I am trying to further my knowledge re RAF but their site seems to conflict with other sites and indeed with different Squadron sites, which is correct.
RAF website is sadly out of date. One may suspect this is propaganda as the actual size scale and deployment is significantly less than whatâs displayed. What in particular are you finding conflict about?
Itâs very out of date. Iâm studying for my SNCO board and have had to pick info off various different sources in order to make it current.
There are so many significant errors, it is laughable. RAF Media should be ashamed of themselves.
Answer: the RAF site has out of date information, other websites have out of date information, some are vaguely in date. Itâs a modern problem brought about by Mr Berners-Lee! That said, some of the RAF stuff is horrendously out of date and inaccurate to start with.
It doesnât take long to update the information on websites, especially if itâs part of your job and youâre getting PAID to do it. This was pointed out to someone at work in their annual appraisal, who thought there would be some sympathy from others ⌠there wasnât.
You would like to think that especially when itâs taxpayers money involved that people would be held to account more. Surely we as the people who pay for the public sector would like to know the current situations wrt to our money being spent.
If people are looking for info the senior appointments page is useful for changes in commands etc etc etc. This never seems to be much out of date due to the people involved.
Cut backs. No one is being paid to do it. RAF website is handle by a media company who had their budget cut. Only the basics get done such as monitoring, hosting, missing links and the focus will be on the careers arm which changes more often and is more important. Get used to it.
Pick any 2
You can have it now, you can have it right, you can have it on budget.
1 Like
Yeah, but in reality itâs not that simple. Things are so fluid that some of the information they choose to publish changes so frequently youâd need teams of thousands keeping it up to date. Other stuff is legacy and not âtidied upâ.
The key, unless you look at the Op updates (which are better), is to cross check as much as you can with other sources. If you are using it for research for stuff like OASC interviews etc then do the best you can to verify it. For teaching then itâs best to use other sources again depending on the subject matter.
Cut backs are a sign of the times and have been for several years now and are not an excuse for not doing things, if thatâs excuse I think they should ask them if they want the contract anymore.
Focussing on the careers arm and not the other bits is folly. When people apply for jobs they look on the organisationâs site and find when asking questions at the interview that the website doesnât match up with the reality. Imagine turning up for interview and in the âdo you have any questions bitâ, asking where can I be placed and maybe given some options and asking about places on the website and being told no theyâve been closed or in the process of being closed etc and no we donât have that aircraft (potentially). Personally youâd have to wonder what youâre getting yourself into.
I must admit I advise cadets looking for engineering jobs in the RAF to look into apprenticeships with civvie firms with MOD contracts, as they can get the service life without the drawbacks. I do this after several chats with RAF âgrease monkeysâ who got the ache with seeing their civvie counterparts doing the same job, but none of the aggro of being in a uniform, ie clocking off at 5, getting overtime and not having to do guard duties.
Can I go into work tomorrow and say to my manager can I not do things as weâve been subjected to budget cuts, people going etc etc? I think I know him well enough to know what heâd say.
It is not rocket science; in many cases, it is a simple (or should be simple!) cross-reference of facts as & when things change.
For example, I just did a quick word search for Lyneham (my last base & associated sqn in the RAF), one such link.
Last paragraph says:
On Friday, 1st Jul 11, the last of RAF Lynehamâs Hercules Fleet said a final farewell to the County of Wiltshire to their new home at RAF Brize Norton.
However, top of page, near 24 Sqn crest states:
Please Note: Lyneham Transport Wing Hercules do not carry Squadron markings
Thereâs no such thing as a Lyneham wing since 2011!!! Doh!! (Same on 47 Sqn link & 30 Sqn link)
Look up 43(F Sqn -
This new merged squadron, named 43 (Fighter) Squadron, will be significantly bigger than the present unit
âŚ&âŚ
The ânewâ squadron has taken on 26 aircraft, 30 pairs of permanent aircrew and about 260 engineering personnel.
Last comment:
No. 43(F) Squadron disbanded in July 2009.
No-one has changed the context/content to reflect disbandment - over 7 yrs ago!!!
Itâs worse than amateur status.
I would go into the interview and quote what the site says and when the assembled knowledge sit there and harrumph at the answers just say, itâs whatâs on the RAF website and see what the response is, afterall you canât help that the information is out of date.
