that is spot on!
and is exactly my concern for those Sgts who are up to scratch, these could end up at WO yet have no skills relevant to the post/role
a CO isnt appointed because they attended every night, join in on weekend events and has acceptable uniform. it is because, like Matt has identified, there is a need for that post, and that position requires the right person, with the right skills, attitude, experience and enthsuiasm and not simply the person who turns up the most!
If things continue with WO handed out after 8 years, we will have a top Heavy layer of WOs, with Sgt numbers being maintained roughly the same. If they have been in for 8 years, chances are they are enjoying it and could well do another 8 years, during which time the number of WOs would have doubled.
Nice on your planet is it? 
OC Sqns are often appointed without the requisite skills or standards to be able to discharge the post effectively. Some of them were just the only person available at the time, so they get their name over the door, rightly or wrongly.
I never got the whole aspiration idea? Aspire to what exactly? I asked this when we had a briefing on it in the winter of 2003. It was some woollyness that IMO fitted more with proper employment, than a hobby organisation.
Something I ask every CI wanting a uniform and it boils down to the fact they feel they aren’t respected by the higher organisation, ie they feel they are regarded, regardless of what they do, just a CI by the higher organisation and a lower form of life. The best one I know of was a chap been a CO and WSO for over 25 years, who said when he retired and became a CI, he felt it was like he no longer existed. I’ve suggested that CIs get proper ID cards so when they turn up at a military establishment they have a proper form of ID, as opposed to a scrap of paper signed by anyone with the time. Also have a CI Conference or similar so that they can air their views directly. I think also having CIs doing Wing Staff jobs with all the repsonsibility, if they’ve got the knowledge and skills. I know CIs who would be far better than those doing it because they have a blue suit. But we have a system that is far too archaic and up itself to allow this.
[quote=“steve679” post=2593] 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. [/quote]
Why is this a problem? If I’ve got a CI that is a bloody good adj or TO for instance and they want to go down the SNCO route, I’m not going to change what they do, just because they are SNCOs, like I wouldn’t do it if they Commissioned. I would like to see SNCOs of all persuasions treated equally in the organisation and those not interested in the 3Ds sidelined almost as second class citizens. Which I my understanding of some people’s views.
It would be nice to think this but where does that leave the early 20s types dumped into a command? They are too young for anyone to know if they have the relevant skills etc etc to succeed. I would like to see a time served element brought in for COs, similar to that for Sgt to WO, but it could time served as a SNCO and or Officer. I think that the sort of maturity/experience that is being suggested as needed for WO is equally required if not more so for the role of CO, as you are dealing with all manner of problems from day one, which WOs will pass onto you. I had done 8 years as a WO (in the old days) before commissioning and was already running a DF when I commissioned and not long after got my first sqn.
[quote=“steve679” post=2593] 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[/quote]
They didn’t get the right identifiers in place because as ever HQAC were like a temperance group trying to organise a drunken orgy. I was told that the cadet element of LASER was as a result of the requirements around CRB for adults working with minors, as laid down in the Childrens’ Act and had caught the Corps unaware. Hence it was and has been an almighty fudge. As for maturity, “staff” cadets now are just like we were when we were 18+, 18 year olds doing what 18 year olds do, to suggest it recognises “maturity” to any greater extent than beforehand is wide of the mark. I still think there is as much confusion now as there ever was over the status of the 18+, one minute the Corps treats them as pseudo adults, the next they treat them them like 13 year olds. I firmly believe Corps have to decide what they want, proper young adults or cadets masquerading as young adults as we’ve had for decades. If the former ditch cadet service at 18.
Having been a CWO in the old days, I never ever felt I didn’t know where I fitted in. It would interesting to know if any old stagers felt “lost” pre-LASER etc? The BASIC wouldn’t exist without the requirements of the Children’s Act so suggest it has offered value of invested interest is dubious, the MOI always existed in the form of instructional technique for Staff part 2. I boned up on Inst Tech when I was doing Staff 2 and it has stood me in good stead for over 30 years. MOI is just someone wanting to make more of it, than it needs.
[quote=“steve679” post=2593] positives
Some valid points.
BUT, I have a Sgt (ATC) stuck at SGT for another 2 years as Sgt before moving up to FS.
