Has anyone here got an equally Funky Sqn set up…or better?
OC - White tab Sgt(ATC)
Adj - FS(ATC)
Trng Off - Flt Lt
HOWEVER …its working really well !!! B)
There are very good reasons why it like this .
Can you better it?
And no, we dont want to hear your reasons why it shouldn’t be like this. It is …get over it!
Nothing funky here. Just the standard set up:
OC - Flt Lt
"Everything else officer" - me.
…a person of many talents…
We used to have a Sgt as OIC, a P/O as Adj and me (a Sgt but with nearly 18 months seniority at the time) doing various tasking.
[quote=“ddr61” post=14247]Has anyone here got an equally Funky Sqn set up…or better?
OC - White tab Sgt(ATC)
Adj - FS(ATC)
Trng Off - Flt Lt
HOWEVER …its working really well !!! B)
There are very good reasons why it like this .
Can you better it?
And no, we dont want to hear your reasons why it shouldn’t be like this. It is …get over it![/quote]
Brain does not compute…
i have to agree with that…if a white tab Sgt then less than 12 months in appointment. as such there is potential that it was known the OC position would need to be filled…so why not sit a VRT board and be a white tabbed Officer?
I still, naïvely perhaps, live in the hope that creatures greater than me pay active attention to the wide range of discussions on this site. My hope is that they take heed of the genuine concerns voiced by those at the front-line of the delivery of the cadet experience and change things for the better.
The situation that ddr61 describes is one that really grips me and I would wager, several others on this site, but as requested, I will not comment on it. However, the subsequent instruction for the erstwhile collective of this fine forum to ‘get over it’, would, if adhered to, do little for our credibility as it suggests that regardless of the background to the situation described, we should blithely accept such arrangements as legitimate, appropriate and a proper way to organise the command of a MoD-sponsored youth organisation.
Thanks for exposing yet another classic example of a command pig’s ear ddr61, but I really think it is the sort of thing that we should not get over!
Ah, but we should and we need to get over it as these situations can arise for quite legitimate reasons and if they work then that is good.
I don’t suggest that they should be the “norm” or that they should last for any longer than is necessary but if they allow a squadron to operate and cadets to get the ATC experience then Getting Over It is what needs to be done.
Not unlike having officers teaching drill I suppose 
Agreed, if it’s the most efficient set up then I don’t see why the fact that it’s unconventional should mean it’s unacceptable.
What this post could now evolve into is a discussion on how ‘military’ the organisation is or should be and I would suggest that a separate topic would be the best place for that if indeed we wish to discuss such a thing.
‘Getting over’ something is in my book accepting it, perhaps not as the norm, but certainly accepting it as a correct and proper way to do things. Is that really what we are suggesting we have here?
Whether some of us like it or not, we are part of a military organisation and to use the OP’s expression we should not simply ‘get over’ it.
Assuming this is a temporary measure I think getting over it is what people need to do, this kind of arrangement shouldn’t be a long standing one, but if for a short period of time it’s sensible to have people where they’re best placed until a solution can be found.
Sorry JBWD97, but I can’t agree with you, not in the organisation we are part of, even if it is for a temporary period.
the blasé answer to that is in which case you’ll be jumping in your car twice a week and driving to wherever the hell this weirdy Sqn is to put the situation right?
if the only person willing/able to do the OC job is the brand new Sgt then thats what we’re stuck with. one of the down sides of ‘voluteers’ is that they don’t have to, err… volunteer. hopefully its short term, not least because the brand new Sgt hsn’t been trained to do the OC job. one would hope he/she is getting lots of sector/WSO support, as well as the wing working hard on finding a more permanent solution - though i wouldn’t bet on it…
If it works for you, that’s great.
Remember, you are continuing a fine RAF tradition where the captain (pilot) of say, a World War II Lancaster, could be a Sergeant and some of the other crew (navigator, flight engineer, bomb aimer, radio operator, mid-upper gunner and tail gunner) could be officers!
[quote=“ddr61” post=14247]Has anyone here got an equally Funky Sqn set up…or better?
OC - White tab Sgt(ATC)
Adj - FS(ATC)
Trng Off - Flt Lt
HOWEVER …its working really well !!! B)
There are very good reasons why it like this .
[/quote]
Hmm, despite what others I have said I can see this working very well if done in a certain way. The training officer tends to be the power house front line of the Sqn, leading the cadets from the front. Given broad objectives they can act pretty much automonously. The Adj gives the logistical background support, communicating things out checking things are done and up to date, recruiting cadet & liaising with parents.
The OC then effectively smiles and nods really - I can imagine the command meeting now ;-
[quote]
Trng Off (Flt Lt) - Right I need to get BTEC sorted, the first class training finished for this intake and I want everyone to shoot the Sqn markman test
Adj -(FS) - Sounds good - How about do BTEC on Thursdays and I’ll book four training weekend followed by a Range day. We’ll borrow the no 8 from 123 & 789 Sqns, I’ll gen up the ammo from wing and get the targets. If we can’t get the ammo we’ll just use an ACF20 and I’ll transport it there- How does this sound to you boss?
Trng Off (Flt Lt) - Yeah boss - any objections?
OC - ermmm …No?..? [/quote]
In this situation the OC is OC in name only and is there to rubber stamp stuff
Forgive my facetiousness above and in all seriousness by the sound of things you’ve got a sqn running really well by inverting the rank structure.
However part of this forum is about sharing best practices so we can all do things really well. Please humour my questions but in order to make the above work you would need to have got round a few things and I would be interested in how you have done so (if you can do it then why can’t I cut some of the bureaucracy on my sqn and make things a little easier for all).
