the opinion that the RN operates between 0800 - 1600 and that everything can wait until tomorrow morning. All very quick to start shouting about their contracts. Their professionalism and committment is therefore called into question.

4. Early RNR involvement in Op Highbrow was minimal. If the RNR cannot be called up and expected at work the following day, then they are not much use at all for short notice / immediate response operations.

5. There is obviously a requirement for the RNR, however, I suggest that the mindset of the RNR needs to be altered with expectations lowered as to what the RN will require from you. GSSR etc is a good idea, however if your training is not up to spec then you cannot expect to be sat around the table negotiating the solution to the middle-east problem.
Talk about contradictory statements! you say that the RN shouldn't have to give their weekends up and not see their families, so where are we supposed to get the training to get us to the standard that you refer to in point 4, to enable us to be 'called up and expected at work the next day'
As far as members of any branch of the armed forces having to forfeit time with their families to carry out a job, it seems to me to be irrelevant whether that time is given up to be operational or to train us civvies, surely that is a hazard of the job you joined up to do. I'm sick of this kind of attitude to the RNR or any other branch of the reserve forces, for example PSI's that ask to be drafted to an RNR unit and then dripping like a septic dick when they have to work the occasional weekend to assist with training of rnr's. (i'll give you a clue guys, PSI-Permanent staff INSTRUCTOR). Its in the job title. Grow up, cos like it or not we are part of the royal navy, and we are here to stay!
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
dubaipusser said:
FlagWagger said:
While I agree that it is important that due processes exist and are followed, those same processes should be appropriate to all organisations affected and should be flexible enough to allow short-term deviations to get over deficiencies. The CIS specialisation has just issued an interim ratings task book based on an RN OPS; its not actually a task book in the traditional sense, it does however give CIS ratings visibility of what their job involves and also some idea of what their training will cover. If we'd followed the strictly correct approach, CIS would be silent for the next 2-3 years!
Thanks FW - Pleased to hear about the CIS initiative and don't get me wrong, I am a pragmatist and proud of it - if the system doesn't work then change it - but be aware of why the system operates the way it does.

The danger remains that the CIS workaround is just that - a workaround and pressure still needs to be sustained to ensure that the spec gets the TD input it deserves to ensure that the training is relevant and 'accepted' by the RN. "Based on" is a start but doesn't sit comfortably with me - but then neither does being "silent for the next 2-3 years"
I agree wholeheartedly, the interim task books should have a short shelf-life and should be replaced by definitive training material ASAP. The training material on which lesson plans will be based is a mix of the current RN IS material (where available) and selected ISPECS from the extant COMMS(SEA) material. These will allow CIS to become established, however the longer that the RNR and RN CIS specialisations are singing from different hymn-sheets the greater the risk.

Another danger is that there are too many agencies involved ni the trainign design process, each with their own agenda. On my ORT in March this year I was working within Fleet N6; the Fleet view was that the RNR CIS OPS had been signed off and was nearly identical to the RN CIS OPS.

The attitude of Flagship staff at Colingrad was very much of the "that final 'R' is not in the contract mate" coupled with a total disbelief in the ability of the RNR to meet the signed-off OPS - they also believed that the TD for the RNR would be a completly new task (despite being based on the same OPS) due to the different delivery mechanisms, i.e. in-unit, Merwex, course as opposed to course, OJT.

The process should facilitate the provision of training services to the RN and RNR - my own experience of the process is that it does exactly the opposite.
 

nelsons_blood

Badgeman
Talk about contradictory statements! you say that the RN shouldn't have to give their weekends up and not see their families, so where are we supposed to get the training to get us to the standard that you refer to in point 4, to enable us to be 'called up and expected at work the next day'
As far as members of any branch of the armed forces having to forfeit time with their families to carry out a job, it seems to me to be irrelevant whether that time is given up to be operational or to train us civvies, surely that is a hazard of the job you joined up to do. I'm sick of this kind of attitude to the RNR or any other branch of the reserve forces, for example PSI's that ask to be drafted to an RNR unit and then dripping like a septic dick when they have to work the occasional weekend to assist with training of rnr's. (i'll give you a clue guys, PSI-Permanent staff INSTRUCTOR). Its in the job title. Grow up![/quote]

