CCF or ATC?
[quote=“RearAdmiralScrinson” post=19081]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]
See my post (number 25 on page 2) of this thread. This used to happen and it wasn’t “consistent”…
I think I read that as “wing staff cant be arsed organising and actually doing something so chin it off for someone else to deal with”
thats a remarkably charitable way of putting it…
it was a dogs breakfast, far too ‘old boy network’, self-replicating and ‘going with what we’re comfortable with’ - the old system failed a young CI at my first Sqn, he was a brilliant leader and youth worker, fancied a pop at VR(T) while he was at uni and got bined at Wing level.
when he left uni he went to RMAS, was top third, and went Rifles - he was good enough to take a rifle Pln to Iraq, and a Coy to Afghanistan, and good enough to make the leap from Major to Lt. Colonel, but not, apprently, good enough to run a youth club for 5 hours a week.
the CO at the time was, depressingly, not surprised - his view was that our lad had not been binned because he lacked maturity or some leadership skill, but becasuse his record and attitude/aptitude both as a Cdt SNCO and then CI was such that he made people look bad. the ‘not a team player’ excuse when the team is mediocre and to be good upsets the dymamics of the team.
i’ve also seen some utter cretins get through the old system. no, we don’t want to go back to that.
no, i’d take it as ‘Wing/Region doing it so badly that HQAC (perhaps with their arms twisted by further up the food chain) took the task off them and gave it to OASC’.
i’ve never found Wing/Regions unwilling to take on more authority, after all the less they do the less requirement for them as formations there is. the nightmare of Wings/Regions is that everything will go straight between Sqn’s and HQAC without the need for them to sit in the middle and interpret what each is saying to the other - then they might have to, shudder, get involved with cadets…
Tighter control and higher standards for those going into uniform can only be a good thing in my eyes.
Yes, by implication we might find ourselves with fewer people going into uniform but I feel that quality is more important.
In the last 20 years I’ve met some fantastic uniformed staff, but at the other end I’ve met a lot of absolute muppets too!
And right at the extreme there are sadly a number of people in the Corps that we’d be better off without.
Since it’s those muppets who give people like Scrinson the bad impression of “cadet instructors” in general, surely avoiding such behaviour, either by training it out of people or by simple avoiding them entirely, has to be of benefit.
The CI pool is always going to consist of a wide variety of experience and competence.
There are those who choose to be CI and not uniformed, and then there will be those who are unsuccessful in their application for uniform.
Some will have military experience, some will not. Some will bring technical knowledge and instructional skills, some will have limited technical skills but regularly turn out to assist with events… CIs contribute in a plethora of ways.
No one can say that CIs in general are ‘not good enough’ to teach certain subjects; but that doesn’t mean there can’t be some subjects which are considered to be uniform only, even though there may be many CIs who are very capable of teaching them.
You have to choose your role.
Want to be a DI? You apply for SNCO. If SASC had their way the same would apply for SAAI…
As it stands you can do pretty much anything as a CI.
I think though that the term “Civilian Instructor” is misleading. We don’t give enough training to make every CI a good instructor. I know some cracking CIs who happily work their backside off with admin and making up staff ratios, but they’d be terrible instructors.
I don’t believe that set roles from which we never deviate would work in the real ATC due the other pressures we’re all under and the numbers of staff we have available. Certainly I (like many others) currently find myself filling multiple roles because I don’t have enough suitably knowledgeable staff to fill them.
I do believe that finding primary roles for people and training them to perform those roles well has got to be a sensible move.
More focus on properly training and equipping staff is a better approach to the shortfall than simply throwing a uniform onto more unprepared and inexperienced people… and then rewarding their incompetence with a promotion a couple of years down the line.
[quote=“bti” post=19041]1. A lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities.
2. In turn, that lack of clarity makes the development of structured staff training and development difficult/impossible[/quote]
Taking these two points is it maybe not the case that the top end organisation hasn’t got the faintest idea what actually happens to make squadrons work and therefore hankers after an antiquated and out moded mindset. Maybe courses for Adj, TO etc should be opened up to “all ranks” and not seen as the preserve of the ‘officer’. I wonder if, they were bothered, HQAC did a trawl through SMS and find out who in terms of rank was doing what roles on squadrons.
