DBA's on the IS Roster

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by deep_blue, Sep 7, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is anyone else out there fed up of seeing all these other cap badges sitting around at Warrant level in IS posts? A certain Sqn in Elmpt has no fewer than 40 odd WO's most of whom have no intention of transfering to the Corp. Anyone want to justify this or add comment? :twisted:
  2. Not sure what your issue is matey. They are filling DS1 posts which are E2, ie, non Royal Signals fixed. Are you implying that the posts should go to R Signals and done by IS Ops?
  3. It woulld seem that yet gain I have got my wires crossed.........apologies to any DBA's and App Ops I have offended with this thread..........I really ought to check my facts first.....SORRY!! :oops:
  4. What a rare fellow you are! Never admit to anything, especially in the Signals :wink:
  5. If these DBAs are filling non Royal Signals posts then why are they have been allocated places on Supvr IS cses? :?:

    Shouldn't they have a seperate career structure? instead of taking posts and appointments from existing IS Ops.
  6. And why not :D
  7. The very unfortunate thing about the DBA’s is while their ability to write a CV is unquestioned, what (if any) skills are required, and where were those skills attained? Are we running a club for SNCO’s without portfolio? What makes the DBA precious? Or could your posts be manned by a thrusting Cpl with some database experience?

    The very unfortunate thing about the App Op is while their ability to write a CV wasn’t as good as the DBA, what (if any) skills are required, and where were they attained? What makes the App Op precious? Or could your posts be manned by a thrusting LCpl with some applications experience?

    Dying to have the answer to this and so much more!
  8. What about Supr IS on the DBA's roster?
  9. Hillbilly,

    As far as I’m aware the greater majority of IS Supervisors have volunteered to fill the appointment so they could be challenged and stimulated for the remainder of their careers, bearing this in mind, why would you think that they would volunteer to fill a post that an IS Operator is able to do?
  10. The IS Sup, and the DBA are 2 completly different things, each has been designed for a different purpose as far as i can tell. What i'm failing to understand is why DS1 posts were not manned by the IS trade in the first place. Some training may have been required initially, but in the long run this wealth of experience would have remained in the trade, as well as giving the Roster a much needed boost in the higher ranks. I dont have a downer on the people manning the posts, good luck to them, its simply my opinion that DS1 could have been manned from within the IS trade and should have been manned from within the IS trade.
  11. BM...unfortunately there were not sufficient IS Ops to fill the posts in the time required hence the widening of the field to utilise expertise in other arms. The future......well that's another matter :wink:
  12. Well there would have been enough IS Ops if they had more courses to take the people who wanted to transfer. But then maybe if they didn't fill non-IS posts with IS Operators they wouldn't need to find others elsewhere. :cry:
  14. Oldie.... take yer ear defenders off 8O. Not everyone who wanted to transfer was up to the standard required to transfer. Shortage of courses was never a problem, shortage of people with the aptitude coming forward for selection for transfer was.

    If your criticism is that the Corps should have grasped this nettle 2-3 years ago and gone for direct recruiting then rather than next year then I'll vote for you. As to the decision to directly recruit now that took some vision, faith and drive led by the wee fella from Stranraer I'm definitely voting for him :wink: