The what? :?
When you look at the concept of role creep and the number of sqns run by SNCOs, I just wonder what sort of SNCO are they. How many of them are people with more general skills and abilities and how many are drill pigs?
I have seen, what I consider an alarming development within the SNCO cadre (locally at least), which is if youâre not primarily interested in drill, with secondary to that FMS and or shooting, then it seems you are all but forgotten as an SNCO. There are a number of bloody good SNCOs in our Wing, (3 old money WOs) who because they arenât primarily interested in drill who are moaned about by our drill monkeys. Itâs amazing what you pick up on when youâre âthe other side of the doorâ.
Should the ATC ditch the SNCO model as a general concept and keep it as a reserve for those with a primary interest in drill et al and secondary FMS / shooting and push everyone else down the Commission route. That then begs the question would it generate more Officers or CIs? What then of the long term prognosis for the SNCO cadre?
Would this become the preserve of ex-cadets who would potentially have more of an interest in drill but would they get bored with a potentially limited role over 40+ years?
Do the pictures used of SNCOs, generally tached and or old blokes with a pace stick, in our advertising actually encourage people? Not particularly inviting to anyone under 45, I wouldnât have thought.
[quote=âglass half empty 2â post=26136]When you look at the concept of role creep and the number of sqns run by SNCOs, I just wonder what sort of SNCO are they. How many of them are people with more general skills and abilities and how many are drill pigs?
I have seen, what I consider an alarming development within the SNCO cadre (locally at least), which is if youâre not primarily interested in drill, with secondary to that FMS and or shooting, then it seems you are all but forgotten as an SNCO. There are a number of bloody good SNCOs in our Wing, (3 old money WOs) who because they arenât primarily interested in drill who are moaned about by our drill monkeys. Itâs amazing what you pick up on when youâre âthe other side of the doorâ.
Should the ATC ditch the SNCO model as a general concept and keep it as a reserve for those with a primary interest in drill et al and secondary FMS / shooting and push everyone else down the Commission route. That then begs the question would it generate more Officers or CIs? What then of the long term prognosis for the SNCO cadre?
Would this become the preserve of ex-cadets who would potentially have more of an interest in drill but would they get bored with a potentially limited role over 40+ years?
Do the pictures used of SNCOs, generally tached and or old blokes with a pace stick, in our advertising actually encourage people? Not particularly inviting to anyone under 45, I wouldnât have thought.[/quote]
This is a first, but I agree with a large amount of that!
There seems to be an attitude of if you arenât Windsor Davies in it ainât half hot mum you shouldnât be a WO. We have a FS near me who is heavily qualified in AT and is a subject matter specialist in that area, but there are grumblings about him not getting WO as heâs not a DI. Pretty sure the RAF donât make SNCOâs in the technical trades do a DI course to become WOâs!
I have 2 CIs in my sqn, the wing co asked one to attend on behalf of the wing, but had to decline as she couldnât get time off.
The other was desperate to go as he wanted to tell them how bad a job they were doing. He didnât like it when I said I wouldnât send him, as he was All talk, no substance and definitely no use except driving a minibus
Our wingco hand picked them, not for being yes men/women but so that they could discuss as grown ups and get a point over with out a fight. The female CI has had a few run ins with senior staff but always in a dignified manner which is what our wingco said he wanted.
[quote=âglass half empty 2â post=26136]When you look at the concept of role creep and the number of sqns run by SNCOs, I just wonder what sort of SNCO are they. How many of them are people with more general skills and abilities and how many are drill pigs?
I have seen, what I consider an alarming development within the SNCO cadre (locally at least), which is if youâre not primarily interested in drill, with secondary to that FMS and or shooting, then it seems you are all but forgotten as an SNCO. There are a number of bloody good SNCOs in our Wing, (3 old money WOs) who because they arenât primarily interested in drill who are moaned about by our drill monkeys. Itâs amazing what you pick up on when youâre âthe other side of the doorâ.
Should the ATC ditch the SNCO model as a general concept and keep it as a reserve for those with a primary interest in drill et al and secondary FMS / shooting and push everyone else down the Commission route. That then begs the question would it generate more Officers or CIs? What then of the long term prognosis for the SNCO cadre?
