Just going round and round in circles

It would appear that all the recent AT posts seem to degenerate into the same old thing. A whinge about insufficent pay or lack of recognition; being undermanned and overstretched; the poor standard of new ATs; and so on. (Gen M: yes I know there is a specific "sub-forum" for ATs but part of this is probably applicable to the Corps as a whole) But in all the whinging and moaning no-one seems to be prepared to actually do anything about it. Seems to always be the responsibility of someone else.

The future of the trade lies squarely in the hands of every AT. We need to set the standards. For instance when was the last time that an inspecting AT wore No2s to a unit inspection or the inspection of a major unit was conducted by a WO2 or ATO? It used to happen. Further still on inspections. How many ATs are inspecting the units for which they are responsible for? How true a reflection of the state of unit storage does that generate?

How many WO/SNCOs take it upon themselves to try and further the experience and knowledge of the ATs under their control? Rather than just doing their job. Not many I'd wager.

How many WO/SNCOs actually enforce the regs to maintain standards? Instead of being worried about how popular they are. But, don't forget that the Regs can be used to evoke change as well. For example, next time your leave pass is not authorised because of a lack of manning, or other such reason, ensure that the relevant box is completed and the pass signed and (then) ensure that, in accordance with the Regs, the leave pass is sent to the CO. The Co has to keep all unauthorised or cancelled leave passes until the end of the leave year at which time he must justify, to higher powers, why his soldiers, if it is the case, have been unable to take all their leave.

The Basic and Upgrading course set the basic levels to which ATs must aspire. To fail to meet that level means, quite simply, that an individual is not suitable or upto standard. But how many individuals or units take the time to prepare these soldiers for courses? This more especialy relates to those attending Upgrading. Incidently, the AT leadership was designed for those soldiers who were to become JNCOs after a relatively short time in the Army and not those who were already wearing one or two stripes.

We (the trade) are responsible for ensuring that the "customer" sees us as assets. We need to be able to demonstrate and maintain our knowlege about every aspect of the job, a readiness to help, and assist, and a high personal and proffessional standard. It is up to you, if you are capable, to set the example. If you feel unsuited to the task then go and become a systems analysist or civvy. Not that I have anything against either.
Wilf that was endless, we know all this.

Why should soldiers be prepared for the T1 course? If all soldiers were prepared it would cease to act as the filter you want it to be!

No2 dress on inspections, fcuking behave!

Does every aspect of the job include EOD?

The rest seems OKish but very patronising and fcuking smug. Are you one of these super SNCO's you want us all to be? I doubt it.

While I agree with most of your post in principal, a lot of the problem is not just what we instil into our newer members of the trade, but their own lack of motivation. Should we really have to push people into preparing for upgrading, or should they get the books out and do some reading, if that's all it takes?

Again, I agree that we should be upholding the regulations - but we also have to be able to use our technical knowledge, and for those of us who have some, experience, to make judgement calls on occasion and make allowance for circumstances. That's why we're technicians, after all.

Not doing the No. 2s for inspections though; If it makes you feel any better, I would polish my boots and make sure I didn't turn up hung-over when I did inspections, but that's it really!

Oh, I never mentioned EOD... I have now! :wink:

We know this.

When I was at 11 Regt I used to get the micky taken by the lads in the office for pressing my combats, polishing my boots and *gasp* wearing a belt over my jacket prior to inspecting units. I also approached RQs and QMs with respect. Something else the more junior members of the unit would scoff at due to the mentality of having power over the unit as the AT. I failed a number of units, and often got the reply that the last AT never said anything.

As for the current T1 course people have been RTU'd for being rubbish, and some units are refusing to put T2s forward as they are not deemed ready.
General Melchett said:
some units are refusing to put T2s forward as they are not deemed ready.
This is a tricky issue. If the T1 course is max'd out, and dross are taking up valuable spaces, then it's right that a rough unit filter is applied by unit staff / SNCO ATs as to whether they are deemed ready/capable to attempt the T1 cse.

If however the T1 is never running at full capacity, then qualified T2s should be put forward. The course involves a fair degree of training, so even if the unit thinks that the individual is not ready at the start of the course, then maybe after some training the AT will have assimilated sufficient knowledge to prove he is capable of being T1 qualified.

Melchers - you're probably in as good a position as anyone to see the T1s come through the course. Are the courses full to capacity? Of the T2s that failed, did many of them fail for being general dross and would never pass the course after 15 attempts, or would by being held off for a year or so improve their chances of passing?

Other than pure aptitude and the full sylabus of the BAT cse, what pre-course ability is required? Surely as an ATRA establishment, the school can only assess students on what they've been taught. Just because a student is inexperienced in ammunition technical stuff doesn't mean they should be disadvantaged on the course - the course should teach them all they need to know and then test them to make sure they can remember it / understand it. So a unit that deems an individual as not ready for the T1 cse, should concentrate on preparing the individual's aptitude, self-confidence, wider education, charactor, leadership and all the other things that a SNCO AT requires, rather than putting them in a lab painting boxes just 'for the experiance of working with ammo'.
I wouldn't call 8, now down to 7, full to capacity. RTU'd due to a case of being rubbish at GM (I think), but nothing a bit of extra training can't sort out.
cabbage said:
Wilf that was endless, we know all this.
It might be endless, but are you doing anything about it.

You obviously don't know all, as FYI, No2s did used to get worn on unit inspections. It has been awhile, admitedly, but in my time as an AT never the less.

The objective of preparing T2s for Upgrading is based on the fact that many Cpls do not get much diversity prior to attempting the course. Another way to look at it is that you are helping to improve the ability of those working for you, and potentially alongside you, thus reducing your workload in the long term. It's not exactly rocket science is it.
I din't say we had never worn No2's (but not in your time in 11 though, although possibly in your ten years as a Cpl before northolt) my comment was meant to indicate how ridiculous that would be currently. People used to wear battledress do you want that back? With saracen armoured cars and puttees, behave.

On the preparation issue for T1, my soldiers will be well rounded and as trained and experienced as I can achieve. This will be more than in the depot. My problem is just preparing blokes to pass the T1 course, we've all seen it in the past. The collecting of old exam papers and concentration on the specific tests. Our AT's should be able to pass the T1 with no specific to course training. Otherwise the course needs to be longer.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Zapped Weapons, Equipment & Rations 0
Pox_Dr The NAAFI Bar 8
S The NAAFI Bar 4

Similar threads

New Posts