Unlike most Sgts (ATC) has prior service (although in the Army) and is currently filling the role of SWO. All the promotion criteria set by HQAC (and Wing) have been met, but there is now this wait for 2 years.
Additionally, I have known ex-RAF cpls who have been out for 10 years or more come in and go straight to FS.
I agree for ex-cadets there should be 4 and 4 years (or I would make it 5 and 5), but there should be clearer guides for granting of seniority based on previous work/service/life experience.
If Officer cadets can go from Off Cdt to Flt Lt in under 3 months, then there should be opportunities for accelerated promotion for SNCO staff. I was offered first squadron at 23 (commissioned at just under 21) and put it off long enough to reach my 27th borthday before I took command.
The main question, is what’s important to him?
[quote=“bti” post=2396]2013 marks the tenth anniversary of the LASER Review… (tempus fugit 
)
Not quite long enough to get our first post-LASER WO(ATC), which by my reckoning should be due in 2015 [/quote]
We had a few people in the wing who were promoted to WO last year who had started as Sgts so they are around now.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=2631]
[quote=“steve679” post=2593] 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. [/quote]
Why is this a problem? If I’ve got a CI that is a bloody good adj or TO for instance and they want to go down the SNCO route, I’m not going to change what they do, just because they are SNCOs, like I wouldn’t do it if they Commissioned. I would like to see SNCOs of all persuasions treated equally in the organisation and those not interested in the 3Ds sidelined almost as second class citizens. Which I my understanding of some people’s views.[/quote]
I’m certainly not saying that some roles are suitable for a CI but are “off limits” by SNCOs (or even Officer’s) and therefore a particular route should be determine what roles a Staff member does or doesn’t do.
The point I am trying to make is there are CIs who hide in the office, and only inspire to wear a uniform rather than follow the route/expectations of that uniform. I’m not against SNCOs being the Adj or other heavily “office” based roles, providing they have the ability to pick up the SNCO role when required….and in my opinion there are Sgts out there who can’t/don’t want to do that because (as GHE2 identifies) they want the respect the uniform offers them (over CI) but in my opinion/experience some cases without following through.
If for example on a Wing event I chose a Cdt NCO event for a task, I have an expectation on them whether they are a Cpl or CWO on their ability complete it, irrespective of how long they have been an NCO, or which Sqn they are from. There is no reason why the same expectation for the staff should not be applied, if I asked a Sgt to complete an “NCO” task, they should be able to switch on the “NCO mode” while some I suspect don’t have that ability because they simply to do take on the SNOC role at Sqn, avoiding the expectation of the uniform
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=2631]
It would be nice to think this but where does that leave the early 20s types dumped into a command? They are too young for anyone to know if they have the relevant skills etc etc to succeed. I would like to see a time served element brought in for COs, similar to that for Sgt to WO, but it could time served as a SNCO and or Officer. I think that the sort of maturity/experience that is being suggested as needed for WO is equally required if not more so for the role of CO, as you are dealing with all manner of problems from day one, which WOs will pass onto you. I had done 8 years as a WO (in the old days) before commissioning and was already running a DF when I commissioned and not long after got my first sqn. [/quote]
I agree, in the same way it is “unfair” to appoint a CO to someone in their early 20s, it was equally unfair to appoint them WO with no more “training” than being an ex-Cadet. Which I can only assume, in part, brought about the changes to the NCO system.
[off topic]The situation you mention where CO’s are appointed in their early 20s is rarely ideal, but often the hand is forced. If a “time served“element were brought in would the situation for those OC’s appointed in their 20s have been greatly different? It may be the only choice available or the most appropriate (or willing) Officer to take on the role. An example I know of would require a shuffle of Staff between Sqns as the out-going CO only has one Officer to consider who is in his early 20s and thus would not be eligible due to a lack of served time….[/off topic]
The reasoning behind the “confusing affair” is known by many, I was simply offering my invited thoughts on the matter.
As a general overview of 18+ Cdts I would agree, there is constant mixed messages when they are or not allowed to be Adults.
In my opinion in terms of the running of a Sqn, and the instructors that can be utilized, there is better recognition with the introduction of the MOI course.
In my experience as a Cadet, to gain recognition of ability we/I had to have Staff Part 2 and or CWO to be noticed and even then were not necessarily included in the “instructors pool” instead CWO were often given an admin role in the Office.
