I’ve just seen something on Facebook mentioning the appointment of one of 12 Corps WOs, I have heard of them before but was wondering if anyone could provide a list of Corps WO titles (not names) and explain what their roles are?
[ol]
[li]Commandant Air Cadets WO[/li]
[li]Corps Drill & Ceremonial WO[/li]
[li]Corps Bandmaster[/li]
[li]Corps Band WO[/li]
[li]Corps Training WO[/li]
[li]?[/li]
[li]Regional WO, S&NI[/li]
[li]Regional WO, North[/li]
[li]Regional WO, W&W[/li]
[li]Regional WO, SW[/li]
[li]Regional WO, L&SE[/li]
[li]Regional WO, C&E[/li]
[/ol]
3 WO’s to deal with band matters?
6 WO’s to deal with whinges from Lt. Col (Ret’d) Horace Tufton-Bufton VC, 14th Bengal Lancers (V) about cadets having their sleeves rolled op or sans tie in 30c?
fortunately every cadet in the ACO has a full of DPM/MTP, there’s loads of rucksacks, belt kit and AT kit in circulation, sqn’s have no problems accessing minibuses when they want them, and we’ve got shooting and flying sorted out to to the joy of all so now HQAC has time and effort to devote to this urgently needed change to the structure.
employ an administrator…
Just the two - I moved an item in the list to group the bandmaster and the band discip guy but forgot to delete the old one. Corrected it now.
The bandmaster is primarily concerned with the musical elements of a band. Bandmaster is just a WO position that bands have as far as I can tell.
The Band WO is more concerned with complaining about shoddy uniform arriving on national camps, as well as the general discip matters involved with running band camps.
We can’t answer to that, but there are still plenty of squadrons who seem to be unable to ensure that their cadets and staff are correctly dressed and not an embarrassment to the RAF, the ACO and themselves, while plenty of people still hang onto the drill they were taught 20 or 30 years ago (or in another service) rather than the current , correct RAF drill.
HQAC aren’t devoting any time or effort to this and it doesn’t take anything away from the other activities: SMEs and specialists from the WO cadre are being assigned specific responsibilities at a Corps level. If anything, empowering key WOs could take work away from those at HQAC and give it to people who may understand it and do it better. On top of that, it offers additional progression opportunities for SNCO/WO CFAV.
I’m not sure that we should need a Corps Training WO - nice and efficient though he is, it shouldn’t fall on us.
The problem is the important things are difficult to do and therefore are put into the pending/never to see the light of day tray, in the hope they will go away. So some unimportant administrative task gets straight to the top of the pile, gets done and they think they’ve had a good day at the office.
Uniform is easy to sort - ensure when we put a demand in we get everything we need in the right sizes. Oh yes and no moritoriums or nil supply of items. Our last 3 intakes have all had deficencies and not been fully filled, so I’ve got cadets in all sorts.
Drill - in the big world (our main audience) no one really knows or cares and as long as the cadets and staff look smart doing it in Joe Public’s eyes that all that matters. The fact we might get picky is just down to being anal.
I completely agree, though not about the bit where you claim it is easily sorted 
It very much relies on us getting rid of the RAF in the chain of supply (where we are the bottom of the pecking order) and sorting out our own, modern, efficient, trackable supply chain. I believe there are obstacles to that solution too though.
Of course, this all requires squadrons to put in the demands in the first place rather than tolerating (or re-issuing) damaged, faces or wrongly-sized garments. It also requires the right badges being available to the right people, as well as having them sewn on correctly.
They won’t look smart when they all turn up at a wing, regional or corps event doing different movements to different timings. They’ll look useless. That is why we have standardisation in drill.
Sure, most of the time nobody would notice but they will when it is important. A simple practice before a big event simply won’t cut it: we need to be doing it right from the offset.
are we not told, ad nauseum, about how fantastic ATF is at training SNCO’s and specialist DI’s?
if they are so fantastic at teaching basic foot drill, why do we have SNCO’s who - when they are doing even the most basic foot drill - look like they’ve had a stroke, and why does HQAC need to employ people to go around re-training people who, err… HQAC trained?
does it also not rather question the point of having WWO’s? if WWO’s can’t be trusted to teach the right thing and to keep an eye out for innovation or just slackness, then whats the point of having them? moreover, in practical terms, given that the RWO’s will have a patch of 5 or 6 wings, and each wing can have 25/30 units each, and the geographical spread of units means that - for example - the RWO of North region has to cover an area from Sheffield to Berwick-upon-Tweed and out to Workington, or the RWO for SW region is somehow supposed to manage drill standards from Maidenhead to Truro, that actually this will have no effect whatsoever because no one with a job, or a family, could possibly spend enough time getting out and about to get a grip of the myriad trainsets overated by rouge/idle drill pigs?
ATF doesn’t aim to train people in drill on SSIC/OIC: they are expected to reach an acceptable standard before they attend (and need to be checked and signed off by the WWO to attest to this). they will check standards while there but they bemoan the fact that people turn up who are a bit crap and who need to be trained.
Similarly, SSDIC expects excellence at drill before attending: the course teaches the drill MOI
those DIs should then help to bring up the skills at the grass-roots level and complete the circle.
I take the point about ensuring the trainers (the DIs) are teaching the correct thing - I have seen countless instances where they are not.
There are plans to introduce a regular standards check for the DI qualification, with DIs losing the qualification if they fail. That will be a great aim to consistency and currency in drill.
Other than that, I don’t see how removing a tier of drill instructors could be seen as an improvement in standardisation.
I’m not sure what you think RWOs do or why you think they need to visit units across the wing on anything like a regular basis. Does the Regional Commandant personally inspect every squadron on their patch?
The RWO is a hub and a central point to aid standardisation. They have a team of WWOs to manage wings. WWOs will have a team of DIs and may have sector WOs depending on how complex their area is. Divide and conquer. Bringing in a standards check will help ensure that things are done correctly.
TORs are available on sharepoint for CACWO, RWO, WWO by the way.
[quote=“incubus” post=24221]I completely agree, though not about the bit where you claim it is easily sorted
It very much relies on us getting rid of the RAF in the chain of supply (where we are the bottom of the pecking order) and sorting out our own, modern, efficient, trackable supply chain. I believe there are obstacles to that solution too though.
Of course, this all requires squadrons to put in the demands in the first place rather than tolerating (or re-issuing) damaged, faces or wrongly-sized garments. It also requires the right badges being available to the right people, as well as having them sewn on correctly.[/quote]
The obstacle I imagine would be jobsworths in the RAF/MoD supply chain. The technology is easy, given that online retailers rely on it.
The problem comes when you demand things you don’t get them or they fail to renew contracts and then say you (the ATC) can’t have things, then you have to use PWS or turn to the surplus shops. There can be no complaints from the heirarchy.
Found this on Bader… Now I’m assuming that ‘VRT’ in this instance isn’t Volunteer Reserve (Training)? But I’m happy to be proven wrong on this…?
[attachment=226]WOVRT.jpg[/attachment]
Found what?
Edited to add image
I can’t imagine it stands for anything else - I suspect it is a gaffe by Bader when creating the AD account.
Rather than CFAV the HQAC IT Team for some reason put VRT after volunteer posts at HQAC level to differentiate from the permanent posts at that level.
The Corps Training WO is a WO (ATC).
a similiar thing happened for the RIAT emails.
Contingent WO had RIAT_WO_VRT@RIATAircadets.org or similiar…
The WO, Adjutant and instructors of the CTT have “VRT” after their emails in exactly the same way. They’re all ATC SNCOs rather than VRT, obviously.