The debate over roles, status and responsibilities is one that has gone on for decades. Each generation comes up with a solution. Few, if any , seem to go back to basic principles.
The RAF Air Cadets aim to:
Promote an encourage. among young men and women a practical interest in aviation and the Royal Air Force.
Provide training which will be useful in both the services and civilian life.
Foster a spirit of adventure and to develop the qualities of leadership and good citizenship.
In order to do so the organisation needs adults who are prepared to give up their spare time. Those adults need to be prepared to work within a binding framework that ensures the young people in their charge are as safe as humanly possible and that they operate within a moral and legal framework that protects the cadets, the volunteer and the organisation ( the order of these three could be a long debate of its own).
How we best achieve the aims within a binding delivery framework is the critical question. Yes there needs to be a hierarchy ( the scouts have one too as do most youth organisations) but one iwhich the adults buy into and abide by ( when you join a club you play by the rules). I can fully understand the debate concerning status and military law especially in this time of individual and organisational responsibility and I can see why some parts of the organisation might feel they need to get a better " grip". But, are we seriously suggesting that by making more of the organisation subject to military law that we will increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product for the customer ( the cadet). If so I fear we will fail.
However, should these changes take place I will watch with interest the first time that an adult volunteer, subject to military law, is reprimanded or taken to Court Martial.
There are many who want to make a real difference to young people. They sign up to the club rules, ensure the cadets can understand the structure and responsibilities and play their part within the hierarchy. If they have to be legally bound to do those things they are the wrong people for the organisation and unlikely to change as individuals just because their status does .
[quote]GHE2 wrote:
While I accept OASC are screening us on a similar basis to regular Commissions, talking to a few who have been pass and fail, I still think we need something slightly more tailored to the ACO experience wrt commissioned service and looking more so at maturity and breadth of life experience, than what you did at school or will some bloke get to the train station on time. How many regulars, I await the brickbats, can regularly be put into a command situation dealing with the breadth of problems and issues such staff recruitment, financial dealings, welfare issues for adults and teenagers, parents complaining/moaning, civilian welfare committees, local community liaison etc, that your average ATC commissioned officer can face, within a couple of years of commissioning.[/quote]
A very valid point - and one of the issues that falls out of my original questions.
SNCOs are selected by a Wing board, for which there are no set guidelines, and - in theory - could be conducted as anywhere between a 10min chat over tea & biscuits, or a 45min wide-ranging grilling on everything from general service knowledge, to health & safety, safeguarding, administration, the SNCO role, etc. Officers are now selected by OASC, no element of which is specifically ATC related (other than some elements of the interview). The emphasis - as for the regular RAF - is on selecting people who have suitable personal qualities, character, etc. âŚhowever, the questions remains, suitable for what?
Lets go back to the original question - who does what, and what do they do?
What is the purpose of commissioning people as Officers - what is their intended role? What is the purpose of appointing people as SNCOs - what is there intended role?
Are SNCOs & WOs - functionally - instructors (specialising in drill, dress, & discipline), who can additionally be given executive roles (e.g. Sqn TO, Sqn Adj, Sqn Cdr, Sector WO, Deputy WWO, WWO, etc.)?
Are Officers - functionally - managers, who are intended for executive roles (e.g. Sqn TO, Sqn Adj, Sqn Cdr, WSO, Sector Cdr, OC Wg) and can additionally act as instructors if required to do so?
Glad to see my original âthink-pieceâ has had the intended effect âŚit wasnât intended to be a panacea by the way!!
Still more clarity required I feel, and I believe that ârole creepâ is an issue that needs to be addressed.
[quote=âbtiâ post=18976]Lets go back to the original question - who does what, and what do they do?
What is the purpose of commissioning people as Officers - what is their intended role? What is the purpose of appointing people as SNCOs - what is there intended role?
Are SNCOs & WOs - functionally - instructors (specialising in drill, dress, & discipline), who can additionally be given executive roles (e.g. Sqn TO, Sqn Adj, Sqn Cdr, Sector WO, Deputy WWO, WWO, etc.)?
Are Officers - functionally - managers, who are intended for executive roles (e.g. Sqn TO, Sqn Adj, Sqn Cdr, WSO, Sector Cdr, OC Wg) and can additionally act as instructors if required to do so?