Nowadays, Sgts (or in some limited cases Cpls) can not only be identified as “instructors” following their MOI course, but are now visually identified as Adults with the “Staff Cadet” rank slide whereas before it was only CWO who were guaranteed to be 18+. Myself I was a Cdt FS until my 20th birthday, and was identified by white tabs (pedo tapes) but years before that as a Cadet my Sgts and FS were not identified as adults any more so than their 16/17 yr old colleagues. That identification is now visible with the new ranks slides, which can be useful in occasions where one NCO needs choosing over another for a task.
Generally though the mixed “toing and froing” situation of where an 18+ Cadets is placed in a situation is confusing and inconsistent
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=2631]
Having been a CWO in the old days, I never ever felt I didn’t know where I fitted in. It would interesting to know if any old stagers felt “lost” pre-LASER etc? The BASIC wouldn’t exist without the requirements of the Children’s Act so suggest it has offered value of invested interest is dubious, the MOI always existed in the form of instructional technique for Staff part 2. I boned up on Inst Tech when I was doing Staff 2 and it has stood me in good stead for over 30 years. MOI is just someone wanting to make more of it, than it needs.
[/quote] I am one of those “old stagers” and as I only reached Cdt FS felt much more of a “Senior Cadet” than part of the Staff team when compared to my CWO friends. (for the record I wasn’t considered for promotion until too late (weeks prior to me timing out) due to my last enrolled year spent at university)
In my experience as Cadets approach 18 I have seen some happy to “call it a day” (amounsgt other reasons) not willing to consider the “effort” of BASIC, CRB and/or MOI, while others happy to “jump through the hoops” – to me this not only shows me as Staff their level of interest and commitment but are two courses bringing them closer to a Staff role. Although your Inst Tech served you well, not all Cadets reach Staff part 2 study, (I include myself in that). Now we don’t have Staff Part 2, instead MAC (which includes no MOI/Inst Tech) the course offers something in its place, whether or not it is more than required.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=2631]
[quote=“steve679” post=2593] positives
This is a roundabout way of me saying “too much of a good thing”. Although it opens the door to those suitable for an NCO role who may not have considered uniform before, happy to accept a “measured” route in to becoming a WO, it also opens to the door to those who not suitable for an NCO role to consider it.
In what I understand, by my own admission, is a blinkered and “old fashioned” view in my opinion I feel there are Staff suitable for a uniform role and those that are not. In my opinion there are some that will not do the uniform justice that are appointed
And although I agree starting someone off at the bottom of the uniform structure is the best (only?) place for them to begin, it means that there is no definition between a “taster to uniform” Sgt and a Sgt who is aiming directly for WWO and thus muddles the “expectation” of what a Sgt is capable of, at which end of the competency are they at? And could cause another form of “just a CI” mentality being “just a Sgt” offering no indication of competency Vs those in a “taster to uniform” position.
The point I am trying to make is there are CIs who hide in the office, and only inspire to wear a uniform rather than follow the route/expectations of that uniform.
Don’t forget there are many CI who have worn uniform and know how to conduct themselves. Some of the things seen at camps etc.
Also, here’s one CI who keeps out of the office wherever and whenever possible!
Why not get into uniform?
Too old and not fit enough these days - life catches you up.
In the ATC - there are no “just a…” in my book.
Anyone who says to me “you are just a CI” gets a fresh response.
Remember; we could always stay at home!
[quote=“mike-foxtrot-lima” post=2817]The point I am trying to make is there are CIs who hide in the office, and only inspire to wear a uniform rather than follow the route/expectations of that uniform.
Don’t forget there are many CI who have worn uniform and know how to conduct themselves. Some of the things seen at camps etc.
Also, here’s one CI who keeps out of the office wherever and whenever possible!
Why not get into uniform?
Too old and not fit enough these days - life catches you up.
In the ATC - there are no “just a…” in my book.
Anyone who says to me “you are just a CI” gets a fresh response. :cheer:
Remember; we could always stay at home![/quote] :worthy:
I agree with you 110%. We all have a part to play in this organisation of ours. And at the end of the day we are all civilians, whether we ware a uniform or not.
This probably won’t be a popular opinion but having read over the thread and had a wee think I’ve come up with (what I believe to be) a good idea.
