ACO staff training - owner?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
1

Who ‘owns’ the ACO staff training regime, i.e. who is responsible for the choice of what courses are provided, not provided, how effective they are, &c.? I assume this is higher up than OC ATF, but is it COS or is it directly CAC?

The reason I ask is that there are several problems which we occasionally moan about on here. My pet ones are the absence of DI training for CCF personnel, and the lack of any kind of OSC for CCFs (as opposed to CCF Army, CCF RN and ATC). But I’m sure those of you in the ATC have similar problems. It was mentioned in another thread that 22 Gp had carried out a compliance survey which noted that one non-compliant area of HQAC (in 2011) was a lack of Training Evaluation - they don’t have a mechanism for knowing if training is working.

I wrote to CAC about the lack of an OSC for CCF and received a brushoff from the COS - basically a ‘get back in your box, and stop trying to circumvent the CoC.’ So who can I lobby?

2

OC ATF is TG4 and as you know has responsibility for adult training.
His immediate superior is Wg Cdr TG.

There seems to be an insistence that the DI course is somehow the plaything of the SNCO cadre. As CCF(RAF) is entirely staffed by hofficers I suspect you have no chance unless a) they open the course up to officers (which they should) or b) have SNCO CFAV with CCRs (which they should).

Since it seems that the quality of ATF-qualified DIs cannot be guaranteed, you may be better allying with a local wing or region who may have their own DI course and send whichever staff or cadets on it that you need. That way you build up actual skill and knowledge which can be passed on to the rest of the CCF. It won’t be an official ATF DI qualification and technically won’t let you ponce about with a pace stick (don’t get me started…) but it WILL help to improve the standard of drill instruction on your unit.

I would have though that, given the very special way in which CCF is managed, that a completely separate, tri-service, CCF Senior Officers’ course would be the best way forward.

Sqn Ldr CCF? Wg Cdr CCF?

3

Ultimately, the Commandant is the Trg Sponsor, ATF are the training deliverer, but clearly, her staff do the donkey work. However, as tmmorris has said the ACO carry out no formal External Evaluation of their training (at least they didn’t) ie after a year or so, did the training given change behaviour as expected? Importantly, not just the recipient of the Trg, but also their direct supervisor should get to comment in ExVal. Regrettably, not only do they not know if the training has been effective, they don’t actually know if the training is even needed as they’ve never done a proper Training Needs Analysis of most courses (except for the OSC) and have just done what they have always done or what they think staff and the cadets need. Actually, most people don’t do TNAs either, as we’ve often seen comments on here that Sqns and Wg’s have just made up a course and have trawled on this forum for suitable content.

As the 22Gp Audit pointed out, there’s quite a bit that HQAC don’t do regarding training management and therefore even less that Regions and Wings carry out. Unfortunately, making sure our training is DSAT compliant will be very difficult (but not impossible) and will be seen by some as an addition to the admin burden (which it might be) but it’s something that we should be doing if we want to make sure our training is effective and efficient. That said, the burden should be with HQAC and Regions primarily, but as we know, they re woefully understaffed to do anything meaningful with this, so who is likely to get tasked?

When the 22 Gp Audit was first mentioned on here, there was some interesting discussion generated on training management; a dedicated topic on the subject might be advantageous.

Edit: Just started one!

4

Dare I throw a suggestion in here?

Ask your local ATC Wing for help first hand! We are singing from the same hymn book. If you need to get someone up to DI standards work with the local Wing’s DI’s and WWO.

To get on a DI course is the same hardship issue for the ATC I think. On the SSIC if you are deemed of a good enough standard you get a noted permission to apply for the DI course. Nobody can simply apply for it these days. (As a VRT I stand to be corrected on that. NCO’s jump in here).

But seriously. Work with your ATC counterparts.

Incidentally there is No OSC anymore. It is now Squadron Commanders Course.

5

Interestingly I missed a briefing last week, but the powerpoint slides sent round afterwards from Wg Cdr CCF implied the introduction of a Section Commander’s Course. So maybe things are going the right way. I will ask!

6

“There seems to be an insistence that the DI course is somehow the plaything of the SNCO cadre.”

NO OFFICERS IN THE RAF ARE DI’s - so we are following suit

“To get on a DI course is the same hardship issue for the ATC I think. On the SSIC if you are deemed of a good enough standard you get a noted permission to apply for the DI course. Nobody can simply apply for it these days.”

Regional DI assessments course are run to go forward onto ATF DI courses

7

Yes, however “The RAF do/don’t” is not by itself a valid reason why we should do or not do something.

8

Agreed. It is an ACO course and the ACO should feel free to open it up to anybody who would find it useful and who would use the qualification.