Still more clarity required I feel, and I believe that ârole creepâ is an issue that needs to be addressed.[/quote]
I can only go back effectively 38 years in terms of seeing a squadron operate and ârole creepâ has been in existence for all of those least 35 of those and thus far it hasnât created problems.
Before assigning cadres to particular roles, the day to day functioning of the squadron has to be paramount. It would be great if I had Officers to be the TO and Adj, but I havenât so I delegate to those I feel are going to do a good job. If these are SNCOs and or CIs so be it. I have been a one man band and with other staff around I have no desire to go back there.
The primary questions are as I suggested and having these answered without prejudice and the results (even if they are harshly critical of the system) taken and something done.
I do at times think we live with a situation of HQAC knows best, which I suppose is akin to the country and businesses. However wrt the ATC I would say that the âhead officeâ doesnâr know best, as the volunteer staff have experience that the SLT donât, even when compiling a report, I get an overwhleming sense of sneering at the adult volunteers by the ACMB, when the adult volunteers have a better idea of what will/wonât work. At least in a large number of businesses most of the senior management have some experience of the âshopfloorâ, whereas none of our senior management in the form of the ACMB (with maybe the exception of a couple of invitees) have experience of life on an ATC squadron.
the absolute, fundamental weakness of the ACO management system - nail, head.
people who do a mortgage-paying job, who then take 12 - 15 hours a week out of what remains of their lives to look after 30+ of other peoples children being run by people who do, and have done, none of that.
i like what i hear about the new CAC - friendly, interested, engaging and with the heretical belief that its what happens at 1000 units twice a week that counts, not what happens 9-5 at Sleaford Tech - but being a cynical soul i reckon that if she had to do the CAC job in her spare time for a few months HQAC would be a very different animal by the end of her tenureâŚ
[quote=âglass half empty 2â post=18949][quote=ânoah claypoleâ post=18945]If 75% of that (particular) course werenât good enough to commission then thatâs the way it is. You have to question why 75% of those people werenât weeded out at Wing Board stage?
I understand that the overall pass rate for OASC is somewhere around 65%.[/quote]
The Wing board is weak tool. I was speaking to our Wg Cdr last year who had done a course to conduct the interview and he said by comparison to the old style boards, the new one being a scripted affair wasnât really designed to select people per se and although there is a scoring system, it is open to subjectivity.
While I accept OASC are screening us on a similar basis to regular Commissions, talking to a few who have been pass and fail, I still think we need something slightly more tailored to the ACO experience wrt commissioned service and looking more so at maturity and breadth of life experience, than what you did at school or will some bloke get to the train station on time. How many regulars, I await the brickbats, can regularly be put into a command situation dealing with the breadth of problems and issues such staff recruitment, financial dealings, welfare issues for adults and teenagers, parents complaining/moaning, civilian welfare committees, local community liaison etc, that your average ATC commissioned officer can face, within a couple of years of commissioning. Any of us who have been sqn cdrs for more than a week know of what I speak. While I recognise that regular commissioned officer will deal with things we never will, they will during their developmental period, have a lot of experienced and knowledgable people around them to guide them through.[/quote]
All Interviews are subjective by their very nature, so both the new and old style boards are the same in that effect. Where they differ is that the standardised âscriptâ ensures that a minimum number of pre-requisites are discussed and assessed and that any form of âlocal influenceâ does not determine whether a candidate is successful or not (which we have all seen some of the outcomes of - to our horror).
The aim of OASC is to select people for their Officer Qualities (read Leadership & Management), now whether they are managing Volunteers or Regulars is largely irrelevant (and bear with me) â it is about whether the person has any form of Management and Leadership (read chance) of being able to command a team. The nuances of the; difference in approach of leading Volunteers, Civcoms, responsibilities, the general malaise of VR(T) functions, etc. etc. can be learned later on â ideally in the Pilot Officer Stage. I would suggest that OASC stands more chance of getting it right - through standardisation alone - over the previous system.
