FofS(IS) Title

What shall we call FofS(IS)?

  • Lance FofS / LFofS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Foreman Lite

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Foreman of the Horse

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FofS(ISNT)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
What should we call FofS(IS)?

The SOinC will probably use this poll to determine the new title or something.
 
#2
Our ops cell have started calling our FofS(IS), Fizz. Which I find hilarious.
 
#3
FEEK,

Foreman + Geek

It’s perfect

In fact I award me a cake, well done me, yum yum.
 
#4
WTF

TLA should be 3, count, 3 letters.

Whatd'ya mean, dean?
 
#5
Stop whingeing, the trades were renamed ages ago and everyone else has just got on with their jobs in a professional manner. Did your mum not give you enough attention as a baby or summat?

I reckon...the last FofS and FofS (IS) courses will run in 2010 and the new "technical / engineering supervisor" course will run in 2011. It will be a direct upscaling from the CS Engr with the emphasis on engineering management and capability integration. They will ditch those parts of the current supervisory courses that are deemed to be irrelevant. The course will be designed from the bottom up by SOinC, with content determined by need, not in order to meet a specified qualification. Then a few universities will probably be asked to look at the content, weigh up accreditation of prior learning and then determine what qualification they are happy to dish out at the end. I doubt whether it will be longer than 12-18 months and I doubt whether it will gain as much as an honours degree.

Either way, it's pointless to keep bitching about trades because a) we're all supposed to be on the same team and b) both supervisory trades are on a collision course anyway. You might as well deal with it and if you're any good at what you do then you'll be in a position to benefit from the grand scheme. That's what winners do.
 
#6
Im amazed at how much people focus on a simple title, what really matters on what they can deliver and how much they are really needed. Who gives a F*! You know yourself if you are doing a real job or not, the title is purely some ego thing.
 
#7
bullshit said:
Im amazed at how much people focus on a simple title, what really matters on what they can deliver and how much they are really needed. Who gives a F*! You know yourself if you are doing a real job or not, the title is purely some ego thing.[/quote]

Yep, my trade has had at least 4 name changes since I joined, get on with it.

I bet none off the people posting on this thread (PD excluding) are either trade.
 

IS Ski Geek

War Hero
Moderator
#8
I think the best that I have heard for both the FofS trades are as follows:

FofS (IS) - FofS (Digital) Shortened version - FofS (Digi)
FofS - FofS (Analog) Shortened version - FofS (****)

There you go thats my two pence worth.
 
#10
PoisonDwarf said:
Stop whingeing, the trades were renamed ages ago and everyone else has just got on with their jobs in a professional manner. Did your mum not give you enough attention as a baby or summat?

I reckon...the last FofS and FofS (IS) courses will run in 2010 and the new "technical / engineering supervisor" course will run in 2011. It will be a direct upscaling from the CS Engr with the emphasis on engineering management and capability integration. They will ditch those parts of the current supervisory courses that are deemed to be irrelevant. The course will be designed from the bottom up by SOinC, with content determined by need, not in order to meet a specified qualification. Then a few universities will probably be asked to look at the content, weigh up accreditation of prior learning and then determine what qualification they are happy to dish out at the end. I doubt whether it will be longer than 12-18 months and I doubt whether it will gain as much as an honours degree.

Either way, it's pointless to keep bitching about trades because a) we're all supposed to be on the same team and b) both supervisory trades are on a collision course anyway. You might as well deal with it and if you're any good at what you do then you'll be in a position to benefit from the grand scheme. That's what winners do.
My Bold - If they get rid of all of that, it'll save tons of dosh, as the course will end up about one week long!
 
#12
monkeyspanker said:
Yeah, get on with it. You didn't see the Delay ops and Handbags wingeing, did you?
The Relay Ops cried for some time but I think the Handbags were quite happy to lose their title.

Incidently, can anyone confirm my absolute wild stab in the dark idea that Mr Verbose and Mr Humour on this thread are both 'lucky-baggers' and not real FofS?
 
#13
There are still an awful lot of idiots out there who are blind to the work that our people really do on ops. They would do well to peer out of their det and see the jobs that are actually being done in Iraqistan. Both types of Foreman are particularly busy.

If you tell a civvy that you're a "foreman" do you think he equates that with engineering excellence? He probably thinks you wear coveralls in a noisy factory and have daily run-ins with the leader of the union. Why not just scrap the title totally? Is anyone's ego so precious that they need letters after their rank?