I don’t have an issue with an officer teaching drill so long as they have the necessary, current drill skills and knowledge* and on that basis I can’t see any good reason why an officer should not be allowed to go on the ACO course to learn the Drill MOI.

  • (this applies also to SNCO/WO, including currently qualified DIs)
9

Why should not being able to hold the qual stop an officer from attending the course? They could still find it useful.

10

because they will take a place which could/would be going to someone who can get the qualification…

[/devils advocate]

11

I questionned this thinking at ATF. They almost slapped me. It is not the job of an officer to do the DI course. They hate having officers on SATT teams too.

This is one of the issues that having serving regular personnnel causes with the ACO - in the RAF, you wouldn’t have an officer doing it, because they have no need to.

In the real world, some of us want to do these things because they are areas of interest for us or indeed we might NEED to be an SAAI or a DI to help our cadets.

12

Also, surely the Corps’ Training Officer “owns” training?

13

[quote=“pEp” post=13802]I questionned this thinking at ATF. They almost slapped me. It is not the job of an officer to do the DI course. They hate having officers on SATT teams too. [/quote]Some key personnel at ATF will be moving on in the coming months so you never know, wiser heads may prevail in that empire.

…but I’m not holding my breath.

14

Whether or not Officers can/could/should be employed in training roles such as SATT, DI etc. I think drives into a wider issue within the Corps.

There is so much “role-creep” in the Corps now, it is difficult to clearly differentiate - I think - in some cases, what are (or should be) the roles and responsibilities of the various personnel of varying status.

E.g. as a CI, it is now the case that the only thing you can’t do (AFAIK!)is be in command of a unit. I haven’t seen the recent statistics on this, but I would imagine that the majority of CFAVs in the ATC are CIs.

If you can be an AT instructor, SAAI, Training Officer, Adj, etc. etc. where is the incentive to aspire to uniformed service? (other than having an aspiration to command).

Also, if you can now command a unit as an SNCO/WO - although granted that the majority of Sqn Cdrs are still Officers - where is the incentive to aspire to commissioned service?

If an Officer can/could become qualified as a SAAI, DI, or AT instructor, is time spent on those duties not time that - in their role - they should be spending on being (or being trained to become) the Training Officer, Adj, or OC?

It seems to me that other Cadet Forces have clearer lines of demarcation between the roles and responsibilities of different personnel, and thus have clearer progression routes, and better structured and organised training to meet the requirements and demands of service in the relevant status/rank/role.

  • What do we require Officers to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require SNCOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require WOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What should be the role(s)/responsibilities of a CI?

If we can answer these key questions (as a Corps), and identify clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities for personnel of each status, then training can be designed to meet the relevant requirements.

At the moment - in my view - the Corps is putting the cart in front of the horse. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities could lead to well structured training, well designed to meet the relevant role requirements.

On a personal hobby-horse, I also think we should introduce ACF style Civilian Assistants (CAs), to clearly demark between the current situation where some CIs instruct cadets, and some CIs are basically “helpers” doing admin, running the canteen, maintaining the SOV, etc. CIs would require MOI training, CAs would not (but could not be involved in training/instruction of cadets).

Rant off :slight_smile:

Cheers
BTI

15

I don’t think they do pEp.

I’ve not seen their TORs, but I’d imagine that the Corps Training Officer is looking at all aspects of the higher-level management of the delivery of training within the Corps and future plans. After all, Sqn Trg Offs manage training delivery at unit level and I assume the Corps one would do a similar function at the HQ.

According to JSP822, the MoD doesn’t use the term ‘sponsor’ any more (my bad in earlier post), it has Training Requirements Authorities (TRAs) and they’re responsible for setting and evaluating the requirement for training and they represent the end-user of the trained output, so they’re pretty much the ‘owner’ of the training as they want the training done. Cadet training is always a difficult matter to formally define. What should a cadet need to know about certain things? It’s easy to come up with a training requirement for lets say an RAF Regt Gunner, or an engine mechanic; they’ve got to do certain things to a certain standard in certain conditions - they’ve a Performance Statement. Cadets are a bit woollier, hence there’s more likely to be a Competency Framework for something like this, although I doubt HQAC have developed one.

Ultimately, The Commandant (or rather her HQ) says what an Air Cadet (as opposed to an Army or Sea Cadet) should be able to do, so I’d say that she (or the HQ as a whole) is the ‘Owner’ and therefore the cadet training TRA.

[quote=“bti”]It seems to me that other Cadet Forces have clearer lines of demarcation between the roles and responsibilities of different personnel, and thus have clearer progression routes, and better structured and organised training to meet the requirements and demands of service in the relevant status/rank/role.

