That’s a shame. We must sell it better and prepare them for it in a more successsful way I guess.
Incorrect.
My commissioning letter states that I am appointed to a commission in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve for service with the Air Training Corps.
So not a ‘Cadet Officer’ but a member of a Reserve Air Force of the Crown, working with cadets.
Moot point maybe but lets get it right.
1 Like
People who are uncomfortable with OASC might be more comfortable applying for adult SNCO.
When I was at university there were students who were uncomfortable with maths, so they opted for easy, unaccredited BSc degrees that probably aren’t worth that much more than a BA, while the rest of us graduated with IEE accredited BEng degrees. We can’t dumb everything down just because some people are uncomfortable (i.e. unlikely to succeed) in the present system. I get the feeling that CFC is an attempt to appease the PC lobby by making commissions available to all, regardless of ability.
1 Like
Discouraged?
Why?
I personally think that the OASC system is pretty decent - I know many RAFVR(T) officers who wouldn’t be considered as being suitable for any other commission (ignoring the physical requirements for a moment) - but I can’t think of anyone who fits that description to be commissioned after the introduction of the OASC process.
Maybe people who are ‘discouraged’ by the OASC system just aren’t good enough to be RAF officers?
2 Likes
I’m not sure I quite like the assertions that me and thousands of others went through a dumbed down process.
It depends what you are looking for?
WRT a degree which should lead to a job then yes, but a commission in a youth organisation not quite the same thing. For one as it’s a volunteer post and anyone who has been involved in the volunteer sector will say, finding people who are willing is the first step and getting them to take more responsibility or increased involvement is another whole level. I’ve been involved with a number of different groups and taken on different roles in those groups. Secondly I don’t really feel that since the use of OASC older people’s wider experience and knowledge has been broadly welcomed as the process isn’t designed for them and some of the parts of it have no relevance to the ATC. The planning part should be more like you’ve planned the evening but several staff can’t get there… what do you do? I’ve got a couple of older CIs on the sqn and we have some entertaining discussions at meetings where you see younger staff feeling a bit out of it.
Maybe, and maybe that was the point.
I do wonder if the criteria will change now that we aren’t going to be looking for RAF officers. I hope not.
1 Like
Why does anyone need to be good enough to be RAF officers?
Good enough to run a squadron, or be a training officer, or other squadron officer is far more important.
Tail wagging the dog…
If OASC was the only way to volunteer in a youth organisation then I’d agree with you - but there are plenty of other ways to get involved without a commission. I do feel that the tightening of the process should really have been accompanied with a big recruiting drive however.
As for the PlanEx, if you can plan a supply drop to a remote airstrip (which I think was the scenario in my regular OASC) then you can plan a training programme for the evening. The skills are exactly the same…
We (I originally commissioned under the Reg Cmdt interview process) did go through a rather unsuitable process, which let through a lot of people who weren’t good enough. That’s not to say that everyone commissioned under the old system isn’t good enough - after all there are plenty of people who went through under the old system who would pass the new system too.
[quote=“firepixel, post:340, topic:2647”]
Why does anyone need to be good enough to be RAF officers?
[/quote]Well the first reason would be because we currently are RAF officers…
I spent 23 years as an RAF Officer (i.e. regular service). I’ve spent the last few years commissioned in the RAFVR(T). The skill sets involved/required are significantly different. Dare I say it, but the acceptance standards and training requirements are also different. I don’t view myself as an RAF officer, for a significant number of reasons. Let’s not kid ourselves.
2 Likes
Whilst I completely agree that we aren’t regular RAF Officers and that the skill sets, acceptance and training requirements are completely different, what is indisputable is that members of the VR(T) hold an RAF commission.
Ergo, we are RAF Officers albeit with a fundamentally different role to that of a regular officer.
Nope. My RAF Commission, commissioned me into the “Royal Air Force”. My VR(T) Commission commissioned me into the “Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve”. We do not hold an RAF Commission, we hold an RAFVR Commission.
1 Like
Slicing salamis.
And some other words so I can post this.
It is not slicing salami. It is at the core of much of the tenuous argument that has already been presented. Frankly, I’m personally getting bored of this “what will our status be?” discussion. How about we consider the effect it may have, if any, on our cadets?
1 Like
nothing, nil, zero, zilch, not a bit, not a thing, not any, nada
1 Like
Precisely.
1 Like
I think this thread shows the biggest problem with our organisation.
Lack of information, lots of people getting snippets of information and rumours and questions start.
Yes some of the questions raised here are legitimate and some are just a little detail wanting clarification.
I would have liked to be formally notified via the chain of command quickly before someone let something slip to make themselves seem more important than they probably are.
I couldn’t care less what type of commission I hold or what it is called, it makes the grand sum of no difference to me providing I can still provide the activities to cadets that I enjoy providing.
I would have just liked to have been notified via COC rather than ACC!
1 Like
So if the effect on the cadets is zero, why not discuss the effect on staff?
2 Likes
Again: nothing, nil, zero, zilch, not a bit, not a thing, not any, nada
that is what some people dont get MattB, the effect on staff morale
Speaking with officers who have been commissioned a lot longer than me they feel as if they
have been abandoned for no reason. they pulled on the RAF uniform took on the requirements that were laid down and got on with it without complaint, now without any warning they have been told you are now getting kicked out the RAFVR into this new cadet force we can’t tell you what is really going to happen as we don’t know, oh and what type of badge do you want on your rank slides.
whilst we hope that is the case, you cannot honestly say this as at present they are still working out this new CF commission and what it is.
My personal feeling is that a lot of this new commission has been getting put into place for a long time, the change from pay to VA, the introduction of the term CFAV for everything staff related. as someone said earlier a new queens commission doesn’t get set up overnight, does it affect me in general not particularly (i think) but I wonder what is next for the ACO and cadets in general.
Unfortunately there is (historically and into the future based on history) little concern about the effect on the morale be that of staff or cadets or any changes in the ATC.
HQAC and similar formations in other cadet forces rely totally on the goodwill of the people who volunteer to perpetuate the organisations and they have abused this goodwill for years.
I doubt if there is any thought going on considering different scenarios. The only scenario they will have considered is that people will just carry on. I would love to know what the contingency plans if there was a 10% reduction in existing officers, given that in the ATC the command and control set up is commission centric. Remember these don’t just have to be squadron based, this could well affect the running of Wings and Regions. Unlike the ACF where SNCOs are fully embedded in the command set up, in the ATC it is still a rarity not to have a sqn or DF commanded by an officer, every detachment local to us is run by a Sgt or S/Sgt. I’ve known more SNCOs involved in ACF County than I’ve ever known on Wings.
The ATC operates in the military bubble whereby decisions are made and you get on with it, don’t question, don’t ask about the rationale, don’t ask or worry about the peripheral, just look forward and move on. The problem is we aren’t in the military and expect that to pay the bills, as staff we live and work in an environment where questioning, discussion etc is part and parcel of any change process. Is it wrong to expect that wrt to something we volunteer for that we are involved or given the opportunity to be involved? Surely an engaged and involved workforce is happier than one that is disengaged from change processes. Where I work senior management found this out many years ago and we’ve had a ‘works council’ which has worked and kept people involved in the change process. An alien concept to some on here and the broader organisation, especially ACMB.
1 Like