IOT Breakdown
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Anderson134353
They haven't been told what is being cut.
New format of IOT will be (From IOT45 onwards):
Term 1: 8wks
1 wks leave
Term 2: 8wks
1 wks leave
Term 3: 8wks
I guess the fun stuff may have been removed?
New format of IOT will be (From IOT45 onwards):
Term 1: 8wks
1 wks leave
Term 2: 8wks
1 wks leave
Term 3: 8wks
I guess the fun stuff may have been removed?
The fun stuff is always the first to go in the RAF! Hope you enjoy the course regardless of where the structure ends up!
Original post by Anderson134353
IOT is being cut down. I have friends starting on IOT 44 in January. Their Term 2 and 3 are cut to 8 weeks.
There's an additional bit of gen there.
The fact they haven't zeroed the course numbers indicates its not such a drastic change (they did zero the numbers when the 30-wk course began).
The educated assumption you can then make is that much of the structure remains the same.
Original post by Drewski
There's an additional bit of gen there.
The fact they haven't zeroed the course numbers indicates its not such a drastic change (they did zero the numbers when the 30-wk course began).
The educated assumption you can then make is that much of the structure remains the same.
The fact they haven't zeroed the course numbers indicates its not such a drastic change (they did zero the numbers when the 30-wk course began).
The educated assumption you can then make is that much of the structure remains the same.
Nice bit of lateral thinking there Drew, but I just wonder how many times they can reset the course number without anybody noticing - can you imagine the crewroom chat: " I was No1 IOT" - "What year?"
But I think you're right, they'll just delete the stuff that is not deemed relevant to a JOs immediate future.
My OCTU was 16 weeks. FALA and "Twelve O'clock High" was all they thought you needed to know about leadership. Must have worked for some people, as the current CAS was a contemporary on the following course.
Original post by Ikaruss
Must have worked for some people, as the current CAS was a contemporary on the following course.
If all his contemporaries had the same training and the same amount of peacetime experience before it got really challenging, then that works.
The 'current' IOT is excellent. It is far superior to IOT's before it in every way. It produces JO's who are far more capable and have a far greater skillset and (IMHO) actually readies them for the careers ahead. If the course is to be shortened for the needs of a minority Branch who rarely spend time outside the wire, it is a shameful day. The RAF will suffer, in the Joint world, for this folly.
Original post by ProStacker
If all his contemporaries had the same training and the same amount of peacetime experience before it got really challenging, then that works.
The 'current' IOT is excellent. It is far superior to IOT's before it in every way. It produces JO's who are far more capable and have a far greater skillset and (IMHO) actually readies them for the careers ahead. If the course is to be shortened for the needs of a minority Branch who rarely spend time outside the wire, it is a shameful day. The RAF will suffer, in the Joint world, for this folly.
The 'current' IOT is excellent. It is far superior to IOT's before it in every way. It produces JO's who are far more capable and have a far greater skillset and (IMHO) actually readies them for the careers ahead. If the course is to be shortened for the needs of a minority Branch who rarely spend time outside the wire, it is a shameful day. The RAF will suffer, in the Joint world, for this folly.
Did the 18 week course work? Yes
Did the 24 week course work? Yes
Will cutting down the 30 week course end the world? No.
As said before, some of that skill set acquisition might just need shifting into Phase 2, and, as discussed, there are potentially elements of the course now that can be done for.
As for the minority branch(Es), much as it pains me to say it, they are the reason the rest of the RAF has a job. Some people forget that sometimes. Like the new out of IOT scribbly who suggested Phase 2 pilot trainees should live in a barrack block, not in a Mess.
To project Air Power you need people at the sharp end to do the job. If you don't you might as well not bother. A lot of my contemporaries now wear the uniforms of BA, Monarch, Virgin etc, and several have left well before their "time". There is a gap to fill and new gaps being created by SDSR.
Original post by Fritz Bollinger
As for the minority branch(Es), much as it pains me to say it, they are the reason the rest of the RAF has a job. Some people forget that sometimes.
The question is how capable, adaptable and flexible do you want those support branches to be? Do you want exemplary support from highly capable officers who will help the fliers do their job, or do you want people who'll just muddle through?
Having well trained people in support roles is in the best interest of the pilots.
This move, on the surface, isn't.
Original post by Drewski
The question is how capable, adaptable and flexible do you want those support branches to be? Do you want exemplary support from highly capable officers who will help the fliers do their job, or do you want people who'll just muddle through?
Having well trained people in support roles is in the best interest of the pilots.
This move, on the surface, isn't.
Having well trained people in support roles is in the best interest of the pilots.
This move, on the surface, isn't.
I refer to my previous point - we still had highly capable, agile and adaptable JOs when the course was shorter. The new courses was good in that it was a blank sheet re-design, but like all things, to achieve the aim fettling is needed. The pilot/aircrew training syllabae may be just as vulnerable to change (and the associated DSAT nause) as he rest.
