Instructor courses at Cosford have been binned … says it all really in terms of how subject training is viewed by our training gurus at HQAC.
It should have been Cosford can’t but they will be replaced by …
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=13852]Instructor courses at Cosford have been binned … says it all really in terms of how subject training is viewed by our training gurus at HQAC.
It should have been Cosford can’t but they will be replaced by …[/quote]
It had nothing to do with HQAC. What’s your big problem with them? Change the record once in a while. Cosford themselves pulled the funding and it was chiefly because the attendance rate was appallingly amongst our staff. HQAC had their hands tied so before you start pointing fingers of blame, just remember how many will be pointing back at you. (That’s a metaphor by the way before you start getting all hot under the collar).
I understand that Cosford pulled the courses and that was out HQAC’s control, but this would have been coming for a while and IMO they sat on their hands. But it sums up how much importance is placed on classification instructor training, the backbone of what we do.
TBH some of the Cosford courses were a waste of time as they were only 1 day. It would be hard to justify effectively 3 days out for the vast majority, 2 days travelling for 1 day training or a lot of early morning and late evening/night driving to get it done in a day. We can’t do that at work anymore.
Why we can’t get the instructors to come out a deliver the courses locally to larger audiences is a mystery. I’m sure many of us are used to having training courses delivered at our place of work, with outside training companies.
Your post makes no sense. I think you are trying to defend a vanishing point.
What are the courses that Cosford binned off?
[quote]GHE2 wrote:
…“if you want to do that, then you will have to be …”[/quote]
But what’s wrong with that approach? Surely that would give incentive to some, and lines of demarcation to others; i.e. those who have - for example - decided that they will (or can) only make a certain commitment in terms of availability or attendance of activities.
…if you simply want to be involved in the instruction of cadets and the organisation, delivery, and supervision of activities - become a CI.
…if you want to additionally be involved in the management of drill, dress, and discipline - become an SNCO.
…if you want to be involved in more “strategic” planning and organisation of training and activities; and personnel management (aspiring eventually to command) - become an Officer.
And before someone says “well, this is the current system” - it isn’t.
For example, how many Officers take up a nice comfortable post as Training Officer, Adj, etc. but shun the opportunity of a command? IMHO we have far too many Officers in the Corps who (a) wish to be an Officer, but (b) don’t want the burden of taking a command. This places additional pressures on those who do either wish to - or who are required to - take command.
An aspiration to take command should be the driving force behind anyone wishing to apply for commissioned service.
Sort out the Officer cadre first (and OASC is a good start), and the rest of the picture should start to fall into place. SNCOs can then act primarily as SMEs for the 3Ds; and have secondary specialist instructional roles (e.g. DI, SAAI, RCO, fieldcraft, first aid, aircraft recce, flight sim, etc.)
Moving on to the SNCO cadre, how many SNCOs (and WOs) are there in the Corps who are either (a) effectively, uniformed CIs, taking no responsibility for the 3Ds, and/or (b) effectively, uniformed specialist instructors alone (e.g. SAAI, RCO, fieldcraft, etc.) and “hiding” behind those qualifications and specialisations?
Just because something has “worked” for years doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. The amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth on this forum alone would suggest that it hasn’t worked (anywhere near) flawlessly.
Surely it follows that more clearly defined roles and responsibilities could lead to more effective delivery, and clearer progression routes for those who wish to/are able to progress? It would also have the huge advantage that better structured “needs driven” training could be designed and delivered to meet the requirements of each status/role.
Surely you can see the benefit in that?
Cheers
BTI
So …
Cosford decide that the courses aren’t doable/viable - advise HQAC - HQAC do nothing - courses lost.
Part of the issue in probably poor take up, in which case why has no one asked. One reason, a 1 day course set in the West Midlands will require he majority of people to travel one day, do course and return home the following day. In the real world training managers and dept managers would question minimum 3 days out of work for 7/8 hours face to face training.
The subject of this thread is ACO Staff Training - owner? It seems quite evident from the fact that courses have been allowed to be cut, no one at HQAC has or wants ownership or gives a monkey’s. These people are getting paid to do a job and it seems clear they aren’t doing it. Ownership of training would to me imply ensuring staff have what they need. Your average training manager will find out what people need/want, source corses and advertise them. Nothing from Corps gets advertised. We get told at CO Conferences is “use it or lose it”, wrt courses. Hardly the attitude.
I can’t believe that no one is thinking how can we make staff coures or the content therein more accessible. I sincerely hope they don’t think e-learning is the way to go.
What do you expect HQAC to do? Say pretty please in the hope they may change their minds? Get real fella, defence cuts are real and aren’t going away any time soon.
