thoughts? …analysis? …positives? …negatives? …unintended consequences?
To answer the OP and in turn touch on other comments since
I will start by indicating I was a Cadet when this review came out, and was caught up in the first bracket of Cadets over 18 and so timed out at 20. I didn’t see the review when it came out, but have heard of it since and understand that it brought about the changes to the staff NCO structure and the white tab (“pedo band”) to the over 18 Cadets (which since has gone through other changes)
thoughts
Firstly what are the “aspirations” that the review tried to meet?
Based on what Batfink’s copied of the review, B, C and D are fairly black and white in what they mean and have a measurable result “has this been achieved yes/no?”
But (a) is a new one to me; it would be interesting to read what “aspirations” were being targeted to determine if this has been achieved.
As a general exercise I like it. It makes much more sense to have a progression to WO with Sgt and FS in the same way there is Plt Off and Fg Off prior to Flt Lt.
The Junior Officers had chance to gain experience, mature, learn/be trained all towards the role of OC. There was no such option for WO and think it has helped reduce the number of ill prepared/young WO as they now have at least 8 years’ experience.
“Back in my day” the Sqn I was at had a CO, a junior officer WO and two CIs, and it was clear the Sqn was run by the CO in the office and WO elsewhere. That Sqn now has an additional NCO, and two additional Officers, but did have at one point [i[four[/i] SNCOs plus the WO!!
I much prefer the three SNCO ranks, as it offers a level of hierarchy and seniority, allows for experience and training to be gained before the senior position of WO, had the Sqn had five WOs it would have been a confusing time for all and had a vast difference in abilty.
I believe the additional SNCO ranks have opened up the door to uniform for those staff who may not have considered it before. The role of WO was an imposing position rubbing shoulders with fellow WOs with sometime decades of experience yet the rank indicated you were equals and I can believe would have put some off, in much the same way going the Commissioned route is likely to have lead them to the position of CO with some not wanting to work towards that responsibility and so were happy to avoid any uniform position.
Those looking for a uniform role, without the pressures of instant seniority (WO) or eventual command and responsibility (CO) now have the option of Sgt as the lowest uniform rank and thus minimal expectations against all other ranks.
Unfortunately I think this is a downside in some cases – there are some who I think would never suit a uniform position yet have been appointed Sgts – they would never have been appointed to WO in the old system.
Some SNCOs I meet I’d like to have heard their answer to what they hoped to gain from wearing uniform that they couldn’t achieve as a CI.
I am very much in the same camp as wdimagineer2B on the subject of substandard uniformed members, however not as WO but as Sgts. In my experience in several Wings I believe some people were appointed simply because they fancied wearing the uniform/didn’t want to be “just” a CI* rather than because they had a genuine skill or talent which a uniform role could utilise. Or it is used as a “training” rank to see if a staff member “suits” the uniform role.
I hear too often of CIs working effectively in the office, appointed to Sgt without any change to their role or responsibility on Sqn…the uniform has changed little about what they do (remaining in the office, away from Cadets), how they behave or levels of responsibility, however they now have the confidence (hiding behind the uniform) to reprimand the Cadets, give instructions/orders and with the benefit of claiming pay. Effectively a uniformed CI, given the minimal change to their attitude.
These staff members annoy me a lot as I feel it belittles the rank and devalues the ability of those hard working competent SNCOs and genuine future WOs who are simply passing through the same system.
On the flip side however appointment to Sgt offers at least 8 years of training and experience to be gained to bring a SNCO up to standard, and can give the rank of WO a better name as it isn’t just anyone who is promoted but quality, talented instructors with skills and attitudes which suit the role and rank.
In much the same way that a CO is not appointed to just anyone who has ticked a few basic boxes but has the relevant skills, talent and ability to succeed in that office.
[off topic] As such I would agree with removing the “time served” promotion to Flt Lt, reserving the rank to those who have held higher responsibility than Squadron Officer, either as a Sqn CO or in a Wing role (sport, shooting, BTEC, Radio Officer etc.) – to help indicate a level of competence across the board, a Flt Lt is either a CO, or holds a Wing post and thus has a higher responsibility than a Sqn Officer (Adj/Training/Other) who hasn’t changed role or level of responsibility in 12 years, but has been promoted through “time served”
I am sympathetic to those Squadrons with low numbers of Staff and Cadets sometimes the most appropriate person for the job would not necessarily the right person for the role elsewhere, but as a “hobby” with a “get what we’re given” approach to which Staff walk through our door we cannot always afford to be choosy on who is appointed based on the selection process of our recruited Staff.
There are Sqns out there with only one uniformed member of staff and so there is a clear need to increase that number, which may result in lowering the standard to fill the need, and I accept this, on the basis that the senior ranks (FS and WO) are offered the correct respect and not awarded simply automatically because of “time served”. Fortunately in our Wing this has been the case.
The status issues surrounding over 18 cadets I think was a confusing affair, with the white tapes, instructor and now staff Cadet. I can see why it has been done but feel it could have been clearer although being a new system understand there were things that would and wouldn’t work and it was just a matter of finding the right identifier. A clear issue was the lack of adequate stores of whatever identifier was in use, a constant storage of white taps or relevant rank slides.
On the positive however I feel it has acknowledged the older Cadets a lot more than before. In my experience as a Cadet a CWO was seen as the pinnacle of responsibility, and was regularly seen as “Staff” on courses, exercise or events off Sqn.
However today, with the fewer numbers of Cadets staying on past 18 and the recued age limit at 20 there is a reduced pool to select from resulting in less CWOs around but the “Staff” prefix offers these Cadets recognition of their maturity and reliability even if they do not have the CWO rank
analysis
Hard to offer a decent analysis as I am unsure what was the intended outcome of (a) - Meet the aspirations of the ATC’s non-commissioned uniformed staff. As mentioned above. However (b) and © have been achieved, with the adoption of Instructor and Staff cadet prefix to ranks, Senior Cadets have an understanding of where they fit in the structure and gives them a taste of life as Staff with basic responsibilities or instructional duties. With the BASIC and MOI courses to attend it has offered value and invested interested in these Cadets by offering them Staff style courses progressing them past NCO/Leadership courses. I have seen examples both on our and neighbouring Sqns where this has resulted in Cadets joining the Staff team once they have timed out.
positives
- Opened the door to a uniform role to Staff who might not have considered such a role in the past
- As such an increased the number of uniform staff
- offered a clear path of progression (training?) towards WO, with requirements to achieve prior to each promotion
- Recognised and acknowledged the maturity of our 18+ year old Cadets
- Encouraged Senior Cadets to consider joining the Staff team with relevant training for a Staff role
Negatives
- Some Staff appointed to uniform (Sgt) who would not have been under the former system (straight to WO)
- The Rank of Sgt is seen by some as a training or taster rank
- Created a larger variation between those who were ready for uniform and those less so, devaluing the rank
unintended consequences
- offers the opportunity for greater respect of the WO rank, and in turn recognises the right staff for the job by holding back SNCOs at Sgt or FS
- Has increased the number of competent instructors on Sqn but training senior Cadets (MOI) which can be included into the training program
*”Just a CI” is a hateful reference for me, this organisation could not operate without our CIs, our Sqn a perfect example, but I know some staff look down on CIs and some CIs don’t feel “worthy” as they don’t wear a uniform.
[/quote]
