Are CCF TEST officers not RAFAC?
CCF Test officers are normally RAFR - retired regular officers or FTRS, likewise the SNCOs.
They did have some RAFAC/VRT officers help as flight commanders in ACLC.
1 Like
When the leadership PTS was released, we made a lot of noise about the content of ACLC. No one senior outside of the course had paid any attention for years.
I have no problem with 2 leadership courses. You donât need to like rolling in mud and sniffing expended blanks to be a leader and thereâs no downside (except financially) to catering to both.
The more pertinent question is, if regional Gold courses expand/spread, where does that leave ACLC?
Do we end up with three channels - a regional theory and task based with lower physical or interest barrier to entry, JL fieldcraft based, and an ACLC that takes another form - perhaps outward bound activity based.
JL isnât the threat to ACLC.
1 Like
Really⌠thats newsâŚ
Can anyone confirm?
Is anything RAFAC delivers actually externally acredited anymore?
Yes, there certainly were some VRT officers on my course, but my own flt cdr and at least one of the others wore no identifiers on their ranks (Iâd be inclined to say they were a bit young for RAFR, but people leave early for all sorts of reasons).
When I done it all of that was still included. As far as I know itâs the same now minus the timed run
1 Like
You clearly donât work in software. The whole game is improving while keeping everything running.
[/flippant]
Point more is itâs absolutely possible to keep things running at the same time.
But there is a tradeoff - itâs harder and needs more time or people to achieve.
MOD CS in uniform⌠Band Ds
Does that mean theyâll be losing their uniform and rank, like WExOs?
No because they command RAFR personnel.
1 Like
Thatâs a relief!
Edit: Although, Iâve never heard of D grades managing anyone before. In my experience, temporary C2 status comes with any kind of line management responsibility.
JL has been a retention-positive activity for those in their later cadet journey
This line here in the rationale behind the course. A way to keep cadets engaged once they reached 18.
However since over 18s are likely to be going Iâm not sure there is a place for JL in the new world order.
There is a lot of hubris about JL: itâs an 8 month course, itâs âhard-coreâ itâs the leadership skills we need. Itâs advanced fieldcraft.
This has harmed it because it then diminishes the good it actually does. One of the things that gave it support & status was the support from the RAF regiment - if that is no longer there then itâs going to be a devil of an owns job to restart but itâs sad to say I donât see the value or return on investment the course provides.
ACLC expects the skills learnt to be returned to Sqn.
QAIC cadets have sufficient time to use the qual at Sqn.
JL great for delivering fieldcraft but in short the majority of them leave.
So big questions for the courses to answer
Whatâs the return on investment (for the organisation)?
What is the purpose they are delivering.
In short - do they add value to the organisation?
And do they add value to the RAF and wider services by producing better candidates
There is certainly room for clarification and putting all of these courses into their appropriate swim lanes. I would have thought ACLC should be the only gold leadership, JLs could become the gold standard for fieldcraft (rather than the current plans for gold to be at only section 2IC level) and QAIC could be the gold standard for either aviation or a replacement for the top classification (part of a wider thought process of mine around scrapping classifications and replacing with GSK at the lower levels and aviation theory, to complement the ATP syllabus, at the higher levels â possibly with QAI as the gold standard).
1 Like
This question about âwhat benefit does it bring the organisationâ is, IMO, wrongly positioned. We donât exist to provide opportunities to cadets to support the organisation, we exist to meet our aims of providing a practical interest in aviation and the RAF, training useful in both service and civilian life.
The course shouldnât just exist because it provides de facto staff skills post 18 - thatâs just a staff training course.
It should exist because it gives life experiences, skills, knowledge and opportunity to cadets. It gives them a fun and engaging activity. It develops their leadership, their teamwork, their ability to think under pressure.
If some then use that and stay as staff well great, but that should not be the aim of any of our courses, they should exist because we want to do great and exciting and attractive things for our cadets.
12 Likes
So this is the definitions bit that I think the philosophy splits over.
The question is does it provide a benefit to the cadet themselves (I.e. the individual candidate) or does it encourage the candidate to reinvest & feed back into the organisation for the benefit of the other cadets.
Only a small number of cadets do these courses so the courses should be enablers to permit those top cadets to feedback their skills knowledge & enthusiasm back into the organisation to benefit the other cadets.
If it doesnât have that return on investment & it only benefits that particular cadet or paved the way for them to be staff then itâs not great return on investment.
It comes down to whether you define âbenefits cadetsâ as the individual cadet or the cadets in the organisation collectively. I personally would learn towards the latter but itâs a personal philosophy.
1 Like
So extrapolating from this sets a good definition,
QAIC, ACLC & JL should be available to anyone over 16/year 11 at school.
Anything older than that restricts things unnecessarily so courses need to be designed for this age group.
1 Like
This section here does make me think of the former Royal Marines advert that ended up being scrapped.
â99.99% of people need not applyâ
So guess what happened? 99.99% didnât apply and they consistently failed to meet recruitment targets.
1 Like
Just to give some cadet perspective, iâve found the âhubrisâ of the course doesnât come from QJLâs themselves, or the people who know them but from people who arenât involved. Both QJLâs from my wing this year are friends of mine and would never suggest that JL is some unreachable feat only for the best of the best, only that it IS difficult and does require a lot of effort but is well worth it. I read that many of you think of QAIC being a misunderstood course with under-utilised outputs. the way I see it JL is the same.
Over the course of the last few months Iâve seen my two friends develop as leaders and as individuals, which to me seemâs to line up exactly with what the RAFAC aims to do. so why shouldnât the course be brought back?
1 Like
Not having a pop at you @samm - or your mates - but what youâve said makes an interesting narrative - and triggered a thought stream for me.
Are JL and QAIC just a platform for delivering Leadership?
Could the same Leadership skills be delivered via other courses? The Fieldcraft element is simply a platform. And for QAIC itâs Aerospace. But for trekking we have Lowland Leaders, or Wet types get to become Paddlesport Leaders, and making your legs go round and round whilst balancing on two wheels leads to a MIAS.
Why are those courses not held with the same esteem when we discuss Leadership??? Its seemingly always about QAIC or JLs. Yet we are already delivering NATIONALLY recognised courses and qualifications⌠and often done so a bit cheaperâŚ
2 Likes