Where I do have an issue with OASC is actually something out of their control â the fact that we have a 2 tier VR(T) in that CCF Officers do not have to go through the same process to Commission (including OASC) that VR(T) Officers working with the ATC do. Why should this be the case?
@BTI- I donât see Role Creep as an issue - in its simplest form if it means that someone has to bridge a gap (of which there are many) outside of their role to ensure that a Sqn funtions or activities take place so that Cadets can do something then I donât see the issue. Where gaps become long term âvoidsâ then this is an issue.
Much of which you say is right - if we had a blank canvas and no legacy issues. But we donât and I donât see that switching to an ACF Model is the answer, particularly as Chief Tech pointed out that your numbers were incorrect (for the too many Officers comment) and some points they raise which I would like to hear your reply in the interest of debate.
To add to CTâs points, I would suggest that âhandbrakingâ CIâs delivering certain activities would only end up crippling the experience for the Cadet. I think one in the spotlight would be Shooting and SAAI related activites. In my area if we didnât have CIâs (qualâd) then we simply wouldnât shoot. I hear what you say in that if they wish to do certain functions then wear a Uniform, but if it ainât brokeâŚ
Rather than forcing CIâs down this route (and effectively playing with numbers within current headcount), the Uniformed posts need to be more attractive to get new people into the ACO - an ACO which provides them a clear identity (wrt the RAF), training, a support infrastucture and a clear and even handed management CoC.
Noah you say you hear his point? I dont think there is a point at all, why should people be forced into uniform? Its a youth organisation not a miniture airforce.
I have done my time in uniform. I do not wish to step into it just for people to get a warm fuzzy feeling at a youth club. What matters is the instruction, values and experiences we give these kids.
Who cares about role creep? If a job needs doing, then get it done, if thats by a CI, SNCO or an Officer. Of course some jobs are suited to some ranks over others.
Obviously theres a need for a uniformed aspect, and if people want to go into uniform then thats great. But its not the be all and end all of the ACO.
Can we please stop all these talk of the ACF way of doing things because one of the good idea fairies might be reading this thread.
i must admit that when i see the argument you talk about it frightens the hell out of me - it can only come from people so wildly up their own backside that they genuinely believe that when a CI gives up time, effort, doubtless hassle, and time away from his/her friends and family in order to carry out a particular role in a youth club, that youth club is somehow doing the CI a favour.
it is not.
either those who espose this argument accept an individuals choice not to go into uniform, or they do it all themselves. if i, as a CI, am not - on principle - good enough to be an RCO or SAAI then iâm also not good enough, as a CI, to drive a minibus full of kids to RAF Cosford at 6am, or to take a thursday morning off to do a 200mile round trip to do a range conference at a DTE facility, or to take a Sqn minibus in for an MOT when the blue-skinned master race canât leave work.
iâm also not good enough to be your Adj or Trg Off, and iâm certainly not good enough to be a BEL/WGL/ML - in which case, the spectacularly insecure VR(T) or SNCO who is obsessed by who does what will have a very busy time.
Sorry for the late reply all - busy couple of days.
[quote]Chief Tech wrote:
Finally I would ask you to clairfy your stats - you stated that there were 3,359 officers in the ACO -
does this include CCF RAFs which donât have any SNCOs
How many of these Officers are at Sqn Level?
Do you have a rank break down for the ACO in terms of VR(T) at Plt Off, Fg Off & Flt Lt.
Working on some rough calculations -
Assuming 200 CCF with 2 Officers per Section gives 400 - leaving us with 2959
Assume HQAC has 6 VR(T) officers - 2953
Assuming each region has 5 VR(T) officers (30) - leaves us with 2923
36 Wing Commanders - leaves us with 2887
Assume each wing has 5 WSO (180) - 2707
Assuming each of the 1009 Sqn has an Officer Commanding it leaves 1698[/quote]
[quote]noah claypole wrote:
âŚparticularly as Chief Tech pointed out that your numbers were incorrect (for the too many Officers comment) and some points they raise which I would like to hear your reply in the interest of debate.[/quote]
My figures were based on the presentation given to the 2014 ACO Conference (found on the HQAC SharePoint site) - the presentation doesnât break the figures down further, sadly. Chief Techâs working assumptions may be correct, or somewhere near correct; alternatively the presentation may âATC onlyâ, and exclude VGS and CCF(RAF) Officers. We donât know.
