So according to AP 1919A:
“Recommendations for commissions on ATC sqns are to be initiated by the sqn cdr after consultation with the Chairman of the Civilian Committee”
Does anyone do this? I must admit I’ve never consulted Civ Com about who is going for Commission, so it’s interesting that it’s enshrined in AP 1919…
Anyone else new to this?
Didn’t know it was a policy! But I have done before with the old CivCom chair - who was a retired regular officer.
about as relevant and as active as the following statement i would guess
(taken from ACP011 - Terms of Reference Squadron Chairman)
I haven’t been involved in appointing an OC (except when i had the role) but I have never heard of a candidate being approached by a CivCom Chair, or the CivCom knowing the CFAV population (off Squadron) well enough to shortlist a suitable candidate!
File this under “wishful thinking”.
Along with “functioning committee” 
Never seen that one… way back when I went for commission it didn’t happen and I never did it when I was OC or had the opportunity as Chair… Personally I think its a little irrelevant what the Chairman would think unless he was acting as a personal reference. I find it funny that for an organisation that does its best to keep the uniform and civilians separate this does seem a little odd.
errr … well I have.
As instructed and promoted by HQ-AC no less
Actually I think you will find in even the more modern rules/guidance that the formation of a CivComm comes before the creation of a squadron …
That comes from the early days of the ADCC/ATC when a committee with sufficient funds for the first year had to be formed. As @Rumpole says it’s committee first then squadron, nor squadron and then find a committee.
Also the people on the committees in the old days were men of standing like bank managers, business owners, school masters, retired officers and maybe local Lords/Ladies. If you look local newspapers from 1938 to c.1945, where a new Air Training Corps Squadron was formed, you will see mention of a group coming together, with great pride, to raise money which I believe they had to prove to the War Dept and form a squadron. In this instance they would select the person to run it. Mind you at the time we didn’t have the higher organisation quite like we do now, with the transients we seem to have got, who think they know what’s better than anyone who has been in the organisation for years.
As the years went on this was lost and now CWC’s play no part in the process, which I feel is a loss and an interview / meeting with the CWC as part of the process and maybe even the CWC having the final say, would ground some people in this organisation who get put into a squadron command and think they are the be all and end all and just because they’ve been given a badge to wear on their shoulder, feel they are better / superior to others.
When I’ve taken over a squadron, out of politeness and courtesy I’ve met with the CWC and staff beforehand, as they needed to know me and I them.
I’ve seen too many people put into squadron commands who have been a disaster from start to finish, rubbing staff and committee up the wrong way as they get on a power trip. Having some others involved in the selection process would have potentially avoided this.
Conversely, I know of one local chair and treasurer who did their best to bully the OIC into doing stuff that they felt the squadron should be doing, and when they refused to comply, forced them out.
Empire building isn’t confined to the uniformed cadre…
well you’ve changed it all for me now.
i can now say i “know” of one example…!
While I see some benefit in this during the formation of a new unit from scratch in a community (does that even happen nowadays? Can it?), once the unit is up and running I can see no justification for that level of involvement by a civilian committee.
I can remember ACP31 saying that the CO was appointed by the civ com. Also i can remember the civ com having to agree to the appointment of the new CO when i was a cadet. It was by then what seemed a rubber stamping exercise. Originally the civ com played a much more active role in the managemrnt and support of a sqn.
Over the years HQAC has ensured that power has moved from the civilian side to the uuniform and the centre. Some committees having greater success in pushing back than others. While the full time staff pushing the other way. Sometimes both sides overstepping the mark and things getting messy with the cadets and the sqn suffering and if the alleged story is true it cost an air cdre their job.
I’m probably quite jaded on the whole subject by now, but it seems to me that the entire existence of the committee in most cases is just a rubber-stamping exercise.
TBH if we had to raise money etc it would take a heck of an extra effort and you could put your bottom dollar on the OC having to do the accounts. So a committee to take responsibility is not a bad idea. OCs would be moaning more than they do if they had to reconcile accounts each year, even though it is a relatively easy job.
I tend to think that CWCs have been out of the loop in selecting squadron commanders, since the very early days. I think has created some problems as the very tangible relationship between staff (especially CO) is lost. TBH I don’t really think that HQAC really understand just how important this and like a number of staff see the CWC as a bunch of interfering busy bodies, who can’t be controlled as they don’t sit in the CoC. Which you feel frustrates them with the growing trend of getting things paid for by squadrons as the CWC could turn round and say up yours. Helpful maybe not, but I know from my own CWC it is becoming an increasing annoyance.
Having someone outside the CoC is useful to prime with questions.
A good relationship between the OC and the CivCom is crucial to a Sqn.
But as an adjutant, and one who has recently been through a change of OC to someone brand new to the Sqn, I certainly wouldn’t give the CivCom any sort of decision over who the new person is.
If it were someone with whom they had a previous history and they raised a valid concern I would certainly hear it, but they’re in no position to “decide” who should be the OC.
They have none of the required knowledge nor experience.
I think the bigger problem is that there are so few people wanting to be a Sqn Cdr, you get who you get. As such having any sort of application and interview process would be a waste of time and pointless process.
Bit of a sweeping statement that I would think. And for some that is a positive strength in supporting locally and injecting some common sense in situations where the rule is found wanting.
I am not aware of a squadron expansion programme operating under HQ-AC and my understanding is that and new squadrons are through mergers and rebuilds. All my interactions with HQ-AC have resulted in references to only responding to a civilian demand to create a new squadron. As Teflon says, wIth the increase dearth of people wanting to be a CO … it would invariably include ‘poaching’ from squadrons which might knacker one to create one.
Only if you presume that I was making a generalisation.
In fact, as I said, I was speaking about my own specific recent experience.
Though, as others have said the idea of a CivCom appointing the OC dates from the very introduction of the Corps when the situation was very different to today.
In particular I think a generic CivCom comprised of primarily parents and other civilians would be even less suited to decision on the OP question of ‘whom to commission’ than they might be to decide ‘who already commissioned should be appointed as OC’.
Whilst accepting that some CivComs will undoubtedly have ex-service members, in general what does the average CivCom know about current commissioning requirements? Without experience or knowledge of the organization would they be suitably placed to decide whether Joe Bloggs demonstrates the qualities and accumen required of an Officer? Being also ‘outside’ the chain of command and operating somewhat independently within a strictly limited remit, why should they have any say on matters outside that remit?
I’ve been in this organization for 20+ years which I feel gives me a certain basis upon which to consider the merits and drawbacks of various candidates;. But if someone were to ask me to decide who should be appointed as ‘Chief Lecturer of 12th Century Tibetan Arts’ I wouldn’t have a clue as I know nothing about it.
I wouldn’t intend the above as a snub to CivComs; merely that commissioning is nothing to do with them.