Would this become the preserve of ex-cadets who would potentially have more of an interest in drill but would they get bored with a potentially limited role over 40+ years?
Do the pictures used of SNCOs, generally tached and or old blokes with a pace stick, in our advertising actually encourage people? Not particularly inviting to anyone under 45, I wouldnât have thought.[/quote]
mmm⌠I have run Sqnâs, started a DF, taken to a Sqn - run it as a Sqn. I have a range of qualâs - but NO tach⌠Im happy teaching all but principals of flight⌠(personal dislike)⌠I have my my pace stick and only use it to mark out parades or teach drill and no other reason.
There is a big role for SNCOâs, not everyone wants to be an officer⌠not everyone wants to be a SNCO.
Maybe we need some going there spoiling for a fight, given that CIs are generally treated like crap outside of squadrons.
The biggest concern wrt to the CI Conference is that HQAC will be on send and only recieve when it suits them, then picking and choosing what bits and how to report back do they look good. This will frustrate those looking for a reasoned debate and expecting a postive outcome for CIs generally, regardless of whether they want to don a blue suit or not, especially the latter goup. Unless HQAC come across with positive policies for CIs fully recognising them for what they are and bring as individuals off the back of this event, I can see this being a waste of time.
Iâm not entirely convinced given some of the comments Wg Cdrs have made after convention, that those at Cranwell take kindly to criticism and or being questioned robustly by Wg Cdrs and even less likely if itâs CIs. One of our old Wg Cdrs said he went to his first one expecting good things and after that did his best not to attend as he said it was HQAC telling everyone how good they are and not being in the slightest bit interested in anything to the contrary. He said the only positives were getting paid and the chance to meet other Wg Cdrs.
This has been an interesting thread
I am with a unit where the CO is a the most junior inexperienced member of staff , a Sgt. BUT the Sgt volunteered
Myself , FS, and the VRT have too much in the way of work commitments to do the role.
The issue is the lack of experience with the Sgt, and lack of protocols from above
We, the two oldies, try to guide the Sgt but the problem is the Sgt is single minded . We have approached WSO, and OC wing for guidance and protocols, but nothing is forthcoming.
So, the VRT or the FS disagrees with a SgtâŚor the Sgt makes rash or poor decisions and all we get is âIâm the CO, I have the authorityâ
Its not a good environmentâŚ
there are other issues but no really suitable to be aired in a forumâŚ
That will get my vote! 
Canât attend but wanted to go (yes, it was advertised in plenty of time for our area, with a repeat request), unfortunately not available - i appreciate that it has to be a weekend somewhere in the calendar, but this is the end of holidays/back to school weekend, so maybe not the best timing?
Points to raiseâŚ
Ineffective communication + over-reliance on Sharepoint
Shooting issues
Flying/gliding issues
Please add to the listâŚ
1 Like
I find this one interesting.
everyone has access and everything is available. unlike some areas of SMS where OC/Adj have rights, all CFAVs have access to Sharepoint. it lives up to its âsharingâ name.
(ok i admit that in âtheoryâ everyone has accessâŚbut Sqn 123 will always operate differently to 456 SqnâŚOCs should follow guidelines not empire build)
What i will say is the layout/structure of Sharepoint is a pain.
there are time where there is no logic in the path to find docs, in some cases there are too many files and not enough folders making it difficult to break down to what I am looking for, menu titles either make no sense or have no place no so long ago there was a 2FTS/3FTS sub menu under the âcontrol docsâ but had nothing in themâŚthey have now gone (someone realized the error) but that was not the only case.
Menus and page layout are inconsistent. sometimes it s menu, menu page, others, page, menu, folder, folderâŚ
why not set out Sharepoint by activity?
Flying
Camps
Shooting
DofEâŚetc
if looking for a AP/ACTO then i can navigate to the activity then the doc not the other way round.
Comms for instance. i want to know more about the syllabus. i have to know there are two ACPs (not ACTOs/APs/JSPsâŚother!) 44 and 45 relevant.
why not set up the menus under activity, i then click âcommsâ and a folder selection guides me to syllabus and sure enough i am lead to the two relevant docs rather than have a page of all the ACP and have to filter though themâŚ??