Mind you the HQAC site is no better. This is still on the site some 2½ years after gliding was abandoned by the ATC.
There are fantastic opportunities to glide while you are a cadet, with the ultimate goal being a solo flight. Training is in three stages: a Gliding Induction Course (GIC), Gliding Scholarship (GS) and Advanced Gliding Training (AGT).
When asked about opportunities in the ATC you can legitimately cite the wonderful opportunities for glider training. After all itâs on the current version of the website, so it must be true.
I know what my response would be. Fail.
The careers office have updated info.
Online forums have it (The Student Rooms)
Google of something like preparation for RAF interview brings up alsorts.
Same here - someone either trying to be a smart â â â â by quoting something they know not to be true in order to take the wee-wee, or someone so stupid as to take the word of one website, is not someone you should put in charge of some 14 year olds on Dartmoor.
Tbh Iâd avoid getting too obsessed about sqn numbers and so on, they donât impact either you or the real world as aircrews and airframes are pooled and what sqn the individual crew members are from, and what sqn âownsâ which airframe isnât something that effects who sits in what GR4 and with whomâŚ
You need to be able to talk about the types of aircraft and what they do, and you need to be able to talk about current/recent operations and how, for example, the RQ-9 fleet fits into coalition ops over Iraq and Syria, or the Typhoon det operates in the Falklands. Youâll do well by understanding some of the issues around individual types - how the RAF Rivet Joint aircraft fit into the USAF RJ fleet and upgrade cycle, how the C-17 purchase came about, issues with the A400M development and service introduction programme, Tornado GR4 out of service date, the Typhoon upgrade programme and how that will mesh with the F-35 and the carriersâŚ
Knowing what Sqn flies what aircraft wonât help you much if you donât know - or appear to care - what the RAF is doing in Syria.
A CFAV is paid, or not, to look after children in sometimes difficult situations: you need to be able to demonstrate that you can think for yourself, that you can make decisions, and that you can grasp the complexity of situations and use your wit and judgement to make hopefully good decisions - if they needed someone to reel off serial numbers theyâd just get some saddo plane spotter.
and we have enough of those already!
Iâm sorry to say that one of my board members some years ago was only interested in which Sqns had which aircraft - he didnât care that I actually understood the aircraft systems in depth.
1 Like
However in a selection scenario they wonât expect perfection - although itâs nice to get someone who is really up to speed. If someoneâs gone to the trouble to research something, then as long as they are in the ballpark and can state their sources, itâs really fairly minor triv in some respects. Although important, for selection purposes there are far more important elements of the interview. Saying that 21Sqn is based at RAF Shrimpton-under-Willow is all very well even though theyâve now moved out and thatâs now a solar farm, but the Op stuff will be far more relevant.
As quite a few examples show here, a fair bit is the failure to delete out of date information.
A significant failure to cough any correct info will result in a fail as the candidate will fall below the minimum criteria for that section. They may be the best in the other satraps but that wonât matter. Invited to re attend 3,6 or 12 months.
Unless youâre one of those wings who still do âscenariosâ on the board?
Why do we need to have an in depth knowledge of the RAF?
Why do we continue to treat the application process as one which focusses on the parent organisation and not what we will be actually doing in our volunteering role in the ATC? I would expect people going for a uniform to know names and places within the Corps and with a direct context to the Corps, but, what, where and why of aircraft, stations and squadrons in the RAF. Why?
Why does it matter that we donât know the ins and outs of the parent organisation, I couldnât tell you whoâs who and whereâs where outside of our sphere of interest, if I find out something in course of our work so be it. We wouldnât and donât ask questions like do you know where other sites or functions are in interviews as long as they having a broad understanding of the companyâs production.
1 Like
I can only imagine the justification is, because we wear an âRAF Uniformâ and seen as such by the public there should be an element of minimal understanding of what the âblue suitâ does
Although as a youth organisation we are a separate and distinct (and distant) branch of the RAF, it is useful to know what the âcompanyâ is doing.
Take an example of a lorry driver, letâs say for a high-street supermarket, youâd expect them to have some knowledge about the company, who the boss is at the top, where head office is, who the local âbossâ (regional manager for instance) is even though they will only ever drive lorries and nothing else.