No I struggle with that concept within the confines of a voluntary organisation and you will end up with a “not my job, pal” attitude. I’ve got 2 SNCOs and 5 CIs, of those 7 I don’t probably see any more than 3 or 4 on the average parade night. From those present I need all bases covered, not SNCOs saying I’m only doing this/that and CIs saying the other, which is what you could end up with, with a strongly demarcated ‘workforce’. I want staff who are willing and able to do things, not using an ‘I’m this’ attitude to avoid doing things. After a long day at work, I don’t need to be dealing with petty-mindedness instilled by the organisation, there is enough of that to be getting on with already.
I know CIs who are just as/more highly qualified than uniformed staff, but have no desire to go into uniform and why should they, just to fit in. Would you say that CIs couldn’t do RCO, SAAI, FMS etc? If so that is wrong on so many levels. My best adj and TO were both CIs, the adj was an office manager and the TO involved in training in their job. They had no interest in a uniform and I respected that.
As for SNCOs who don’t want anything to do with the 3Ds, so what? Do all SNCOs in the regulars have to be so inclined? I’ve met more regular SNCOs on camps that are tech or admin, than focussed on 3Ds. But it seems in the ATC every single SNCO should have that as their focus.
I do agree that people taking a Commission should look to taking a command. I know personally I was in the right place in my real life to accept it when I was offered. A year earlier or couple of years later, then no. So again while it might be the ideal it has to be when it is right for the individual, afterall it is something to do in your spare time.
They look to source the expertise from civilian companies. If I can see that as a potential option, you have to wonder about some of our lords and masters.
As our defence sources dry up HQAC will have to be more inventive; universities, colleges, defence contractors etc etc could deliver the subjects we need. Before you say it will cost, well I’m sure again with a bit of inventive thinking that could be covered.
They look to source the expertise from civilian companies. If I can see that as a potential option, you have to wonder about some of our lords and masters.
As our defence sources dry up HQAC will have to be more inventive; universities, colleges, defence contractors etc etc could deliver the subjects we need. Before you say it will cost, well I’m sure again with a bit of inventive thinking that could be covered.[/quote]
Ok. You are The Lord and master. What incentive thinking are you going to come up with? Explain your thinking. Or are you just spouting random thoughts?
Regretfully, I think that the days of “incentive thinking” are well & truly gone. Anything that involves time or resources from a civilian company = costs involved. You might be very lucky with someone volunteering their time, but it isn’t a long term option that you can rely on. Or, you might be even luckier & have a local firm that helps out a sqn where they can - but this will never be within HQAC’s remit to allocate.
Quite a few years ago, when RAF Thorney Island closed down, as a sqn (1024 IOW Sqn) we managed to get the use of a very large removal truck & filled it to the gunnels with furniture & equipment that would have been scrapped. It was a great “adventure” day out. Nowadays, no chance - all such items are earmarked for disposal contractors. Same with commercial companies now, money is everything. If (long term) sponsorship from such companies could be forthcoming, so much the better. However, I don’t see this happening though.
Before you scoff too hard, remember that Air Cdre Gordon Moulds was able to equip the RACs largely through exactly this kind of linkage. Corps Wide windows licenses were also aquired so it IS possible.
MW
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=13878]
No I struggle with that concept within the confines of a voluntary organisation and you will end up with a “not my job, pal” attitude. [/quote]
In my (limited) experience I have seen the “not my job, pal” attitude work well, as people take ownership of what is their job. Give them the sole responsibility and they step up, not wanting to be the one letting the overall team down or having a load of others to hide behind
It may work like that, but my experience is people saying I’m not an Officer or SNCO, as a way of not doing something.
Setting that mindset in stone in some way for me at least is asking for problems. It might be OK above Sqn level but on 12345 (average) squadron, it has the potential to not be good.
I want people to be feel able to take on any role I decide I want them to and not have to think, oh they’re a CI/SNCO/Officer I can’t ask them to do that.
OT
Gordon Moulds didn’t fit the mould of the people we normally get lodged at HQAC, he as CAC didn’t seem to pay any heed to the sunset mob, this and IIRC he has been an SI at some point, IMO contributed to his shortened time in post. As he had a bit of an idea of what it was like turning up on a manky weekday night having to ‘entertain’ teenagers for a couple of hours, he used his position to try and ease this. We can’t have that can we.
Had he managed to stay around I think the SLT would look very different in a good way.
Back OT
Funding things means sometimes you have to get out there and do the groundwork. It’s all to easy to sit there and say it’s hard and not bother. I don’t think for one moment that there aren’t staff out there who haven’t looked to get money or discounts on equipment out of someone at some point. At each level all that increases is the scale. I’ve spent many hours fillng out forms and “befriending” people from various organisations and businesses, sitting in meetings to put our case, as we are after donations.
I could not agree more with you.
Volunteer staff join for a variety of reasons and pigeon holing people to job rolls based on what type of uniform they opt for or not is fundamentally wrong.