Single Supervisor Trade?

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by MiracleBill, May 18, 2012.

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. This was food for thought dropped in by the Corps Col. Who would go?????
  2. One of the most stupid ideas I've heard in a while. Do these people serve in the same corps as the rest of us?
    • Like Like x 1
  3. As I said, food for thought. My take is that we should be going the other way.
  4. That was put up about 5 years ago; and it was bollocks then!
  5. Ivory towers view again by a Corps with far to much RD influence, and I wander why I didn't turn up. At least we were graced with presence this year as the SOinC didn't bother last year

    Munch Me
  6. This year was better than last but they still didn't make use of the horsepower in the audience. O&D was informative. Don't want to go to Kenya. Single Supvr was only food for thought, can't remember the other 2 or 3.
  7. I'm new to these forums, so I'm fully expecting a backlash for being an ARRSE crow...

    TBF to supvrs, they do spend a lot of time covering each other in their absences, leading to much FofS shimfing about dealing with crypto and YofSs having to decipher brochures in order to acquire cable heads, but just because they can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea! Maybe a result of TOT empire building, RD lunacy or people not being sure how to employ FofS(IS) (who should really be the most employable people in the Corps!)

    This will never get off the ground, anyway. The resistance by all and sundry at Unit level would be overwhelming!
  8. The trend of the Corps over the last few years has been a smaller number of trades with and engineer, operator and support trades. So it wouldn't surprise me if the supervisory trade went that way also, especially now the army as a whole is trying to do more with less etc etc.

    Can't say I agree with it though, on any level. The phrase that springs to mind is, "jack of all trades master of none".
  9. The merging of trades has been a disaster IMO. ASOps who are having to learn Bowman the hard way and Radio Gurus wasted on trunk comms. Not to mention that the institution that were Lineys have been forced to become storemen whilst the death knell has tolled for techs in the classic sense. I think we'll just end up with one GS Comms trade who doesn't know how to repair, operate or account for anything but looks brilliant on paper and is really easy to train to an overview level.
  10. I agree but the 'disaster' has been averted by us not having any kit. The REME have done a similar thing with their Vehicle rid of them. The VM's where supposed to cover the VE tasks but, in my experience, shy away requesting tech assistance.
    What are you on about with your 'FofS IS most employable' statement????
  11. He probably is one they are most employable at getting the brews on IMHO even that takes some getting their heads round :)

    Munch Me
    • Like Like x 1
  12. They must be short staffed, we have an Ops SNCO for that task, much more reliable.
  13. Even the Ops Sgt would baulk at the 'Lance Foreman' telling him to get the brews on!!

    Having some experience of Falcon, I would have to say that it is very 'IS heavy', so surely a decent FofS IS would be just the ticket, as well as a cadre of switched on ISEngs.

    However, we don't have this, so the Techs have to spend there time smashing away at the keyboards rather than doing any actual proper teching.
  14. Making things work as they were designed is never a problem, however making it all work once you've ripped it apart to find a serial number to meet the antiquated accounting requirements is, and this is the Fozzer General Duties bag.
  15. I can't believe that you think our kit was 'designed'!