It reminds me of those who people who are always complaining "this is shit" but, when asked what they would do better, have no answer. Get with the programme and move with the times. It's easy to stir up shiite on an anonymous forum, far more difficult to actually put your money where your mouth is.
 
#14
PoisonDwarf said:
There are still an awful lot of idiots out there who are blind to the work that our people really do on ops. They would do well to peer out of their det and see the jobs that are actually being done in Iraqistan. Both types of Foreman are particularly busy.

If you tell a civvy that you're a "foreman" do you think he equates that with engineering excellence? He probably thinks you wear coveralls in a noisy factory and have daily run-ins with the leader of the union. Why not just scrap the title totally? Is anyone's ego so precious that they need letters after their rank?

It reminds me of those who people who are always complaining "this is shit" but, when asked what they would do better, have no answer. Get with the programme and move with the times. It's easy to stir up shiite on an anonymous forum, far more difficult to actually put your money where your mouth is.
Is this the verbose way of saying 'yes I am a 'lucky-bagger'?
 
#15
PoisonDwarf said:
There are still an awful lot of idiots out there who are blind to the work that our people really do on ops. They would do well to peer out of their det and see the jobs that are actually being done in Iraqistan. Both types of Foreman are particularly busy.

If you tell a civvy that you're a "foreman" do you think he equates that with engineering excellence? He probably thinks you wear coveralls in a noisy factory and have daily run-ins with the leader of the union. Why not just scrap the title totally? Is anyone's ego so precious that they need letters after their rank?

It reminds me of those who people who are always complaining "this is shit" but, when asked what they would do better, have no answer. Get with the programme and move with the times. It's easy to stir up shiite on an anonymous forum, far more difficult to actually put your money where your mouth is.
My bold.

How true - and you would know with your 3400+ posts.

P.S. How did you vote? You haven't said.
 
#16
Ah, Foreman IS bashing - what an original and novel concept, must chuck in my tuppence worth!

I appreciate geezers post was meant to be light hearted but i've never understood the issue (i voted other BTW). Once these threads start to develop it always appears that there is an attitude that the Corps arrived with a bunch of people they didnt know what to do with (definately the wrong end of the stick, we call those people full screw SET's) and turned them into a trade group while they made there minds up. That'll solve that - they can build the Regimental websites while they're waiting for gainful employment.

My experience is vastly different both on Operations and in-Barracks. The skillsets of the two Foreman compliment each other with both often stepping into the others traditional boundaries and fighting, as good supervisors should, for the comms. An attitude that the Foreman IS is a pointless hanger-on is naive and a rod can be made for your back by assuming so (i'm generalising here however there are some out there who still cant see the point). From personal experience, on Ops especially, IS Engrs have been worth their weight in gold and there are never enough. This is being driven by the contractor repair culture we find ourselves in however the need for good tradesmen and supervisors at the service delivery and close support end has never gone away.

So how did i vote? Just call them Q, fick alles has changed and everyone was happy with the status quo. The change just made people precious.
 
#17
thegeezer said:
P.S. How did you vote? You haven't said.
"Other". Banter-aside, what value is there in providing four derisory options and only one other? Like I said, it's a pointless argument, because SOinC(A) made and implemented the decision ages ago. Can't you find a thread that you can contribute to in a positive manner? Go on, it'll make you feel good.

Spliff-Boy said:
Is this the verbose way of saying 'yes I am a 'lucky-bagger'?
I'm not entirely sure which one the lucky-bagger is. Can you elucidate?

p.s. Spliffmeister-Generale, what trade are you again?
 
#18
Never understood the need to change the "other" two supervisor trades names to reflect the "other" two.

Why couldn´t we keep the old names? (appreciate that at least one of those titlse wasn´t that old!)
 
#19
PoisonDwarf said:
I'm not entirely sure which one the lucky-bagger is. Can you elucidate?
You. You on your Jolly Boys Outing in Shrivenham sitting over your laptop in the Sgts Mess wakning into your socks.

PoisonDwarf said:
p.s. Spliffmeister-Generale, what trade are you again?
I never said. However, what is true is that I don't have problems with the IS crowd; same with all trades, some are good, some are bad. What I do believe is that affording you the FofS title was a wrong decision and unfortunately, you, boney and Ski will never understand why because you haven't done the course. You have done some courses and I know (two of you) are above average supervisors, but you haven't done our course; that's all.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
NAAFIpiethrower Royal Signals 48
M Royal Signals 32
cursedveggie Royal Signals 2

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top