Even using CTs working assumption of approx 1700 Officers with the ATC, and the Conference presentation figure of approx 1800 SNCOs/WOs (who must be ATC), surely this almost 1-1 figure must still be too high? This is one of my fundamental questions - âwhy do we need so many Officers?â âŚwhich then links into the subsequent âwhat should be their role?â
[quote]RearAdmiralScrinson wrote:
Noah you say you hear his point? I dont think there is a point at all, why should people be forced into uniform? Its a youth organisation not a miniture airforce.
I have done my time in uniform. I do not wish to step into it just for people to get a warm fuzzy feeling at a youth club. What matters is the instruction, values and experiences we give these kids[/quote]
I fear both you and angus have misunderstood me. I have not - nor would I - suggest that people should be âforced into uniformâ. That would be a recipe for disaster. I fully take your point that you have âdone your time in uniformâ, and that you obviously wish to be a CI. No argument with that at all, or your wish to instruct cadets and pass on your experience. What I would say however - and this is an issue I have come across several times during my 22 years man & boy with the ATC - is that just because someone has regular (or reserve) service under their belt before joining the ATC, doesnât mean they (a) have all the answers, or (b) know best; in relation to the operation of a Cadet Force. Equally, those who do not have regular (or reserve) service experience should listen to the advice of those who do. You are correct in what you say, in that it is a youth organisation, not a miniature air force, but as a Cadet Force it should mirror the parent service as much as possible; but an effective organisational structure is needed in order to operate effectively, and to enable those who aspire to progress within the Cadet Force to do so if they are suitable.
[quote]angus wrote:
âŚwhen i see the argument you talk about it frightens the hell out of me - it can only come from people so wildly up their own backside that they genuinely believe that when a CI gives up time, effort, doubtless hassle, and time away from his/her friends and family in order to carry out a particular role in a youth club, that youth club is somehow doing the CI a favour.
âŚeither those who espose this argument accept an individuals choice not to go into uniform, or they do it all themselves. if i, as a CI, am not - on principle - good enough to be an RCO or SAAI then iâm also not good enough, as a CI, to drive a minibus full of kids to RAF Cosford at 6am, or to take a thursday morning off to do a 200mile round trip to do a range conference at a DTE facility, or to take a Sqn minibus in for an MOT when the blue-skinned master race canât leave work.
iâm also not good enough to be your Adj or Trg Off, and iâm certainly not good enough to be a BEL/WGL/ML - in which case, the spectacularly insecure VR(T) or SNCO who is obsessed by who does what will have a very busy time[/quote]
Not sure exactly where to start with this. Iâm not suggesting that CIs are ânot good enoughâ to do things - nowhere was that said - so, Iâm afraid the spectacular insecurity must be on your part, since you assumed thatâs what I meant.
What Iâm suggesting is that - since SNCOs & WOs can now become Sqn Cdrs (and this is accepted as a matter of policy within the organisation), and since CIs can - effectively - instruct in any subject (with, perhaps, the exception of drill - and even this is not written down anywhere!); that there is ârole creepâ, between the different cadres of CFAVs within the ATC, due to a lack of clarity in relation to the roles and responsibilities intended for each cadre.
[quote]noah claypole wrote:
To add to CTâs points, I would suggest that âhandbrakingâ CIâs delivering certain activities would only end up crippling the experience for the Cadet. I think one in the spotlight would be Shooting and SAAI related activites. In my area if we didnât have CIâs (qualâd) then we simply wouldnât shoot. I hear what you say in that if they wish to do certain functions then wear a Uniform, but if it ainât brokeâŚ[/quote]
Re. my comments/suggestion that CIs might be restricted from instructing in certain elements of the training syllabus; the rationale for that suggestion is based observation of the ACF model, where those who wish to instruct cadets are (a) required be uniformed CFAVs, and (b) are then trained to instruct cadets in the relevant subjects/activities. What I am not in a position to comment on is how successful that model is âŚsince moving to the current training package, I have heard - anecdotally - that there are similar problems encouraging CAs to become AIs/Officers.