Sometimes compromise is required. Ultimately OACTU has to produce the entry standard to Phase 2 training establishment, and their requirements as customers, not all singin all dancing B+/A- in your first OJAR Fg Offs (slight exaggeration for effect
). 
(edited 8 years ago)
A lot of the Phase 2 training had not substantially changed to align with the 'new' IOT. I know that my Branch hadn't stepped up.
Aircrew tend not to care about most of that stuff that gets in the way of their flying. JOCC isn't known as 'Aircrew Catchup' for nothing. I was embarrassed at how little the Aircrew on my course had developed and how narrow their view was, particularly on issues such as personnel and leadership. Given that they would go on to be Station Commanders and ultimately lead the RAF was more than a little concerning at times. I know a good Staish will let his Execs do the real work, but it matters.
It doesn't really matter whether you think that Aircrew are the centre of the RAF universe. If the common entry training (which is far more useful to every other Branch) is changed to suit Aircrew, then that's detrimental to every other Branch. 'Shoving it to Phase 2' isn't a good answer.
Aircrew tend not to care about most of that stuff that gets in the way of their flying. JOCC isn't known as 'Aircrew Catchup' for nothing. I was embarrassed at how little the Aircrew on my course had developed and how narrow their view was, particularly on issues such as personnel and leadership. Given that they would go on to be Station Commanders and ultimately lead the RAF was more than a little concerning at times. I know a good Staish will let his Execs do the real work, but it matters.
It doesn't really matter whether you think that Aircrew are the centre of the RAF universe. If the common entry training (which is far more useful to every other Branch) is changed to suit Aircrew, then that's detrimental to every other Branch. 'Shoving it to Phase 2' isn't a good answer.
Original post by ProStacker
Aircrew tend not to care about most of that stuff that gets in the way of their flying. JOCC isn't known as 'Aircrew Catchup' for nothing. I was embarrassed at how little the Aircrew on my course had developed and how narrow their view was, particularly on issues such as personnel and leadership. Given that they would go on to be Station Commanders and ultimately lead the RAF was more than a little concerning at times. I know a good Staish will let his Execs do the real work, but it matters.
Aircrew tend not to care about most of that stuff that gets in the way of their flying. JOCC isn't known as 'Aircrew Catchup' for nothing. I was embarrassed at how little the Aircrew on my course had developed and how narrow their view was, particularly on issues such as personnel and leadership. Given that they would go on to be Station Commanders and ultimately lead the RAF was more than a little concerning at times. I know a good Staish will let his Execs do the real work, but it matters.
JOCC?!
Considering we've now got JOD interfering directly with Phase 2 (ok if your Phase 2 was only a month or two, less so if it's 2-3 years, and the course providers have forgotten the old flexibility and make you do it in the middle of an intense flying course), I can't say the "new" model is any better. 3 weeks in one go as a late first tourist/early second interfered far less. Of course, some were lucky enough to escape with JODL.
Why it should be concerning that aircrew (mainly front end) end up in the executive positions, particularly at flying stations, is beyond belief. With any current safety model you'd need to duplicate the post if you made it non-flying anyway.
It doesn't really matter whether you think that Aircrew are the centre of the RAF universe. If the common entry training (which is far more useful to every other Branch) is changed to suit Aircrew, then that's detrimental to every other Branch. 'Shoving it to Phase 2' isn't a good answer.
If you don't think aircrew, and the job they do as systems operators on Ops, are at the centre of the RAF universe, you're in the wrong job (or a PTI or Regt Cpl running CCS!). Like it or not, the rest of the RAF was formed, and exists, to support them. That's probably why the branches are prefixed with Ops Spt.
Uploading to Phase 2 may be the only practical answer.
Original post by Fritz Bollinger
Why it should be concerning that aircrew (mainly front end) end up in the executive positions, particularly at flying stations, is beyond belief.
Is it though?
If you're running a station - especially a flying station - you're in charge of the support functions. How much say would you actually have in the day-to-day ops of the flying squadrons? I'd wager not much, you leave that to the OC's. So your job as station exec is about running the station in support of the fast and noisy things.
Having station commanders from ops spt branches makes more sense than having them from the aircrew branches. Not least because (generally speaking) they've got more experience of managing people.
Don't worry, there'll still be plenty of cushy Air-rank jobs for the boys in Westminster
Original post by Fritz Bollinger
If you don't think aircrew, and the job they do as systems operators on Ops, are at the centre of the RAF universe, you're in the wrong job (or a PTI or Regt Cpl running CCS!). Like it or not, the rest of the RAF was formed, and exists, to support them. That's probably why the branches are prefixed with Ops Spt.
