Single Technical Supervisor

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by Au_Courant, Oct 14, 2010.

?
  1. Stay as we are with both FofS & FofS (IS).

    12 vote(s)
    75.0%
  2. Merge into a single FofS roster.

    4 vote(s)
    25.0%

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. So we have one feeder trade and two FofS routes. Surely this can't be logical can it? On the cusp of SD&SR, surely there must be savings to be made by combining these the two courses? Discuss.
     
  2. Not at all.

    I can't see the 'single stream' trade being a runaway success either.

    If anything the more 'supervisor' streams the better. They are the SMEs so a few more for the mechs, and maybe a Bowman Yeoman/Foreman also could be of use.
     
  3. having worked in a Sqn on Ops with both, I cannot see how a single FofS would manage the workload.
     
  4. The point about quantity of work is an important one, but it could be argued that you could still have a single Foreman trade. There are many units that have an Ops FofS and a Trg FofS, both of whom have had exactly the same training but do very different roles. We therefore train to a common benchmark and then apply diversity to suit the circumstances, rather than train for multiple outcomes and lose flexibility. In this age of financial cuts-aplenty, common core training, supplemented by specific special-to-role training is preferred by the G8 monkeys.

    So you have 2 x FofS in the unit (just like now) but one is focussed on apps integration, information exploitation etc and the other is focussed on core engineering, infrastructure and so on. But they have had the same start state and it could be seen like a jump back 10 years.

    What do you think?
     
  5. What about the frontage covered by such trades? It would be a very broad brush, where as the current arrangement of FofS and FofS (IS) means (with slight overlap) wehave the coverage required for the two areas.

    Trg FofS could be either if we are honest.
     
  6. I agree with you, it would be very broad and I'm not saying that I necessarily favour the single supervisor either. Just trying to add an extra viewpoint for discussion's sake.
     
  7. The person who could do all those things would not stay in the army on £40K, but would be off like a rat out of an aquaduct to industry for vastly better pay, superior conditions and a hatful more respect.
     
  8. Has any one else noticed that the blokes are naturally filtering themselves? I'm not talking about legacy CS Eng T or I, but the guys out of training who have completed the CS Eng course?

    Cross train all you can, invest in the individual, and rotate the Engr around the responsibilities of the unit but in my experience the blokes are falling either side of the I or T fence - they are doing it without any intervention. We used to have more than one tech (at least 3 at one point in the Corps i think).

    To my mind, this should be encouraged post CL1 to feed two distinct Supvr rosters. You opt into what you want to do, and take your chances with your peers.

    Just my 2'pence worth!
     
  9. IS Ski Geek

    IS Ski Geek War Hero Moderator

    Boney, Agreed nudge, nudge, wink, wink say no more!