Under current arrangements it would be pointless for the ATC to adopt this model, since no structured training is given to our CFAVs to enable them to deliver the ATC syllabus âŚthat, as I see it, is the main benefit of the ACF model - and whilst they may well end up with fewer AIs and Officers, those individuals will be better trained to deliver the APC syllabus (reducing the risk to the Army, since the majority of ACF activities involve weapons!). Additionally, it may not be as big a problem - organisationally - for the ACF if, in the short term, there are fewer AIs/Officers, since (as I understand it) a large amount of ACF training is conducted at a Company (Sector), not Detachment (Sqn) level âŚtherefore, fewer - better trained - staff can deliver training âen-masseâ, and do it more efficiently.
Agreed - and that is what I suggesting - clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities, and a structured training package to then enable those personnel to carry out those roles and responsibilities. Like they have in the ACF
[quote]RearAdmiralScrinson wrote:
Can we please stop all these talk of the ACF way of doing things because one of the good idea fairies might be reading this thread.[/quote]
No. I think there is a lot we could learn from the ACF model - certainly in terms of their âcadet experienceâ / training delivery model. Iâm not suggesting that adopting everything the ACF do wholesale would be a panacea, but there are surely advantages to delivering a large amount of our training at a Sector, rather than Sqn, level. The problem is the culture of the ATC - we are used to operating as Sqns, usually in isolation and in competition with other Sqns âŚalthough cooperation between Sqns may often happen at a local level on an ad-hoc basis and for historical reasons (geography, personalities, etc.); structured-Sector level training is not embedded in ATC in the same way as it is in the ACF. This is to our disadvantage, in my opinion, as it would reduce the training/administration/organisational burden on Sqns, make the deliver of training more efficient, and enable Sqns to concentrate on delivering the aspects of the âcadet experienceâ and/or syllabus that cannot efficiently be delivered at Sector level, e.g. supporting training such as drill, dress, classifications, etc. as well as community events. I hope that the âgood idea fairiesâ are reading this.
ââ(a) Redefine/clarify the role of CIs - restricting the delivery of certain activities and training to uniformed staff would arguably provide an additional incentive to go into uniform.ââ
which means CIâs arenât good enough to teach/do X, Y or Z because they are CIâs, not uniformed bods. the most intellectually challenged thing is that youâre focused on what clothes a CFAV is wearing - not what training they have, or their personal skills, merely that this week CI Bob Jones is not capable of teaching/doing X, but the following week, having recieved nothing but a cheap polyester uniform in the post and becoming Sgt (ATC) B Jones, he is suddenly capable of doing what he couldnât last week.
i know that i think that your argument is pointless, meaningless drivel, but i would have thought that at least you would consider it worth rememberingâŚ
you also utterly fail to consider what the effect would be if a significant proportion of CIâs decide not to take up your offer and either remain in a reduced role, or clear off to somewhere less hostile, and then admit you dont even know if the ACF model works - making a crisis out of an abortion.
you still havenât managed to elucidate what you believe the negative consequences to this role-creep youâre so upset about actually areâŚ
angus, Iâm not going to get into a slanging match with you, however:
[quote]with respect, you did write this:
ââ(a) Redefine/clarify the role of CIs - restricting the delivery of certain activities and training to uniformed staff would arguably provide an additional incentive to go into uniform.ââ
which means CIâs arenât good enough to teach/do X, Y or Z because they are CIâs, not uniformed bods. the most intellectually challenged thing is that youâre focused on what clothes a CFAV is wearing - not what training they have, or their personal skills, merely that this week CI Bob Jones is not capable of teaching/doing X, but the following week, having recieved nothing but a cheap polyester uniform in the post and becoming Sgt (ATC) B Jones, he is suddenly capable of doing what he couldnât last week.[/quote]
Your argument is illogical. Suggesting that the role of CIs is redefined does not mean that they are ânot good enoughâ - it means exactly what it says, I am suggesting that the role might be redefined (as part of a âthink pieceâ to invite discussion). The core of my argument is about the roles of cadres of CFAVs, not about the capabilities of individuals. There is no intellectual challenge there, and Iâm sorry that you seem to be taking it personally.
