pEp
12 December 2023 17:12
524
Lamplighter:
Just for clarity - I work with the named person on project work.
They were the contact for the survey when it was live. Actions and detailed analysis were for regions which was explained to the individual discussed above. He was instructed to go through his CoC and instead was repeatedly rather rude to the named Flt Lt which led to issues being raised to his CoC about his behaviour. There is asking questions and there is being obnoxious bordering on offensive because he’s not getting information from someone who doesn’t actually have it.
That’s fair, and thanks for explaining. I suppose the problem is that there doesn’t appear to be a caveat included in the survey that says “only whilst this is live come to this person”, - to me, as an outsider if I had an email saying “if you have questions or want more info, contact person X” and I contact that person, I’d expect them to be able to answer it. Otherwise I don’t see the point in adding that line.
I’m not detracting from the experience of the recipient. If they felt there was rudeness or obnoxiousness then that’s not OK, and I hope that it was dealt with as appropriate.
The problem seems to be yet again poor communication from the people after the survey who actually had the results. Too many times in this organisation we ask for peoples’ views and then either do nothing with them, hide them or conveniently forget about them, which isn’t necessarily the fault of the person initiating the survey but they will be the ones who bear the brunt of it.
pEp
12 December 2023 17:12
525
I don’t know, as I said there have been so many I can’t remember one from the other.
pEp
12 December 2023 17:13
526
Well, it is what the Commandant said. I’m just repeating it back here - he said time and energy is wasted on FOIs that would be better answered by emails to the people responsible. I’m paraphrasing slightly but the indication wasn’t “go through your CoC”, it was “speak to his team”.
Which is fine, but it does ignore /paper over the issues that have led us here.
Try local and get ghosted or shrugged at, follow up and get told to stop pestering.
Go straight to the source = a local reprimand for going outside the CoC (i.e. some civvie ego with a bigger barcode)
Also, historically, even on “Valuing Our People” you can find yourself getting fobbed off with a CoC response when asking the HQ person responsible.
Left with all the frustration and none of the answers, BOOM take an FOI.
It might not be right, but I don’t blame the requesters for their chosen path.
3 Likes
It’s the whole reason the Act was brought in. Public bodies not providing information
2 Likes
pEp
5 April 2024 20:33
531
Well, there’s yet another survey as a follow up to this one that was released a few years back. See the weekly briefing for the link.
pEp:
for the link.
The link that, amazingly, does not require a login to use! So open it up in incognito/private browser and feel free to speak your mind
Egg
3 August 2024 18:43
533
Anyone heard anything on this in a while?
No, so it probably didn’t give the glowing rose-tinted response required.
1 Like
Beware the light at the end of the tunnel, could be an oncoming train…
So close to a Metallica quote, but you missed the mark with that one.
Egg
3 August 2024 19:29
537
I’ve just emailed the lead, we’ll see what update she has…!
Lets take bets on how long it’ll take for an FOI
1 Like
Let’s all ask our respective Wg Av O’s…
Turbo
20 April 2026 13:41
542
steve679:
The work using this information is still ongoing and will be for quite some time yet as the data gathered - as you have seen - is extensive. This means that I’m unable to give you a long list of all its specific outcomes at this point in time as they are nowhere near identified, actioned and finished but broadly they are as below:
Continuation of 2FTS’ mentoring and development project to engage existing female staff; to support one another and grow number through making units more welcoming and providing strong role models. Aiming to increase retention, improve recruitment rates and thus encourage more women in aviation
Demystify aviation, encourage, advertise and engage with cadets. Provide accessible and signposted sources of information to answer cadets questions about activities and reduce hesitancy to participate and apply.
Provide face to face briefings and presentations to cadets where possible, or utilise tools such as Teams and Vimeo to provide information in a form cadets wish to engage with, using a range of staff and cadets representing different demographic groups.
Educate staff to enable them to pass on accurate information about aerospace activities and opportunities to cadets to direct them to correct sources.
Create common selection criteria for courses across regions which do not discriminate based on cadets access to experiences i.e. making exam grades a minimum requirement and not a competition factor
Ensure scholarship information is broad, detailed and made available to cadets well ahead of when it is needed. This should include cost clarification, course content and impacts on work or school.
Actively encourage all cadets to apply for courses if it is believed that they would be good candidates. Trying to mitigate cadets lack of confidence in their abilities from stopping them from applying independently.
Encourage the better understanding of the roles of volunteer staff within 2 and 6FTS, and roles of visiting CCF and ATC staff at flying units.
Engage in discussion with female CFAV’s and Staff Cadets from around the organisation, and at all levels, to ensure continual feedback and development.
Focus on adapting flying and aerospace related units to be more female cadet and staff friendly; including adequate changing locations, access to toilets without embarrassment, reassurance and explanations of processes where necessary.
Discussion with external organisations with experience of similar engagement programmes for both learning and partnership opportunities.
They became a bit of a thorn in the CoC side asking about it and were getting frustrated they kept being fobbed or or told to ask someone else…but what is above is what is they finally got back from an email in Oct22.
Now a full year on it would be interesting to know how far they have got with these aims, what progress has been made
Now three and a half years on from the ‘aims’ being reluctantly published. How close are we to achieving those aims do you think?
1 Like
After getting somewhat unfairly taken apart in an investigation after upsetting some senior officers 2 years ago, I imagine they’re not putting too much effort into this task.
2 Likes