If you don't think aircrew, and the job they do as systems operators on Ops, are at the centre of the RAF universe, you're in the wrong job (or a PTI or Regt Cpl running CCS!). Like it or not, the rest of the RAF was formed, and exists, to support them. That's probably why the branches are prefixed with Ops Spt.
That's quite typical of the Aircrew mentality. It is, however, wrong.
The platform is the centre of the RAF universe.
The Aircrew are there to operate the platform and get it to the correct place at the correct time to do the job required. Whether it be dropping ordnance, taking pictures, listening, delivering freight, moving passengers, the operating crew are going where they are told, when they are told. Given the advances in UAV's etc, it further emphasizes this point, as the operator is now remote from the platform.
I always accepted that I was part of a team that helped deliver that platform to where it was needed. Nobody in that team was more or less valuable than anyone else, because everybody had their designated role - be that driving a fuel bowser, writing reports, stacking shelves or even operating the aircraft. Once you start seeing yourself as something special, you fail to see the worth of other people.
Original post by ProStacker
That's quite typical of the Aircrew mentality. It is, however, wrong.
You're absolutely right, Stax (Happy New Year BTW) that stereotypical generalisation could not be more wrong. In a 30+ year aircrew career, I never met anyone (oh ok, a couple of Harrier mates) who thought that way other than in friendly banter (and yes, it really was banter!)
The reality on my flying station was that everyone, from the Sqn cleaner to Harry Staish, was equally important and had their part to play in producing the Air Power effect. Heaven forbid any stuck up aircrew mate who forgot that.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I'm with Fritz on this one.
http://www.aviationancestry.com/Recruitment/RafRecruit/RafRecruit-A%20Daunting%20Task-1984-1.jpg
However, the nature of British military aviation is undoubtedly changing as you point out (UAVs etc) and the long term future role of aircrew in the equation is a moot point, but with F35 / Typhoon and all the other modern manned AT / RW / ISTAR assets, I don't think you'll see much difference in the next 25-30 years.
As Fritz said in a previous post, while I'm sure the current IOT course produces JOs with greater theoretical knowledge of air power and joint ops than ever before, does that make them more qualified in the real world than experienced Officers who only completed 16/18/or 24 week courses? As I said in my first post on this thread, the RAF really has to decide what output it wants from Cranwell and for what purpose. If it's to satisfy a short term priority to force through aircrew to fill the widening gap, then that's an organisational issue - but in reality I believe all JOs will still graduate with the basic core skills they require to equip them for Phase 2 courses and their first tour. IMHO.
Has anyone got any specifics about what has been cut out of IOT?
I've got a mate whos going through as we speak and i've made contact to find out, but he's a bit busy with his own life at the moment! If anyone on here could find that information it would be incredibly helpful. If I find out i'll post here.
I've got a mate whos going through as we speak and i've made contact to find out, but he's a bit busy with his own life at the moment! If anyone on here could find that information it would be incredibly helpful. If I find out i'll post here.
Im trying to find out the same! It's 3 terms of 8 weeks I do know that.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I heard that adventure training has been cut slightly. And DE2 has been cut to a week instead of 2. Don't take that as gospel though.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well just to speculate, I know that they have stopped using RITC Fairbourne (Source: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/two-north-wales-raf-training-9746435)
I might speculate then that in Term 1, the 2 week 'Dynamic Leadership' phase (which I'm pretty sure is basically adventure training) would be cut.
But as you say, if they're condensing everything then the structure itself may have changed. I've got a friend on the VGS who's a group captain, he might be able to dig up some accurate information. I'm seeing him this weekend. Standby for information!
I might speculate then that in Term 1, the 2 week 'Dynamic Leadership' phase (which I'm pretty sure is basically adventure training) would be cut.
But as you say, if they're condensing everything then the structure itself may have changed. I've got a friend on the VGS who's a group captain, he might be able to dig up some accurate information. I'm seeing him this weekend. Standby for information!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Unit 19 - Internet of Things Assignment 1
- Imperial Admissions Interview and IOT
- RAF Technical Training info
- Digital Manufacturing
- Abbreviations and acronyms for Personal statement
- Jumpstart your Supply Chain Software Development Journey - Key Steps to Success
- Advice/ DIY kits for Electronics hobby
- Computer Science course not accredited by the BCS (British Computer Society)
- RAF Halton - Phase 1 Training (Week 1-10) Breakdown
- Important PSA for disabled students on ESA & UC
- Amino acid
- Unsure of where to find student finance breakdown
- A level results
- Contextual Medicine application
- Dsa application
- Notification of performance
- childcare grants
- Edinburgh University low student satisfaction
- Need help with RAF Officer filter interview preparation
- Selecting breakdown cover
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 months ago
How can I go about appealing my army application after medically unfit report?Trending
Last reply 3 months ago
How can I go about appealing my army application after medically unfit report?
