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!

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 said:
We have the experience and people with the necessary qualifications to undertake a great deal of own training however there has always been reluctance for lead schools to allow the use of their facilities without a suitable instructor in place despite this...obviously sea weekends are another issue..!!

What is the RN worried about that we might break something!!!

Hmm, at Colingrad its not the RN that call the shots but Flag$hip Training.
 
True but...Raleigh..Seamanship school..Jupiter point..AJAX barge..!!!.

Ive heard that as far as GSSR is concerned it could take up to 2 years for the lead schools to come up with a suitable training package...2 YEARS!!!!.
 
WarMonger said:
True but...Raleigh..Seamanship school..Jupiter point..AJAX barge..!!!.

Ive heard that as far as GSSR is concerned it could take up to 2 years for the lead schools to come up with a suitable training package...2 YEARS!!!!.

I can believe it! It takes some people so long to absorb simple training!!!!!!
 
nelsons_blood said:
WarMonger said:
True but...Raleigh..Seamanship school..Jupiter point..AJAX barge..!!!.

Ive heard that as far as GSSR is concerned it could take up to 2 years for the lead schools to come up with a suitable training package...2 YEARS!!!!.

I can believe it! It takes some people so long to absorb simple training!!!!!!

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 :(
 
FlagWagger said:
WarMonger said:
We have the experience and people with the necessary qualifications to undertake a great deal of own training however there has always been reluctance for lead schools to allow the use of their facilities without a suitable instructor in place despite this...obviously sea weekends are another issue..!!

What is the RN worried about that we might break something!!!

Hmm, at Colingrad its not the RN that call the shots but Flag$hip Training.

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.)
 
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!!!!
 
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
 
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".
 
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!
 
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: )
 
[/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.
 
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!!
 
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.
 
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!
 
[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"
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top