A CFAV will never pick up arms in anger, will never be deployed, will never put their life on the line in the name of their country. A CFAV will only ever attend their ATC unit, will only train Cadets, will only ever be in a training/instructing role. But the âcompanyâ in many areas they represent as the only âblue footprintâ should be known.
Now the argument is to what level?
Yes an understanding of the organisational structure is useful to know and understand where orders, instructions and policy comes from, but an in-depth knowledge of the companyâs business? I can see an argument to not need that.
However by requesting candidates know that information, does it go some way to determine their commitment? (and perhaps in turn act as a first level filterâŚ.it is far easier to be Scout leader so perhaps that is a better choice for some individuals?)
A CFAV board is different to an interview, there is not a job offer which has been applied for and a candidate shortlisted, it is not a situation where the candidate is trying to come across as a better choice than the rivals but a case of meeting minimum criteria, in possession of the qualities expected for a CFAV,
1 Like
i would see it acting as a filter - though you could substitute any topic really - if someone is unable or unwilling to be able to discus and think about complex and multifaceted, and contraditcory, issues like Syria, or the A400M, then are they going to be able to fit into a role that requires nuance, thought and subtlety?
if someone canât be bothered, or just canât, spend a good few hours researching and understanding the political, military, diplomatic and financial complexities of defence policy in the South Atlantic are they going to be able to do the same with regards to the signs and giveaways of Child Sexual Exploitation, grooming, bullying etcâŚ?
we need people who can grasp difficult, complex, nuanced subjects where small details make the difference between unsavoury and instantly reportable - people who canât demonstrate the ability to read, understand and then think have, imv, limited place in the ACO.
1 Like
Until 3 years ago I put together and kept updated a fact sheet on the RAF for basic cadets and stopped as it was becoming too difficult to sort out fact from fiction in terms of the RAFâs material holdings and where it is and as far as Iâm concerned it is better to have no information rather than disinformation. It is like they donât care. If as mentioned the website outsourced, the RAF media dept should be on top of it ensuring that the contractors are given the upto date info and that they action it. If neither of these things happen then new people are needed.
The way we are now, maybe critical analysis and thinking about the effect of the changes to the modern military, be that in material ways or policies and how it works, on how the ATC operates and functions should be higher up the agenda for candidates, than defence matters in the broader context, such as areas of operation which I imagine arenât completely accurate for obvious reasons. How the RAF has changed and is changing is far and away much, much more important in terms of cadet experience than how and where they operate. As someone who has been around since the 70s, what we have now is very much different in terms of overall military experience and it has degraded the âcadet experienceâ and why this in terms of cadet experience hasnât been put on the table as something for staff uniform candidates to research and discuss in interviews and we continue to focus on the operations and aircraft Q&A and opinion, should be addressed. It does seem that we still have to doff our caps and tug forelocks to the RAF and HQAC, rather than be critical of pressures put on staff and what is being delivered for cadets.
How has looking up and understanding defence matters or analysis/research got anything to do with safeguarding? Safeguarding is far more nuanced than being able to look a few things up. Proper safeguarding is more about knowing and understanding the situation people are in and exhibiting empathy and even sympathy, rather than just broad terms and concepts. For instance we have like every squadron have cadets where family life isnât stable or they are affected by other factors and we can do our best by them by being more understanding and taking all things into consideration, rather than just looking solely for the broad concepts and a strict adherence to the rules we impose.
WRT researching things from what I have seen over the last few years of ultilearn, new staff being able or bothered to research classification subjects would outstrip their ministrations related to defence matters, so maybe the focus of interviews should be an interrogation of knowledge of classification subjects. Which would have a much longer term and beneficial use than the revise and forget for an exam mentality associated with the process and some of the comments above. Which is what I did for my RAF interview, AWO and Commission interviews. The commissioning one was old school, which required spending hours looking up âtyre pressures and wheel nut torque wrench settingsâ which were glossed over and then just having a discussion about ATC matters, so all the work which meant reading real books, pamphlets, newpapers etc (no internet) was of no point and instantly forgotten.
I tend to find out more specifically about the RAF that I regard as upto date from Air Mail and RAFALO updates on the RAFA website. Maybe the pointless propaganda sheet Air Cadet should have information similar to that we members get from RAFA (which includes world air related military news), so while we continue to plod along the traditional information Q&A, people at least have something relatively current in an easily digested format to refer to.