New Officer Promotion Criteria

themajor 2017-07-12 08:56:09 UTC #21

The expectation isn't that all SNCOs will be promoted some will just parade twice a week at their squadron and will remain as a Sgt.

Promotion for both Officers & SNCOs is for personal gratification - their rank makes no difference in the ability to deliver the cadet experience.

We are struggling to staff camps, so this is included in the the promotion matrix - those that want the higher rank will attend the camps.

It also looks that we are finally loosing the time Served Flt Lt - why should someone be a Flt Lt (Un-Paid) just because they have been around for a while, but have shied away from a command position?

The requirement to complete a qualification in the time at rank or previous 4 years (shortest of the 2) will result in our staff being better qualified, those that are AFA/FAAW qualified tick this box every 3 years anyway.

It's not the hardest of criteria to meet, but does mean the rank is now associated to useful experience, not just drinking tea/coffee for a few years.

Biggles_Lovechild 2017-07-12 09:17:26 UTC #22

But surely this is irrelevant for promotion to Flt Lt now. Since all Flt Lt ranks are post specific and there are no more time served promotions this is only relevant for Plt Off to Fg Off........

Or does this mean Sqn Cdr posts are going to be Flt Lt/Fg Off posts

RAF has been looking at thinning out ranks for years - maybe RAFAC is going to lead the way

themajor 2017-07-12 10:15:10 UTC #23

I guess we need to wait for ACP 20 to be updated to reflect this new form.

Pity it couldn't come out on Friday with the updated ACP along with 3 Internal Briefing Notes highlight some changes - although non of these touched on the introduction of a Smoking Policy...

InterestedAdult 2017-07-12 10:17:47 UTC #24

Still interested to know how this will impact the CCF.

Does this mean new heads of RAF sections will not automatically get Flt Lt, or contingent commanders get Sqn Ldr?

Teflon 2017-07-12 10:22:51 UTC #25

So the question is, why have a rank structure or Officers and SNCOs at all?
I would say the rank structure is more for the likes of WHQ, RHQ, HQAC etc to be able pin things on people.

We struggle for staff full stop. I have to say that going back if the same system was in place now, how many current Officers would bother. I don't know very many that would.

I used to think like that, then I grew up and realised nothing is black and white.
People in general commission with good intent, but then that funny old thing called life rears up and things change. I've known a lot of CWOs who were going to change the world, commissioned then got married, job pressures etc etc and left, leaving the world unchanged, or they just did what they were doing. I've never seen that it mattered wrt time served. Should people resign or made to resign if they don't want to take a command, who knows, would they leave the Corps on the back of it, based on the fact we're overrun with staff and people wanting to join, so we can lose a few. I've known a number who've been forced to take a command are in post for 9-12 months, then go NEP on some pretext, never to be seen again. Prior to the forced command they were good officers doing a decent job. Who loses?

God knows what squadron(s) you've been on but I don't know people like that, it's the urban myth that we all ascribe to.

tmmorris 2017-07-12 11:08:54 UTC #26

I think you'll have to wait out. The current form can't be applied to CCF, because it fails to include any CCF terminology. But that doesn't rule out a CCF version being produced.

SpinADit 2017-07-12 12:37:51 UTC #27

Not necessarily - it remains in ACP 20, just with an edit to say that promotion after 9 years should be considered in conjunction with this form.

Therefore, if they have held and subsequently relinquished a command position, they are still eligible for promotion time-served (provided the other criteria is met). I'm all in favour of keeping time-served Flt Lt - despite your comments on tea-drinkers, it is still useful in identifying someone with perhaps more experience to ask questions of.

themajor 2017-07-12 13:04:00 UTC #28

I missed that when looking through the amendments - was expecting a direct link to the new Matrix

Batfink 2017-07-12 20:40:42 UTC #29

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaggagagagagagahahahahaahaha

I thought you'd been around long enough to stop "expecting" joined up thinking!

tmmorris 2017-07-13 07:45:14 UTC #30

The Army are believed to be very keen to abolish all time-served promotions. This might actually be a good move to preserve them, but justify them.

(edited to add - by which I mean abolish all time-served promotions for cadet force officers)

Teflon 2017-07-13 08:58:56 UTC #31

You are right, although I don't think them being in uniform or not detracts from their experience or knowledge. I know of a number of resigned / retired officers now CIs who are like gold nuggets. We have several around the Wing doing adj as CIs and their OCs are thankful for all the obvious reasons.

How many people would actually be worried about a bit of material on their shoulder after 9 years (sic) most time served I know don't stop or start doing things on getting their new badge. They don't get paid for it so does it matter. I tend to think that ranks are for higher levels to try and play god with as on squadrons you are 'just' a member of staff.

sarge 2017-07-13 09:15:12 UTC #32

There are no time served promotions in the ACF. The rules are different for the CCF who do have time served promotions for specific appointments.

pEp 2017-07-13 16:10:15 UTC #33

So, I just had the following email from Regional Commandant (North):

"Just to say that the Officer Promotion Matrix that has been posted on ACC is an old one and wrong. A new one will be coming out wef 1 Oct 17 (in line with the new commission) and it will be publicised well before then in an IBN - this particular new policy has been a volunteer led project and requested, not one of the ACMB initiatives. You will see all such future policy changes come out in advance through the use of IBN - anything else is just noise, drafts, rumours or plain rubbish that has been found on sharepoint."

Baldrick 2017-07-13 16:17:38 UTC #34

I applaud such clarity, but does it not prompt a proper review of the 'plain rubbish' which is on Sharepoint?

It's less of an effective resource and more like the Black Library.

themajor 2017-07-13 16:44:18 UTC #35

So why was the current form uploaded to SharePoint?

Did he notice that we have linked to it on an official system??

SpinADit 2017-07-13 16:46:26 UTC #36

I echo this. The form has been uploaded to Sharepoint with the Check-In Comment that reads 'New Form' - better to sort out the dodgy release on Sharepoint than berate the end users/ACCers, who are constantly told by WHQs to keep an eagle eye on Sharepoint for new releases!

Edited to say: Not only this - but ACP20 has been updated to make everyone aware of the 'new' form. Needless to say that people approaching promotion are now being made to fill in this 'plain rubbish'....

pEp 2017-07-13 17:36:11 UTC #37

I didn't read it as berating. I read it as him trying to engage with us and provide help.

He isn't in control of what someone uploads and mistakes get made. Maybe you should email him and advise him (but I'm willing to bet you don't)

SpinADit 2017-07-13 18:08:53 UTC #38

Why would I need to do that when he clearly reads this

To me, rightly or wrongly, the tone came across as 'ignore those on ACC - they're digging up old rubbish' - when actually, to the uninitiated this is a brand new policy and has been released as such. For us now to be told to ignore it, despite it being 'officially released' in the last few days is farcical. It sends the message that I can pick and choose what updates on Sharepoint I wish to follow, because some might not be ratified yet - which is obviously nonsense. If this is only there as a place-setting, then why is it not watermarked as DRAFT or the like.

glyncc 2017-07-13 20:07:08 UTC #39

I am 30+ year Flt Lt. I ran a squadron for ten years taking it from 5 to 45 cadets. I am now the adj on another I am a active SAAI, RCO, BTech, FA and Fieldcraft instructor, things I couldn't do as OC. I do drink tea but I feel I have earned my rings so should I be reduced to my substantive rank? I don't really care what rank I am but I would feel much less appreciated and probably walk if it happened. I think PTR has been at 25p all that time.

InterestedAdult 2017-07-13 21:19:22 UTC #40

I'm not sure you can say you don't care what rank you are but would walk if reduced in the same sentence.