For those saying (rightly so) that the rise from Sgt to WO comes too quickly to give you something to work for, perhaps it would be an idea to introduce ATC Corporals thus creating the following rank structure for NCOs:
Cpl (ATC)
Sgt (ATC)
FS (ATC)
This way the Sqn SNCO would be (at most) a Flight Sergeant who’s goal could be to work toward promotion to Warrant Officer… A rank given to one SNCO per sector thus bringing an essence of a SWO to the sector WOs we have now. Qualified DI should be near enough essential.
I realise many will argue that not taking on the extra responsibility that comes with being either Wing WO or Sector WO shouldn’t prevent long serving and dedicated SNCOs from becoming WOs but that is thinking with the mind frame that its attainable. Not every officer EXPECTS to become a Wing Commander and the ones who don’t certainly don’t seem to be bored in their roles or unhappy being sqn commanders. My OC is a Flight Lieutenant (like most) and he is perfectly happy being in that role despite knowing it means his rank will be unlikely to ever change. If SNCOs are happy remaining at a Sqn level then they should be happy in the same mind frame, the mind frame that they will be an FS. This brings a bit of achievement and exclusivity to our WOs. People would recognise them as being deserving and not just there through time served.
At the other end of the scale introducing an adult JNCO rank may prove unpopular, I don’t know, but I for one believe it has its place and again protects the rank of Sgt from any degrading. Some people have a dim view of us Sgt (ATC) types. They see it as a poorer rank and certainly does not carry as much holding with regulars as it (perhaps) should. I’m only 2 years after being a CWO. Surely RAF Cpl Bloggs with 10 years service is going to find my stripes laughable. That’s not a good image for the ATC. The image we throw tapes at people who (are perceived to be) under experienced and too young for the rank. Surely introducing the rank of Cpl (ATC) and having minimum 4 years service on can only be a good thing?
Please don’t chastise me for this post. Just my opinion. I would be interested to see what your honest thoughts are (that are hopefully undiluted by motives of self importance!)
Why play to the outmoded stereotype that ATC SNCOs have to be drill pigs if they want to be WOs.
[quote=“axl” post=2873]
Not every officer EXPECTS to become a Wing Commander and the ones who don’t certainly don’t seem to be bored in their roles or unhappy being sqn commanders. My OC is a Flight Lieutenant (like most) and he is perfectly happy being in that role despite knowing it means his rank will be unlikely to ever change.[/quote]
It’s more about wanting to be Wg Cdr than expecting. You tend to find unfortunately that most Wg Cdrs are those who see the ATC as a career and of a mindset other officers should want to “progress”. Progress to what exactly?
In my experience most COs are not interested in anything higher as it means losing day to day contact. How could you get bored with being a Sqn Cdr? It has to be the best role for an officer in the ATC. I personally couldn’t care less about promotion, the ATC is not a career it’s a hobby. But if I wanted to I could get a Wing role (I’ve been approached often enough) and then vie for promotion, but I’m not interested. One of my best mates took a Wing role and has been frustrated by the politics and in-fighting among the SWSOs and the fact he wants to change things and gets nowhere. He’s looking to get off Wing and back to the real ATC (as he called it) asap.
i have considered why Cpl (ATC) was not employed but when careful consideration is made it becomes clear.
prior to uniform, staff are 9/10 CIs first and thus hold the respect of a civilian and treated as such in a mess - i.e. are accommodated, and catered for and in the Sgt Mess.
Introducing the Cpl(ATC) rank does have its benefits as a more “training” role (to a SNCO position) and indicated a reduced level of experience or skill.
However by nature of the rank, the Cpl (ATC) will be accommodated and catered for and in the Junior Ranks mess which in turn causes a selection of conflicts.
Cpl (ATC) would be the only Staff rank to eat and sleep in the Junior Ranks, which would lead to a lonely life while all other staff are in the Sgts or Officers mess, often in larger groups than one!
in addition to this lonely existence, all prior mess experience would be based through the Sgts Mess, often joined with experience uniformed members of staff to guide and advise them if necessary, while the Junior Ranks mess could well be a brand new experience, with unknown factors and customs to consider and with no one experienced to show them the way (by default the most experienced will also be a Cpl(ATC) who may well be in the same boat!)