(this is just one example, think about the various files on shooting (and others) which are in mixed menus, titles and locationsâŚ)
From a CI perspective I would have thought âŚ
Why am I constantly badgered to go into uniform and if I flatly refuse I become a non-entity? Iâve had to have a go at Senior WSOs about this ever since I took my first command.
Why canât I have a proper ID card, when there are probably as many civilians on military establishments as uniforms and they will have one?
Why canât I claim pay if I am qualified and running the activity while the uniformed staff who may just be helping can?
Why canât I claim pay if I am helping out like uniformed staff do?
Why arenât my skills, knowledge etc fully recognised as a CI? This is in reference to skills and knowledge from day jobs/life.
Why when I am off the squadron am I only deemed suitable for âbaby-sittingâ and driving duties?
1 Like
Anything that ended up in a communication folder would either arrive late, not be accessable or be completly scrambledâŚ
Otherwise these are great suggestions.
When considering the consternation about ârole creepâ it poses a question why?
What are people worried about?
We need people who are primarily willing to do what is needed and not get precious about uniform / rank. If people with the traditional uniform and rank combinations donât exist somewhere or they arenât willing to do it, then give it to someone who is. If keeping the traditional associations is so important then people know what is required of them.
It is odd when you look at most modern workplaces roles and responsibilities have altered dramatically over my working life. People now do things that 30 odd years ago they would have never been allowed to, because it wasnât in the JD and it seems quite bizarre that within the ACO we perpetuate this sort of thinking. You will probably find peopleâs real life experience is why we are where we are and in many instances itâs only out dated thinking that prevents people from doing things.
DAMN good question. EVERY CI is asked this constantly talking to them all (including myself when I was a CI even though i was actually going through the process into uniform!) why not leave it to the unit OC to ask/determine on an annual basis??
I have never understood why CIs as âMOD Civiliansâ donât get an ID cardâŚ
[quote]Why canât I claim pay if I am qualified and running the activity while the uniformed staff who may just be helping can?
Why canât I claim pay if I am helping out like uniformed staff do? [/quote]
this is true for ALL uniformed staff as well. take the example of a AT weekend away with some mountain walking and rock climbing; a fully qualified SPA/ML(S) Sgt (for example) gets less money than a freeloading Flt Lt there for a rideâŚ
the Sgt is the event IC, is the one with the qualifications, is responsible to make the decisions on the day after creating the event prior (and gaining approval) the Flt Lt comes with FAAW at bestâŚ
the âpayâ discussion will always be imbalanced as it is based on rank structure rather than skills.
The organisation doesnât reflect the same structure of the RAF/MOD with regard to rank and skills match (ie there are VRTs doing the âroleâ of an SNCO and vice versa meaning role and responsibility doesnât always match the rank held and as such pay is disproportionate to the task completed)
[quote]Why arenât my skills, knowledge etc fully recognised as a CI? This is in reference to skills and knowledge from day jobs/life.
Why when I am off the squadron am I only deemed suitable for âbaby-sittingâ and driving duties?[/quote]
this is a two way problem. Do others know about your skills? some see a CI and only see âbaby-sittingâ/driving dutiesâŚand CIs donât question it. do you ever mention it when on events?
typically events are run by known persons, a small team of maybe up to half a dozen who have been involved in the event time after time.
CIs come and go a lot more than uniformed CFAVs to events and exercises, other than those die hard CIs, who stick it out through retirement. (i am thinking athletics where the same CI faces turn up to support the Cadets competing) and so are much more "unknown"
i can take a fair stab at at least one SNCO and one VRT at each Squadron in the Wing, but ask me to name a CIâŚI can do the local 4/5 units and only having seen that CI on one occasion.
I am sure the majority of CFAvs are the sameâŚthey can name more unitâs uniformed staff than their CIs despite CIs being the equal or larger cadre within a Staff teamâŚCIs by definition have a âcasual commitmentâ and this is reflected in their attendance at Wing events and with it familiarity around the Wing as a âknownâ personâŚ
Why not just leave them be and donât bother asking? I am pretty sure that CIs are fully aware that uniformed service may be an option and if they fancy making that transition they can ask the question of their OC. They donât need to be badgered about the matter.