Sorry - I donât even know what youâre trying to say here.
This topic was intended to generate discussion around a subject that I believe is an issue - it was never advertised as a fix-everything solution for the Corps. Sorry to say that the only hostility has been from you.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Quite how making a suggestion - for the purpose of discussion - makes âa crisis out of an abortionâ, I have no idea. Let alone the fact that such language could be offensive to some.
Perhaps you canât see it. Quite simply, ârole creepâ causes:
A lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities.
In turn, that lack of clarity makes the development of structured staff training and development difficult/impossible
That, in turn, because of a lack of structured staff training and development - geared towards the relevant roles & responsibilities of the different cadres - means that the âcadet experienceâ is very uneven in its delivery. Some Sqns/Sectors/Wings/Regions will have staff who are suitable, qualified, and experienced for the range of roles required (not to mention capability); and others wonât. Only a systematic/analytical approach to solving that problem will work - such as the ACF have. Their CFAVs have clear roles and responsibilities, and are trained to fulfill them. As an organisation, that means they deliver (or will deliver over time) a more standardised product (âcadet experienceâ).
On a separate note, lets keep things civil shall we? Disagree by all means - you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine - but there is no need to take this topic personally, or make your responses personal.
Too high for what exactly? From a financial perspective Plt Off/ Fg Off and SNCO pay is broadly the same. Compared to our parent service (which has traditionally had more Officers then OR) then no itâs not surprising, but compared to the ACF model it is.
We need (until any change in SNCO VR(T) status â if at all) the number of Officers to at most basic level act as local âAuthorised Personâ to conduct certain activities using MOD property or Equipment.
Just going back to a point here:
If we go down this route - and leaving the progression issues that others have highlighted to one side - I donât see why WSOâs need to be Flt Ltâs in your model.
I would argue that being in charge of a large Sqn (on the basis you suggest) is more taxing than being WGLO for instance. Therefore should not WSOâs also be Fg Offâs and Sector Cdrâs then become Flt Ltâs with the Wg Cdr becoming a Sqn Ldr and so forth? Iâm not sure how well that will go down.
[quote=âbtiâ post=19034]Re. my comments/suggestion that CIs might be restricted from instructing in certain elements of the training syllabus; the rationale for that suggestion is based observation of the ACF model, where those who wish to instruct cadets are (a) required be uniformed CFAVs, and (b) are then trained to instruct cadets in the relevant subjects/activities. What I am not in a position to comment on is how successful that model is âŚsince moving to the current training package, I have heard - anecdotally - that there are similar problems encouraging CAs to become AIs/Officers.
Under current arrangements it would be pointless for the ATC to adopt this model, since no structured training is given to our CFAVs to enable them to deliver the ATC syllabus ⌠[/quote]
Which is why I am a bit surprised you seem to champion it?
Now if you âRAFâisedâ your argument to something akin to Leigh-Malloryâs âBig Wingâ â you might get somewhere
[quote] noah claypole wrote: [quote]bti wrote:
Even using CTs working assumption of approx 1700 Officers with the ATC, and the Conference presentation figure of approx 1800 SNCOs/WOs (who must be ATC), surely this almost 1-1 figure must still be too high?
[/quote]Too high for what exactly? From a financial perspective Plt Off/ Fg Off and SNCO pay is broadly the same. Compared to our parent service (which has traditionally had more Officers then OR) then no itâs not surprising, but compared to the ACF model it is.
[/quote]
Pretty sure there are more ORs than Officers in the RAF! âŚonly 22% of the RAF are Officers - 78% ORs (as of 1 Apr 14).
[quote][quote]bti wrote:
(d) Redefine the role of Officers - Only appoint Officers as Sqn Cdrs at larger Sqns (50 cadets+ ?), and then restrict rank to Fg Off. Newly commissioned Officers could serve in an Exec Role at larger Sqns, and could take up a command after completing the Jnr Off Development Programme (ACTO94) and on promotion to Fg Off after 2 years. Officers in the rank of Flt Lt and above would be WSOs (e.g. Flt Lt WSOs with a âfunctional responsibilityâ, e.g. WGLO, Training Officer, DofE Officer, First Aid Officer, etc.); and Sqn Ldrs would be Sector Cdrs with line-management responsibilities.