It would basically be putting the least experienced uniform staff in an unfamiliar mess, likely to be on their own and into the senior position in that mess as its highest rank present
also the role of a Cpl is more of a “senior man” role, rather than a “Leading” role in the RAF which would be offset to the role Uniformed members of staff perform, a more leading, instructing role.
i understand there are a selection of qualifications/courses which cannot be held/attended by a regular JNCO, i believe RCO is one such example (correct me if I am wrong, but am sure there are others). Taking the RCO example, a CI can attend, pass and hold the position of RCO, but going into uniform as Cpl would cause a conflict either-
1 - They surrender their range ticket, accepting that cannot use it until promotion
or
2 - Continue to use it, despite the conflict between the rank and qualification
Number 2 in my opinion would be even more damaging than having poor Sgts as it will rub regular Cpls the wrong way - one rule for us, another for them.
Although I see the logic Axl puts forward, and have agreed with it in principle myself, the resulting knock on effects would firstly open up a rank which few people would find appealing (when visiting a station at least), and secondly create as many difficulties as it solves which in turn would be more obvious and potentially more damaging than the existing system
Why play to the outmoded stereotype that ATC SNCOs have to be drill pigs if they want to be WOs. [/quote]Whilst I fully agree that not all SNCOs should be seen as drill pigs - after all, they can serve in pretty much any role - sector/wing warrant officers really should be, as that’s a large part of their job description.
JNCO is the minimum rank that must be held by an RCO. In the RAF Regiment for example (unless it’s changed over the last 10 years), a Cpl can hold SA(B)90.
Why play to the outmoded stereotype that ATC SNCOs have to be drill pigs if they want to be WOs. [/quote]Whilst I fully agree that not all SNCOs should be seen as drill pigs - after all, they can serve in pretty much any role - sector/wing warrant officers really should be, as that’s a large part of their job description.[/quote]
But it does seem you are saying that WO roles will only go to drill pigs. If this was the case then if I was an SNCO or CI come to that and my interests weren’t in the drill/dress arena, I’d look to commission so that the potential for my skills etc in other areas are better able to be recognised and the SNCO cadre can become the preserve of the lovers of all things drill and uniform.
This would then lead to the criticism that so and so shouldn’t be an Officer, because they don’t fit some nice little pre-concieved ideal people might have.
Gentlemen, come down from altitude, the lack of oxygen is dulling your thought processes.
Do you really attend to further a military career?
Please don’t forget that we attend squadron for the benefit of the cadets. Those who want to be part of a military unit should join the regulars or move on to the TA, RNR or RAAF where they can ‘be what they want to be’.
I’m not intending to offend anyone but be realistic about it.
Exactly. The retorts received were expected. To be honest none of them really phase my view or opinion.
I understand the point about “wanting” to become a Wing Commander and that’s exactly MY point. If people WANT to be WO then they would have to become Sector WO.
As far as the “people shouldn’t have to be drill pigs to be WO” argument, well I find this to be equally as answerable. If my idea was implemented then yes they would because that is the role of a Sector and Wing Warrant Officer, to know the drill manual cover to cover. With that argument officers could say “you shouldn’t have to be OC Wing to be a Wing Commamder”… It’s equally as silly I feel.
The Mess argument is probably the most valid but still not a stopper. Firstly I don’t think it’s the case that Cpl (ATC) would feel all lonely in the mess. If they were to behave in a manner not in keeping with mess rules then I would be very surprised they didn’t learn better down at the ATF. Also that means there is a group of staff in the mess with the cadets. On camps the duty staff eat there anyway meaning there would undoubtedly be an accompanying SNCO too. Finally each mess will have its senior member and a mess supervisor. I doubt any Cpl (ATC) would lord it around over the SACs etc. Hardly like that’s a problem with Sgt (ATC) and RAF JNCOs at the minute.
As Mike-Foxtrot-Lima said, we are here for the cadets, not the tapes on our shoulders. This would make a welcome change to our current NCO structure and would ensure that people wear tapes according to their experience and service. Any further comments on this idea? I personally see it working.
This phrase makes me cringe… I’m here because I enjoy it!
But anyway I think the argument has gone off on a tangent a bit…
This phrase makes me cringe… I’m here because I enjoy it![/quote]
Sometimes on this site it’s as if admitting you enjoy this job is sacrilege.