  • What do we require Officers to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require SNCOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require WOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What should be the role(s)/responsibilities of a CI?

If we can answer these key questions (as a Corps), and identify clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities for personnel of each status, then training can be designed to meet the relevant requirements.

At the moment - in my view - the Corps is putting the cart in front of the horse. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities could lead to well structured training, well designed to meet the relevant role requirements.[/quote]

Some good points BTI, and I refer the esteemed membership to the 22 Gp Audit of HQAC. There are no Performance Statements or Competency Frameworks for any CFAVs at the moment and until they exist, training will never be efficient and focussed on what the organisation actually wants people to be able to do.

16

I feel each wing should be accountable about developing there staff. A lot of the development should be driven by the individual themselves however there should be the right point of contact at wing level to support you in fulfilling you development need.

17

Really?

I was asked to join a SATT once (on completion of my WI© course). Sadly in my current job I don’t have these things called ‘weekends’ so I couldn’t commit to actually being able to deliver training reliably. I was genuinely honoured, though.

18

I don’t think it’s so much that they ‘Hate having officers on SATTs’, probably more that they ‘Hate SATTs’.
To be fair, with only one (perhaps two) exceptions - they’re right.

19

Indeed they should, but that development should be towards a set standard. You cannot have one Wg developing its staff to be, for example, better administrators, whilst the neighbouring Wg develops it’s people to be better practical managers and leaders.

There must be a defined ability level where people should be at certain stages in their ACO ‘career’ and proper facilities and courses must be made available for people to achieve that. Of course, that would be the minimum level and if people wanted to do more, the Corps should facilitate that.

20

[quote=“bti” post=13807]It seems to me that other Cadet Forces have clearer lines of demarcation between the roles and responsibilities of different personnel, and thus have clearer progression routes, and better structured and organised training to meet the requirements and demands of service in the relevant status/rank/role.

  • What do we require Officers to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require SNCOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What do we require WOs to be able to do (when trained)?

  • What should be the role(s)/responsibilities of a CI?

If we can answer these key questions (as a Corps), and identify clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities for personnel of each status, then training can be designed to meet the relevant requirements.

At the moment - in my view - the Corps is putting the cart in front of the horse. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities could lead to well structured training, well designed to meet the relevant role requirements.[/quote]
Why?
The ACO has worked for years without the sort of demarcation suggested and I cannot see the benefit it would bring, purely from a numbers and the way we get new people into the staffing any demarcation is going to cause disharmony, as you will likely you will increase the “it’s not my job” childishness. It could also be construed as an underhamd way of making people go into uniform, with as there will be an increased “if you want to do that, then you will have to be …”, uniform is an option unless IMO you want to command a squadron or have some responsibility for drill. The suggestion above wrt CIs is inline with unwritten Corps policy, they are second-class citizens, and not shown the respect for whatever experience/knowledge they may have, unless they don a uniform.
If we went down this path I would suggest that recruiting is changed and we do away with CI completely and people apply and only join as SNCO and Officer having done the interviewing and basic training before joining a sqn. The way we (and other cadet forces) do it creates a situation of people who come in as “CIs” and are more than capable of doing what is required, not getting through, especially the new style Commissioning process, and being wholly brassed off and in extremis leave. Given the attrition rate locally, I think that in the long term the OASC stage for Commissioning may actually become an own goal, and we become like the ACF by default, with SNCOs running squadrons and the fewer Officers doing some sort of higher role. We have been told at CO conferences in the last 4/5 years that there are Wings with Flt Lts “running” 2 or 3 squadrons with SNCOs doing the donkey work, this is along the ‘super squadron’ notion of a few years back. Whether or not this is a scare tactic is an unknown.

We also have a problem that over the last few years uniformed staff have been treated like they don’t matter has seen many people up stakes, and people opting to not Commission to fill the gaps left, creating a hole in the organisation. This is why we have ended up with SNCOs running squadrons. How many old stagers would take a Commission now? Among those I speak to not many. Go back a few years and there were plenty of Officers (when I was a cadet we had the OC plus 2) so the “new boys/girls” could learn their trade without the constant threat of being put into a command in double time, as happens all too often now. I know a number of older officers who spent time as junior officers, doing different jobs and acquiring experience before being offered a command. There are a few like me who learnt their trade as WOs, I find it interesting of the different perspective I have compared to those who commissioned directly. The latter seem to be very Officers do this and SNCOs do that, I’m less defined. Increasingly we put inexperienced people into command postions (don’t confuse experienced and trained, they are distinct enitities, you can buy training but you can’t buy experience) and because they aren’t mentally prepared and experienced, they struggle and leave, or as I have seen go NEP to get out of the command and then pop up as Sqn Officers somewhere.