Built on a military model. But then if you look at the current military model, it does seem to rely on civilians doing a lot of things.
I’d be shafted if it wasn’t for the fact that SNCOs and CIs can and do fill the what are regarded as traditional commissioned officer roles on the squadrons I’ve been been in charge of and similarly on those was on previously.
I wonder if there isn’t a case that many Sqn Cdrs don’t push people forward for uniform as they know that Wing will start trying to poach staff for other squadrons. This is nothing to do with personal development, it’s hole filling. It’s another thing entirely that a member of staff comes along and says I would like a move as I don’t feel I’m achieving my potential OR the sqn cdr has a similar chat. But then I don’t follow the line that a uniform role is some sort of developmental progression, although having said that, taking a commission and not ever wanting a command is an odd way of thinking.
this the crux of the difference between the ACO and the RAF - in the RAF when your Adj, or TrgO or whatever leaves, a new shiny young bod with the same rank, training etc… comes alone to replace him/her, in the ACO, when your Adj/RCO/TrgO/Whatever leaves you scrable around and lay your hands on whoever you can find to take the role, and you don’t care whether they are a CI, an SNCO, or VR(T) or a cross-dressing accountant, because the choice is usually them or, err… no one.
the ACO cannot afford to try and be picky about who does what - the phrase beggars and choosers leaps to mind - it either takes whats available and gives them the skills needed to do the job they are willing to do, or it collapses.
you’d think it would be an easy choice…
BTi
To your “Why not” questions
Please would you explain where you propose to get all these willing volunteers from.
I am struggling to get staff converted into uniform due to the lengthy process in place!
[quote=“bti” 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 it’s not surprising, but compared to the ACF model it is.
[/quote]
Pretty sure there are more ORs than Officers in the RAF! …only 22% of the RAF are Officers - 78% ORs (as of 1 Apr 14).
If we are using the RAF stats of Officers vs OR and applying it to the ACO then you have got to factor in the number of the cadets into the equation. I’ll assume 45,000 cadets which when added to 6250 CIs & 1800 SNCOs makes a total of 53,050.
Using the initial stat of 3,359 Officers this makes 6% of the ACO commissioned, far lower that the proportion of officers in the RAF. If you really want to do statistic comparison then you would need the break down of SNCOs in the RAF.
[quote]It seems that 10 years after the introduction of Adult SNCOs, the ATC is still hugely top-heavy with Officers. It is almost the exact opposite of the ACF, which at 2/3 AIs and 1/3 Officers is 67% SNCOs/WOs and 33% Officers.
[/quote]
The main reason I am bringing out the statistics is that BTIs model & argument was based on the fact that we as an organisation are “top heavy” with officers. I believe the statistics that BTI has used are flawed for the purposes he/she is trying to use them (verging into the “Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics” territory). If anything the stats show we have a bigger shortage of SNCOs than we do officers.
Also comparing us the ACF on the above statistic is irrelevant unless the ACF introduced Sgt Instructors at the same time as the ACO. Assuming all uniform staff retire at 55 it is going to take at least another 10 if not 25 years to see if the numbers have balanced out accordingly meaning we will have to wait until 2024 or 2039 to really see if the LASER review has worked (if it hasn’t I am sure we will find out long before then).
The issue regarding ‘role creep’ is always going to occur in any organisation that uses volunteers - I have heard of a CI running a sqn of 30 cadets as OC because there was no-one else. In a hierarchial organisation such as ourselves it is even more likely as there is a clear delegation chain of seniority meaning its clear where the crown goes when it gets passed on so even RearAdmiralScrinson could end up an a OC Sqn <although I imagine it would only be until they can get someone else in 
>
[Side Note - On the ground that they are over 18 & a Staff Cadet - could, in theory, a CWO end up being OC of a sqn if it runs out of staff? [color=#ff0000] #canofworms[/color]]
Moving back to the main point is what are officers there for, I believe we have had a culture change since LASER bringing about two types of officer. The first type is the old school ‘commanders’ who do the back office administration, strategy planning and effectively are management with maybe a single specialism.