Strangely, the attitude you refer to is not visible any longer within the Brithish Army towards the Territorials, who have transformed themselves into a credible force able to conduct specialist or general operations worldwide. You could do far worse than take a leaf from their book.
 

mazza_magoo

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
Strangely, the attitude you refer to is not visible any longer within the Brithish Army towards the Territorials, who have transformed themselves into a credible force able to conduct specialist or general operations worldwide. You could do far worse than take a leaf from their book.
And i suppose that the territorials just up and trained themselves did they? The fact of the matter is that the TA and the regular army have been integrated for a long time, and this is probably down to the regular army not being stuffed full of anti TA bods unlike you give the impression the RN seems to be with the comments you make. If you want us to do a job, tell us what it is, give us the training required to do the job, and then let us do it. Its no good deriding us if your not willing to help out with a solution to the problem. Thankfully the majority of people I and most RNR's have met in the course of our duties have not got the same outlook as you have.
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
nelsons_blood said:
Strangely, the attitude you refer to is not visible any longer within the Brithish Army towards the Territorials, who have transformed themselves into a credible force able to conduct specialist or general operations worldwide. You could do far worse than take a leaf from their book.
Before citing the example of the TA you ought to ask a squaddy what "STAB" and "ARAB" mean.
 

bunnyjumper

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
quote]
Strangely, the attitude you refer to is not visible any longer within the Brithish Army towards the Territorials, who have transformed themselves into a credible force able to conduct specialist or general operations worldwide. You could do far worse than take a leaf from their book.
I don't know if that is true, but if it is it could have something to do with the Army treating the TA more as equals and not as an annoyance. Look at the Army recruitment ads for instance - they include the TA. We at the coal face have very little control over how the RN chooses to integrate us within the fleet, nor how they train us.

Apart from the hierarchy telling us they need us, I personally see little evidence of the RN making an effort to take us into the fold. The previous posters have made the point that if the RN want the RNR to do the job, then they do need to take a hand in training. Yes it's not nice giving up your weekends, but I don't hear the same gripes about giving up weekends to take the part ones onto Dartmoor etc. Or is that different because they're regular Navy not part time civvies.

Having said that, even where we have RNR guys capable of doing the training, the RN lead schools as stated previously do not want us to use the facilities without their own staff being there.

If you want to gripe about giving up weekends, (assuming you are involved in training), then try talking to your management, instead of moaning at the people who need to be trained to come up to YOUR standards.

In other words, perhaps it's the RN who need to take a leaf out of the Armys book

Rant over.
 

GCYZ

Lantern Swinger
nelsons_blood said:
Strangely, the attitude you refer to is not visible any longer within the Brithish Army towards the Territorials, who have transformed themselves into a credible force able to conduct specialist or general operations worldwide. You could do far worse than take a leaf from their book.
If this is to happen as you would obviously like it to, the RNR cannot make it happen on their own without input from the RN, (If we can, please enlighten us as to how we go about it).

As in previous posts, you have yet to say what contact you have had with th RNR to lead you to these conclusions.
 

mazza_magoo

Lantern Swinger
Picture the scene, RN ship alongside in a foreign port. Ships company told that they do not need to provide a spo team as the RNR have pitched up to do the job as part of their annual training. However, some of the ships company are not happy about this. They don't want to go ashore and get shiters. They'd much rather stay on board and act as they're own spo team, rather than have the RNR do the job...

Nah forget it, that'd never happen. :twisted:
 

Old_Hand

Lantern Swinger
M_M - I think you may be banging your head against a wall here. There are obviously too many negative thinkers within the RN who can't see past their own self importance and I think you have found one in N_B. They are the sort of people who will never accept the RNR no matter what argument we put forward.
 

mazza_magoo

Lantern Swinger
O_H i fear you may be right. However it is my experience that people like him are the exception rather than the rule, and as long as we keep doing our job when asked, then we may eventually talk even the likes of him round. (nelsons blood indeed, i wonder how long it took him to come up with that, the anchor faced or what!) what we need are a few more positive (or negative yet CONSTRUCTIVE comments) from people like you that have spent a bit of time on both sides of the fence.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

New Posts

Top