Foreman (IS) - proper or not

#2
Proper what?

FFS, just what we need on this forum. Another 'my supervisory appointment/trade is better than yours' pissing contest.

B-T
 
#5
Is that like a supervisor IS but with added chips on shoulders, a vast reduction in common sense and less passes on any green courses
 
#6
Current Class 1 IS Eng will find it difficult to go Foreman, though IS Sup is still a viable trade route and will be for several years after the CS Eng trade comes in.

Those currently IS Eng Class 2 or 3 will no doubt end up doing the CS Eng Class 1 at some point, and will have the opportunity to go Foreman after this.

I can't see a problem, as long as they pass the CS Eng Class 1 course.
 
#7
Embrace the change - because its gonna happen.

Don't know about the supervisory side though.
 
#8
BinaryWarfare said:
Current Class 1 IS Eng will find it difficult to go Foreman
Depends what trade they were before. For example, there are lots of ex-T1 techs now in IS roles, so those guys would surely have not only the maths background but also the added advantage of knowing the full range of ICS, from physical media, though network engineering and right up to understanding the apps and services that are required by the staff user and commander in order to win the information battle. (cue long rambling dialogue about OODA loops and so on).

I agree that quite a few of the current IS mob might struggle with some of the in-depth maths and physics, however there is an argument that the Foreman of Signals course could probably morph over the coming years anyway, with less of an emphasis on pure maths, physics and analogue circuitry and a conscious move towards the demands of more modern digital systems and delivery of ICS. It could be suggested that the knowledge and skills required to be a Foreman (in practice) is different from the ability needed to pass the academic rigours of the course. All that maths is a good way of identifying the really clever guys, but I have yet to meet a FofS or TOT who has used calculus "in anger" outside the course. Perhaps a lot of T1 Techs ditched the trade because they felt disillusioned at the difference between what they had to learn on the course and the stuff that they were actually required to know to do their job. And perhaps the IS roster met that requirement because the training is almost exclusively vocational and they can see the direct relevance of what it taught.
 
#9
PoisonDwarf said:
For example, there are lots of ex-T1 techs now in IS roles
Granted, they won't have a drama. But quite a few Class 2's dropped off the Tech roster to become IS Eng, going from Class 3 to 1 in a short space of time. These are the guys that I feel will lose out.

PoisonDwarf said:
however there is an argument that the Foreman of Signals course could probably morph over the coming years anyway, with less of an emphasis on pure maths, physics and analogue circuitry and a conscious move towards the demands of more modern digital systems and delivery of ICS.
I would fecking hope so!

Apparantly there will still be a kind of "trade divide" existing for about 8 years, until the first batch of CS Eng out of the Factory have gone through their Class 1.

Regardless, CS Engineers are gonna be a lot more employable on civvy street than there current SET or IS Eng counterparts. So to answer the threads original question: Foreman (IS) is a figment of your imagination. Foreman (CS) is (sorry, "will be") good for the Corps.
 
#10
BinaryWarfare said:
So to answer the threads original question: Foreman (IS) is a figment of your imagination. Foreman (CS) is (sorry, "will be") good for the Corps.
Big chief SOinC pushed out a letter the other week confirming that the name changes take place wef 1st December. Supvr (R) changes to Yeoman (EW) and Supvr (IS) changes to Foreman (IS).
 
#11
FFS! Why o why can't they just leave the supervisory titles alone?!?

Who the f*** want to be associated with a bunch of no-talent chinless dog-tossers that sound like they are in charge of a team of bricklayers!!

Let's keep it as IS (Supvr)

The Geezer
 
#12
No doubt the names will all change again, along with the trade structures etc. The Corps needs to wise up in my opinion, come up with a formal trade structure and naming convention and stick with it a while. Novel idea i know but it may catch on.
 
#13
PoisonDwarf said:
Big chief SOinC pushed out a letter the other week confirming that the name changes take place wef 1st December. Supvr (R) changes to Yeoman (EW) and Supvr (IS) changes to Foreman (IS).
Flange. Foiled again by not having the info.

Feck it, what's in a name anyway.
 

IS Ski Geek

War Hero
Moderator
#14
Good to see the big chief SOinC pushed out that letter the other week. However as per usual it has not been seen yet. Ahhh Communications the Royal Corps biggest downfall - it cant communicate to its own troops. (Well apart from on ARRSE)
 
#17
Yeoman Of Signals Electronic Warfare, shortened to YofS (EW) - makes sense. I've already heard one "Not in my day", "death of the Corps", "their course isnt long enough", "we're real supervisors" rant. Not accepting change really is an unattractive trait in some, although i have to admit i cant see the point of it. Was there any appitite for this change anywhere outside of the halls of SOinC's Blandford?
 
#18
boney_m said:
Yeoman Of Signals Electronic Warfare, shortened to YofS (EW) - makes sense. I've already heard one "Not in my day", "death of the Corps", "their course isnt long enough", "we're real supervisors" rant. Not accepting change really is an unattractive trait in some, although i have to admit i cant see the point of it. Was there any appitite for this change anywhere outside of the halls of SOinC's Blandford?
I totally agree - that does make sense - but that is not what is stated in the document, hence my post.

Ref the change - very good point, lets see if these now means an all encompassing 'Supervisory' course for all operator trades......
That can only be a good thing for all, surely?
I think it 'could' be a good change, IF followed up fully........
SP
 
#19
If your titled Yeoman or Foreman, surely the abreviations are YofS and FofS - are people getting prescous about their abbreviated titles now??

I'm a little annoyed about this information not filtering down. Has it been published on the SOinC's intranet yet?
 
#20
boney_m said:
If your titled Yeoman or Foreman, surely the abreviations are YofS and FofS - are people getting prescous about their abbreviated titles now??

I'm a little annoyed about this information not filtering down. Has it been published on the SOinC's intranet yet?
From the document (Dated 19 Oct 07):

FULL TITLE - Yeoman of Signals

ABBREVIATED TITLE - Yeoman

Etc
SP
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top