1 Like
i think there might be a bit of chicken-and-egg about this one. as a CI i avoided big wing events because i knew that some WSO who didnât know me from Adam would ask me - again - whether i wanted to go into uniform, and that iâd only be used for babysitting and minibus driving. for the smaller wing stuff - shooting etc⌠iâd happily go because i wouldnât get badgered, and my skills and abilities would be used and appreciated.
that said, yes, i did see big wing events as an excellent opportunity to go climbing, or spend time with my kids, or have a BBQ - but then i took the same view when i was a cadet 20-odd years agoâŚ
Why not just leave them be and donât bother asking? I am pretty sure that CIs are fully aware that uniformed service may be an option and if they fancy making that transition they can ask the question of their OC. They donât need to be badgered about the matter.[/quote]
because every so often someone might need a push?
i would expect an OC to look at their team at least annually and consider the needs of the individual and unit as a whole.
what encouragement is required for Mr Bloggs to get more out of activity YâŚor how can we engage more with Miss Smith who wants to be doing moreâŚ
some CIs will never be uniformed and obviously an annual discussion may not be needed.
others might be after 2, 5 or even 10 yearsâŚi would like to hope somewhere in the OCs mind they are considering âpersonal developmentâ for their Staff team,
I know of two examples in recent times within the Wing when a CI said ânot just yetâ and then when questioned some time/year(s) later they said nothing was followed up - arguably a chicken and egg situation how often is too often to askâŚbut if people arenât asked at the appropriate time/within the right time-frame then theyâll perhaps think they arenât wanted or not suitable (I know one CI we has since left because of this)âŚsometimes the right words from an encouraging OC can be enough to lift someone to realize their potential
and that isnât just encouragement into uniform but qualifications, skills and experience also, for all Staff not just CIs.
i know what youâre saying, but in case youâve not been told, asking someone every year if theyâd like to go into uniform - and very obcviously hoping for a particular response - when theyâve not brought up the subject is an incredibly offensive way to speak to CIâs.
by all means have the âand what interests you, and what would you like to achieve or work towards in the next yearâ conversation to aid staff (and Squadron) development, but just asking every single year and getting the same response - and ignoring it - is writing out a CIâs resignation letter one word at a time.
personally iâd suggest that any potential VR(T) or SNCO who canât bring the subject up of their own violition probably isnât going to make that good a uniformed member of staffâŚ
1 Like
Hereâs a outside the box idea, why not go the the ACF model for all new staff and not recruit anymore CIâs? After all as everyone keeps saying the organisation has changed and the role of a CI as it was originally intended doesnât exist anymore so why not scrap it? If someone is a CI now they can stay as they are but all new joiners go PI and then get streamed into the appropriate uniformed role. 
If, purely for the sake of popcorn and debate, we were to consider ditching CIs altogether, surely a better option would be to keep them, but make them âbackroomâ admin roles⌠
Many would leave, which would be similar to binning them, but some would stay and weâd have someone to do all those admin tasks whilst we put the âservice imageâ out there. 
Personally though I donât think we should bin CIs. I think they have a very valid place.
Though, currently I do think that there is a large grey area. I see quite a few long-term CIs who are ticketed up and regularly attending events, providing Skill at Arms, climbing, other AT, obstacle courses, &câŚ
I certainly think it wise to ask the question âWhy isnât this person in uniform?â purely for internal reflection.
Have they even considered it? Do they see an added responsibility in that role which they donât want, or to which they believe they canât commit? Is it something that the organization is doing wrong which is putting them off?
Certainly there will be many who are CIs simply because thatâs what they want to be and thatâs absolutely fine.
But you do see some who would be eligible, efficient, and are perhaps already filling the same roles to the same, or a greater degree as their uniformed colleagues. Makes you wonder whyâŚ
Someone keeps whinging about CI and IDs. I really wouldnât blow that issue open wide if i were you. Especially when you realise that a significant amount of uniformed staff have only undergone a BPSS check (security check) which is essentially two forms of recognised ID, and two referees saying you are ok with kiddies, and yet you get an ID card which allows you into some interesting places. Then couple that with the fact that contractors have to have a valid CTC to work on a pothole on a base and suddenly you see a gap. A big one.
But hey, keep asking these questions when most areas of government are facing a 40% reduction in budget! Iâm sure you will be prioritised.