I’m all for thinking out of the box, but I can’t quite get my head around how this is working, knowing how tied down in some areas we are with our rules and regs. I wouldn’t say it would be unexpected - Sqn with poor staffing and some uniform staff happy where they are in their roles. I would also be interested to know how many cadet you have. I have seen another cadet unit (not air cadets) where the adult staff have a very flat rank structure or more accurately everybody is the same rank. It certainly makes for interesting evenings but the member of staff who pulls it together behind the scenes is very very stressed and overworked.
As others have said if it works for you then thats great. However a ship doesn’t need its captain when its fair weather and everyones knows where they are going - it needs the captain when the ship is in the middle of the storm, the mast is breaking, everyone is panicing as it takes on water and they turn round and look at each other going “what do we do now?”
I feel the OP is using the “get over it” comment as pure ‘playground’ because the nominated person in charge is a Sgt who happens to have not yet completed the process, when there is an officer on the sqn. Sorry old chap I have seen similar set ups, where an officer on the sqn is not the OC, many times over the years and they too worked. But have always been the exception rather than the rule.
I always thought that a Sqn Cdr post had to be approved by Region and unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances that prevent the Flt Lt and FS taking the sqn, someone on that Wing will be having some questions posed.
There is more to this than we have been allowed to know, because the detail would probably remove all of the lustre of the base information.
The Present OC has a eye on a commission but as things stand its better for her to be an NCO
I dont want to be OC
The Flt Lt has to many commmitments outside of the ACO to continu
[quote=“ddr61” post=14343]1) Who signs pay & milage claims?
The Flt Lt or Wing
2) How have you got around some of the areas that require a VR(T) officer (namely security & firearms related stuff - some of it legal requirements)
No Guns yet…rest TBC
3) Is staff development carried out by the CO or the Training Officer?
Tng Off at present
4) Trng Off is told to do something by the CO that is unsafe - on who’s head does the axe fall?
Should fall as it wont be done
5) How long has this been going on and have there been any big blow outs?
a few months and none…we’re all grown ups
6) Who’s in charge of discipline, the CO or the Adj?
Adj (Me :evil: )
7) Who stands where on parades?
Depends who is there - the ‘Normal’ layout when we’re all there
8.) Does the OC salute the training officer?
Yes of course!
9)How do the cadets & NCOs cope? Do they get confused?
They did but they adapted…it makes them think !
10)What happens when its toys out of the pram time? Who picks them up and put things back in the box?
…Probably me but it hasn’t happened yet
The Present OC has a eye on a commission but as things stand its better for her to be an NCO
I dont want to be OC
The Flt Lt has to many commmitments outside of the ACO to continu[/quote]
My Bold. If they want a commission and want to be an OC, why are they a Pre-SSIC SNCO???
No, of course I wouldn’t because I would expect the Wg in question to arrange a suitable person to ‘Command’ on a temporary basis until a permanent solution is found. But if it were in my Wg and I was tasked by the Wg Cdr or WSO to do it, them of course I would, because that’s part and parcel of what officers should do.
Chief Tech has raised some excellent points regarding the issues that could arise should things start to go awry. I also completely understand and have indeed also seen myself, that SNCOs can RUN a Sqn perfectly well, it’s the COMMAND bit with the associated authority over the whole unit that they shouldn’t be doing and because of that, I made my original comment that we shouldn’t simply ‘get over it’.
As further discussion points, we see many times on here questions asking what people should say at SNCO and Commissioning Boards when asked why they want to pursue a particular path. The general consensus of opinion is that people want to do the officer bit for the responsibility and higher-level management aspects, whilst the SNCO side is more the practical application and delivery of things. So, why is this Wg expecting a SNCO, however good they may be, to take responsibility for the Sqn? Equally, why has the Wg not directed the Flt Lt to assume temporary command (and therefore actually take the responsibility that as an officer, at some time, you would hope they had sought) whilst the SNCO runs the show? If the Flt Lt does not want to do it, or isn’t trusted to do so, why hasn’t someone else, even the local WSO, been temporarily appointed to command? In my Wg, like many others I have no doubt, we have a couple of Sqns being run very competently by WOs, albeit without officers on the staff, but the WSO has been appointed in temporary Command. Essentially, and this may well wind up some, our WOs and SNCOs are effectively CIs in uniform (cue the VR(T) WO/SNCO debate) with no military status or, as far as I know, protection in military law. Therefore, I would imagine that the MoD, who are our ultimate masters, would expect the final responsibility for the enactment of MoD/RAF policies to rest with an appropriate military appointment.
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=14323]
Trng Off (Flt Lt) - Right I need to get BTEC sorted, the first class training finished for this intake and I want everyone to shoot the Sqn markman test
Adj -(FS) - Sounds good - How about do BTEC on Thursdays and I’ll book four training weekend followed by a Range day. We’ll borrow the no 8 from 123 & 789 Sqns, I’ll gen up the ammo from wing and get the targets. If we can’t get the ammo we’ll just use an ACF20 and I’ll transport it there- How does this sound to you boss?
Trng Off (Flt Lt) - Yeah boss - any objections?
OC - ermmm …No?..? [/quote]
Meh! We’ve operated like that on a classically-structured squadron. It actually shows an example of a functional team where people take charge/interest on their own areas of responsibility and the OC is merely the helmsman.
In our case the OCs held jobs which meant that they were not able to attend as often as would have been ideal so the ship sailed on without them. Later we got an OC who was far more available but relatively clueless so much of the actual progress still originated elsewhere.
The real issue is that of where the buck stops - that is weighted towards supporting the classic model and that can be restrictive.