The new second type is the ‘leaders’ who believe in leading from the front, and get qualified as RCOs & WIs, do as much as possible and have a very hands on approach to doing stuff. They have learnt their trade as an officer by getting the qualifications and knowledge as a CI and having a good understanding in a lot of areas, are wanting to take on more of the direction planning and development of the sqn.
The second type are going to be the ones that take the ACO forward and by limiting what CIs can do we are limiting the experience of our future Officers and SNCOs. The second type are also more likely to cause more conflict with old school SNCOs who believe in the demarkation and that ‘Officers should stay in a office’
Do we need to redefine roles? yes - but the role that needs redefining is not the Officers and certainly not the CIs. It is the SNCO role and especially the WO that needs to re-imagined rather than relying on a cultural idea of what a SNCO or WO in the RAF did twenty years ago.
In short Officers lead, CIs Instruct - what do SNCOs actually do? Are they mini officers or enhanced CIs?
In summary, I believe BTI’s model is wrong as her/his statistics and assumptions are flawed. Comparisons with the ACF is a bit pointless as they have a different structure and it isn’t working. Volunteers at all levels (which includes cadets) must be provided with incentive and motivation to do what they want and need but also to develop themselves and avoid stagnation although we should not be compelling people to take that next step.
[color=#0044ff]<I have referred to BTI as her/him as this being a web forum, all that we know about each other is our usernames, avatar pic and the turn of phrase we use in our posts. Getting angry because people cannot understand what you are trying to say is pointless as is name calling. No one knows your background or experience and it doesn’t actually matter. What matters is how you construct your arguments and how you evidence it (and making sure you read posts properly before replying!) - your personal reputation is unfortunately irrelevant - for all anybody knows I could be the Commandant and just like stirring things on here 
>[/color]
[quote]noah claypole wrote:
I would suggest that…Role Creep is a Symptom and not the cause.[/quote]
An excellent point, well made. I should have been clearer in my terminology - I have concentrated on the effect of role creep, rather than the cause of it.
Again, a very fair point. As you say; SNCOs, WOs, and even CIs often have to fill roles “intended” for Officers, because of local staffing issues. I suppose my point is that there is no reason why that could not be the norm …why the emphasis on having an Officer at every Sqn?
[quote]GHE2 wrote:
[quote]bti wrote:
Agreed - see above. I don’t see any reason why SNCOs and WOs shouldn’t hold exec roles - i.e. Sqn Cdr, Adj, TO - at Sqn level. My personal view is that it’s not ideal that CIs hold an exec post, but circumstances will be such at some Sqns that there will be no other choice. That is not a comment on my perception of the capability of CIs by the way.
[quote]angus wrote:
the ACO cannot afford to try and be picky about who does what - the phrase beggars and choosers leaps to mind - it either takes whats available and gives them the skills needed to do the job they are willing to do, or it collapses.[/quote]
…and that is my point - at the moment, systemically, the ATC/ACO doesn’t give people the skills needed to do the job - there is a Sqn Cdr’s course at ATF, but there is no structured training for anyone filling an Adj or TO post. If we are to make the most of our most precious resource - our staff - there needs to be better preparation for the demands placed upon those who are willing to accept them. Part of the equation here, in my view, are the structural issues we’ve discussed; because until there is clarity of roles, training to meet the requirements of those roles cannot be designed, let alone implemented.
Which brings us back to Officers!
[quote]Chief Tech wrote:
If we are using the RAF stats of Officers vs OR and applying it to the ACO then you have got to factor in the number of the cadets into the equation. I’ll assume 45,000 cadets which when added to 6250 CIs & 1800 SNCOs makes a total of 53,050.
Using the initial stat of 3,359 Officers this makes 6% of the ACO commissioned, far lower that the proportion of officers in the RAF. If you really want to do statistic comparison then you would need the break down of SNCOs in the RAF.
The main reason I am bringing out the statistics is that BTIs model & argument was based on the fact that we as an organisation are “top heavy” with officers. I believe the statistics that BTI has used are flawed for the purposes he/she is trying to use them (verging into the “Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics” territory).[/quote]
Steady on old fruit! “Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics” is a bit strong… I have not intended to mislead - my model/argument is simply in relation to the staff, I have deliberately excluded cadets. That is why I compared the ATC to the ACF initially, rather than the RAF. I only included the RAF stats in response to a subsequent post.