[/quote]
If we go down this route - and leaving the progression issues that others have highlighted to one side - I donât see why WSOâs need to be Flt Ltâs in your model.
I would argue that being in charge of a large Sqn (on the basis you suggest) is more taxing than being WGLO for instance. Therefore should not WSOâs also be Fg Offâs and Sector Cdrâs then become Flt Ltâs with the Wg Cdr becoming a Sqn Ldr and so forth? Iâm not sure how well that will go down.[/quote]
Admitted that was a bit simplistic. I think I modified it a little subsequently, suggesting that very large Sqns (such as are currently commanded by Sqn Ldrs) might be commanded by Flt Lts. You point is valid about the difference in commanding a large Sqn and, for example, being the WGLO âŚI was trying to illustrate a logical progression linked to rank, i.e. Sqn Cdr = Fg Off, WSO = Flt Lt, Sector Cdr = Sqn Ldr; and so forth.
[quote][quote]bti wrote:
Re. my comments/suggestion that CIs might be restricted from instructing in certain elements of the training syllabus; the rationale for that suggestion is based observation of the ACF model, where those who wish to instruct cadets are (a) required be uniformed CFAVs, and (b) are then trained to instruct cadets in the relevant subjects/activities. What I am not in a position to comment on is how successful that model is âŚsince moving to the current training package, I have heard - anecdotally - that there are similar problems encouraging CAs to become AIs/Officers.
Under current arrangements it would be pointless for the ATC to adopt this model, since no structured training is given to our CFAVs to enable them to deliver the ATC syllabus âŚ
[/quote]Which is why I am a bit surprised you seem to champion it?[/quote]
Thats my point exactly! âŚif we had claritfy of roles and responsibilities for each cadre, a training & development package could be designed accordingly. That would have to come before structural change that would accompany it.
BTI, count it as hostility from me too. I have just calmed it down a bit, too much heat from the Mods.
I wasnt saying because I have been a regular I know best. Far from it. I have a lot to learn about the ACO. But if you restrict CI roles, you will lose them.
But the ACF is not and never will be the correct way. I have mates that jacked in helping the ACF because of it.
why mirror the RAF to the letter? The RAF is a fulltime job. The ACO is an evening/part time youth club, sponsored by the Military. Theres similarities yes. But you cant and shouldnt copy it to the letter.
Not gonna lie, I havent read half the big long posts since my one,
I have noticed over the past few years of looking at the forums that on occasion things do get rather heated and folks start bitching at each other. Maybe people should breathe deeply, engage brain, and carefully consider what they want to say in a calm manner! Getting personal and having a slanging match gets nobody nowhere fast and could be classed as âunprofessionalâ.
Ref CIâs having restricted roles. I for one would resign if this came about. My thoughts are that staff should be competent and qualified esp ref shooting and some AT activities (e.g climbing, canoeing etc). New staff should be ânurturedâ and encouraged to persue their interests. I for one enjoy AT and have had the privilege of taking cadets canoeing and trundling around the hills in the past , to the enjoyment of all. Something like drill is a uniform staff specialism.
In the past I used to be involved in fieldcraft, but I gave this up when acp16 stated that civilian instructors were not to wear dpm. I was not prepared to trash my own expensive AT clothing!!.
CIâs are what it says on the tinâŚcivilian INSTRUCTORS and as such should be allowed to get on and instruct in the subject areas they are competent in. I think that if things were restricted as per the ACF model there wouldnât be many CIâs ,left as many people would not be prepared to just push paper (or data) and suchlike.
I for one like getting involved with the cadets and have been doing so for 22 plus years. I did spend 12 years in uniform with the ROC until it was âstood downâ , but had no desire to carry on wearing a blue suit. There are probably quite a few CIâs who have done uniform service in the past and have no inclination to wear one again, but enjoy helping out and passing on skills and knowledge to the cadets.
Here endeth my first rambling essay on the forumsâŚinteresting topic which has stirred things a bit!!