I don’t think its irrelevant, but I take your point fully that the ACF was not at a standing start (for SNCOs) like the ATC was, in 2003. I suppose my query is whether there has been any “slow down” in the rate of recruitment for Officers, vs. the rate of recruitment of SNCOs.
Another fair point. I have to say that I was surprised to see the current 65%/35% split of Officers to SNCOs/WOs - and actually, I guess that answers my previous question - there must have been no corresponding “slow down” in the recruitment of Officers, otherwise surely a greater % drop/shift would have occurred over 10 years.
[quote]Moving back to the main point is what are officers there for, I believe we have had a culture change since LASER bringing about two types of officer. The first type is the old school ‘commanders’ who do the back office administration, strategy planning and effectively are management with maybe a single specialism.
The new second type is the ‘leaders’ who believe in leading from the front, and get qualified as RCOs & WIs, do as much as possible and have a very hands on approach to doing stuff. They have learnt their trade as an officer by getting the qualifications and knowledge as a CI and having a good understanding in a lot of areas, are wanting to take on more of the direction planning and development of the sqn.
The second type are going to be the ones that take the ACO forward…The second type are also more likely to cause more conflict with old school SNCOs who believe in the demarkation and that ‘Officers should stay in a office’[/quote]
I think this is at the core of the Officer - or indeed uniformed staff - conundrum; and to quote myself (odd):
[quote]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?[/quote]
[quote]Chief Tech wrote:
…the role that needs redefining is not the Officers and certainly not the CIs. It is the SNCO role and especially the WO that needs to re-imagined rather than relying on a cultural idea of what a SNCO or WO in the RAF did twenty years ago.
In short Officers lead, CIs Instruct - what do SNCOs actually do? Are they mini officers or enhanced CIs?[/quote]
And therein is one of my key contentions - that the role of SNCOs and WOs was never fully defined / redefined by the LASER review back in 2003. In many respects it promised much, but delivered little; particularly in relation to the new SNCO cadre. In effect, what it did was introduce a new “class” of uniformed CFAV with little or no guidance as to their role …I believe that the intent was for them to be “mini AWOs” (i.e. predominantly drill, dress, & discip), providing a career-path for uniformed CFAVs who did not wish to commission; as opposed to the ACF model of SNCOs being uniformed instructors.
SNCOs & WOs taking on exec roles at Sqn level has developed/evolved organically over the past 10 years - I don’t believe that the situation we’re now in was intended by the LASER review; but it is - at least partly - a consequence of that initial “lack of clarity”, I feel.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with that, I think we’re simply coming at the issue from different angles/perspectives. In relation to the ACF, I’m aware that they are having “throughput” issues, i.e. getting staff from flash to bang under their new training regime; but that doesn’t mean that it won’t work over time, and potentially end up with a better system/end product. All new systems need time to bed in, and at least they have a system rather than making it up as they go along, which is what we are forced to do.
I also disagree that the ATC and ACF can’t be compared, as at the end of the day, both organisations are Cadet Forces delivering a similar product, to similar customers, and using a similar structure and volunteers to do it.
[quote]397k wrote:
I am struggling to get staff converted into uniform due to the lengthy process in place! [/quote]
Interesting… in my experience what often tends to drag out the process is that the individuals themselves don’t, or aren’t prepared to, commit enough time and effort into gaining the necessary knowledge and experience to make the transition / actually pass a board. Simply putting a uniform on someone does not mean they will be adequately prepared to do the job, or solve staffing issues (in the long run).
Cheers
BTI
You can go to a time before the LASER Review was a twinkle in the eye, as the saying goes.
As a WO in the 10 years before the LASER Review I was the TO and Adj and I also knew of two WOs one a Sqn Cdr and one a DF Cdr and in my cadet time at least one WO was running a unit, plus ca change. So I don’t think the LASER Review has caused the problem. The problem, if we wish to consider it as such, has been around for years, and extends into the CI cadre because squadrons have to function.
What the LASER Review did or may have done is exacerbate the situation by creating Sgts a number on sqns where a WO already existed (like my sqn at the time), so that the Sgts were never going to really follow the traditional (in the ATC’s eyes at least) route for SNCOs of just doing shouty drill stuff, security and stores, with maybe some classroom instruction, they would be put into other roles to ensure the squadron runs properly.
The fact that the LASER Review didn’t deliver on the training and development for this new clutch of SNCOs is something that was for mine and a number of my colleagues’ money never going to happen and we saw this in 2003, when it was talked about at the COs Conference that year. Sadly 11 years on we were proved right and will contnue to be for the immediate future. It does smack of what seems to be symptomatic in business. The LASER Review and it’s outpourings were of its time and therefore any new SLT wouldn’t see it as a priority. We see this at work all the time. A new head man/woman comes along with their own ideas and effectively ignores and sidelines whatever their predecessor did, because it does nothing to cement their advancement.
^ bump!
Updates for consideration 12mths+ down the line from this interesting debate…
The recent Officer recruitment campaign - why (oh why!) are we only campaigning to recruit Officers? …is the take-up of candidates for OASC now so low as to warrant a specific campaign? Is OASC becoming a barrier to recruitment, or having the effect of attracting and selecting fewer - but higher quality - candidates?
Now that the ATC/VR(T) debate for WO/SNCOs has been kicked into touch by the decision not to pursue the “re-mustering” - where does that leave the WO/SNCO cadre? TORs have now been issued for RWOs, WWOs, Sqn SNCOs, etc. does this provide some clarity or further muddy the waters where there is a mixing of functional and executive roles?
The CI’s Convention is to be held soon - how might this affect the roles, responsibilities, and training requirements for this cadre?
Cheers
BTI
[color=#ff0000]Warning [/color]- ramblings ahead!
Why do we need Officers? I think the rapid escalation of the SNCO>VRT debate was triggered by the realisation that we have an ever increasing number of Squadron being run (very effectively in many cases!) by SNCOs - and wasn’t there an issue that the MOD has little in the way of “Command & Control” over such beings? The Ivory Towers want more officers as that means more OC VRTs and fewer OC SNCOs. Perhaps I’m over simplifying things there…
I think OASC has become a bit of a blocker for people. Before a Wing & Region Board, held discretely, enabled people to go along, discretely, have an interview and see how they fared. OASC is blowing things up quite publicly - 2/3 days away at Cranwell being interrogated, measured and fitness tested… these are two very different things. And whilst the system is fairer and standardised in many ways - it’s also, because of its nature, putting some people off.
Additionally around OASC, I had a message recently from a user on here who’d failed OASC as a “proper” OASC some years ago, and didn’t feel he could face it again (even with the “lower” expectations of VR(T)s. Admittedly, I’ve only heard personally of this one person who’s said this. But it does make me wonder if there are ex-cadets or ex-OASC attendees out there who would’ve previously applied under the old system…
However, I think the overriding and major blocker is the expectation and responsibility of running a Squadron with very little support and an ever increasing workload, is probably what’s putting people off. How many very junior officers have we seen given command then burn out? I’ve seen a fair number of high quality candidates been put off by shoddy Wing staff - and now they won’t consider it. With “friends” like these, who needs enemies!
A colleague recently summed it up for me perfectly. He hung the “Officer recruitment” poster up in the office, turned around and looked at the host of CIs sat in front of computers doing admin, updating Bader, writing SMS applications, fathoming Ultilearn and announced “don’t you chaps realise you could be doing all this administration in a sweaty pair of woollen trousers”.
Yeap - them waters are getting muddier by the minute! I can now see “certain types” of SNCOs working to rule and using the HQAC authorised TOR over any functional or executive role on Squadrons. For new SNCOs or SNCOs on larger Squadrons where these might be their only role, brilliant. For those who are multihatted… then… well, lets hope those aren’t the type of SNCOs who’d wear a multihat anyway…
I, personally, was looking forward to playing happy families with everybody in the same cadre for once. I’d like to think that the “them and us” attitude is fading away - but every now and then I do hear of Squadrons (and Wings!) where it’s still very prevalent… part of this can only really stem from the attitude of the person/persons involved - BUT, also from Leadership within the Squadron/Wing itself. And these sorts of attitudes are regrettably more infectious than Norovirus - and equally unpleasant.