[quote=âbtiâ post=19048][quote] noah claypole wrote: [quote]bti wrote:
Even using CTs working assumption of approx 1700 Officers with the ATC, and the Conference presentation figure of approx 1800 SNCOs/WOs (who must be ATC), surely this almost 1-1 figure must still be too high?
[/quote]Too high for what exactly? From a financial perspective Plt Off/ Fg Off and SNCO pay is broadly the same. Compared to our parent service (which has traditionally had more Officers then OR) then no itâs not surprising, but compared to the ACF model it is.
[/quote]
Pretty sure there are more ORs than Officers in the RAF! âŚonly 22% of the RAF are Officers - 78% ORs (as of 1 Apr 14).
I should have been clearer - I was referring to the percentages (ratioâs) of Officerâs to Other Ranks in reply to your 1-1 figure. Even going forward post SDSR it is higher â so the ATC VR(T) following suit is no surprise!
RAF = 21.5% (Recruiting levels 13.4%)
ARMY = 15.8% (Recruiting levels 9%)
RN = 19.25% (Recruiting levels 10%)
I would still like to hear why you consider the numbers to be too high?
Admitted that was a bit simplistic. I think I modified it a little subsequently, suggesting that very large Sqns (such as are currently commanded by Sqn Ldrs) might be commanded by Flt Lts. You point is valid about the difference in commanding a large Sqn and, for example, being the WGLO âŚI was trying to illustrate a logical progression linked to rank, i.e. Sqn Cdr = Fg Off, WSO = Flt Lt, Sector Cdr = Sqn Ldr; and so forth. [/quote]
Yes I can see your reasoning. I think the element of promotion in your model would need to be carefully controlled. We couldnât continue on the time served Plt Off â Fg Off system, neither could we justify âthose who prefer to be away from the Cadetsâ jumping to Flt Lt (or higher) on no system of pre-requisites whatsoever!
I am presuming that you would also do away with time served Flt Lt (unpaid) even though it has no cost implication to the Model?
Ok I need help clearing this up. So to become an Officer in the VR(T) to help at an out of school, uniformed youth club to teach kidsâŚyou need to sit the OASC?
Why isnt it being held at local level, dealt with by your Wing. Less travel, more appealing, less of a mess around?
If I ever did consider uniform, the very fact I have to travel down and do OASC is off putting and enough for me to say nada to that.
[quote=âbtiâ post=19041]Perhaps you canât see it. Quite simply, ârole creepâ causes:
A lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities.
In turn, that lack of clarity makes the development of structured staff training and development difficult/impossible
That, in turn, because of a lack of structured staff training and development - geared towards the relevant roles & responsibilities of the different cadres - means that the âcadet experienceâ is very uneven in its delivery. Some Sqns/Sectors/Wings/Regions will have staff who are suitable, qualified, and experienced for the range of roles required (not to mention capability); and others wonât. Only a systematic/analytical approach to solving that problem will work - such as the ACF have. Their CFAVs have clear roles and responsibilities, and are trained to fulfill them. As an organisation, that means they deliver (or will deliver over time) a more standardised product (âcadet experienceâ).[/quote]
I would suggest that the reverse is true and that Role Creep is a Symptom and not the cause.
Lack of clarity around Roles and Responsibilities can only come from the CoC - and Staff do the best they can (sometimes with their own agenda), with the guidance they have, to acheive the end goal. As I said before, this may mean people operate âOff Pisteâ to fill a Gap - but it is because people are generally reacting to a situation - not causing it.
Ultimately the inherent problem is the Infrastructure behind the Machine - it does not have the Horsepower, or agility to deliver to the âFront Lineâ in itâs current guise and no matter how many times we (as a Corps) skirt around it, until this issue is resolved we will always have the necessity to operate outside of our normal functions/roles - no matter what Model we operate to. Itâs also worth pointing out that in âbang for buckâ terms (my recollection from the DYER report was that) we do pretty well to sustain the numbers we have and deliver what we do with the budget and FT staff we have - i.e. efficient. The ACF also have vastly more financial resources and direct (and indirect) support infrastructure to rely on.
Donât get me wrong, I see where you are trying to get to in a more Professional set up with clear aims, roles and objectives - itâs the justification that I think needs clarity - call it a preventative anti-Blairism if you will