I can’t wait to find out these answers… but I’ll guess I’ll have to. No CIs from our Wing are on the delegate list… hopefully the presentations - with a bit of context - are circulated via SharePoint. Maybe it could be webcast/podcast/whatever to enable people who can’t be there to at least see the major points. I’d also like to see whether recruitment and retention of CIs is discussed - or whether the theme is “how to convert more of you into uniform” is a major topic. Several CIs I’ve spoken to recently are very much fed up with the latter conversation taking part - they like what they do, they way they do it and the cadets they do it for. They do NOT want to do any of the above wearing woollen trousers.
BF any reason no one from your Wing is going to the conference? There was one space per wing (2 for wings in C&E Region as it’s on their turf) so a total of 40 CI’s should be attending. Was it a lack of take up or wasn’t it advertised?
It seems that nobody from my wing is attending either. It was certainly advertised around the wing but I guess no CIs from here were either available or interested.
i await BF’s reply to the direct question to him, but we’re in the same Wing and i saw nothing through the usual channels come out about the conference, either announced by Wing (Sharepoint) or pushed to Sqns via email
that doesn’t mean CIs were not contacted directly and asked, but how many WSOs know how to contact any CFAV that isnt through Sqn@aircadets.org, let alone CIs?
however i have heard no mention on the Wing gossip grape vine or even in Squadron whispers about it, in truth i only know about the conference after snooping around Sharepoint and seeing discussion here…
with the obvious “how can we get you into uniform” question can you blame them?
also, is this a bit ironic?
a CI is “traditionally” Squadron based, they come in with a specific set of skills, do their bit and that is all they want.
the “modern” CI is different in those set of skills are no longer the local carpenter/mechanic/radio bod but Sharepoint/Ultifail pilots, or they hold AT quals useful to offer experiences to the Cadets…but they still come in, do their bit and is all they want (ie none of the politics of stress of uniform positions…)
yet here we are with a request for not just off the Squadron or out the Wing but a national meeting…
i can only think of one CI on our unit who would be interested, and as a former WWO that would come as no surprised, but now retired perhaps is not the “key demographic” this meeting is hoping to include particularly when looking forward/to the future…?
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=18913][quote=“bti” post=18907]
True of course, but my argument is structured so as to give progression - alternatively you could limit Sqn Cdrs to Flt Lt, since you might have a Plt Off/Fg Off as your Trg Off or Adj …but in my model that would be for larger Sqns only, since only larger Sqns would have an Officer as the Sqn Cdr. In turn, this is only because we now allow SNCOs & WOs to become Sqn Cdrs - my logic being - if we are accepting that you don’t need to be an Officer to become a Sqn Cdr, what do we need Officers for/what should be their role? My answer is - as the OC of larger Sqns, and as WSOs …plus start to recruit and train much lower numbers of Officers (and start to being to turn that 65% / 35% Officer / OR split around), which of course also means you can be correspondingly more selective and drive up standards.
[/quote]
I’m sorry but I think I’ve missed something with your model/argument. As I understand you your model is that sqns of a certain size would be commanded by a WO with large sqns being commanded by a Flt Lt.
Surely before taking command of a large sqn as a Flt Lt, you’ll need to give that individual experience of commanding a smaller unit or are you envisaging an officer going straight from being Training Officer or Adj? Also what about the WO who works hard running a sqn and does it sucessfully - where is they’re progression or are you going to say “Yes WO Bloggs we know you’ve be running that unit for ages and done a good job but we have to give the role to the officer who has never commanded before you’re not commissioned” ?
.[/quote]
Happened to me on more than one occasion!!
I pushed it out to our Squadron staff as I had seen the advert for it on SharePoint (but, as Steve says, nothing from WgHQ!). There wasn’t a great deal of interest.
I’ve just seen an updated list - there is a CI from our Wing on the list now (yay!). I note that they are a close relation of a Sector Commander.
Sounds like a nice benign bloke or woman to send, bit like the one from our Wing, nice enough bloke but more likely to fall asleep than anything else.