New Officer Promotion Criteria


The keyword here is “appreciated”, not the other bits. But then I doubt very many of us actually feel appreciated by the CoC. Do something and they want more and more and if you don’t, don’t recognise everything else.


Where on earth is the document control?
How can a document get put on there and touted as new policy, only for a note like RC(N)'s to come out debunking it. This highlights just how shambolic HQAC is, not that we weren’t under than impression any way.

SharePoint is supposed to be our “bible” and this intimates that what is in fact is little more than the electronic version of a nice soft 3-ply with regular perforations.

I would love to know who was in the group of volunteers who suggested this and led it. I very much doubt there were many, if any, who are currently actually running squadrons.


If rank was important I would have aspired to be a sqn ldr or Wg Cdr, so rank is not important and I dont care about the rank that I hold with cadets as a result but Its about being appreciated by those above me. To take something away that I have earned and proudly held for 17 years is a demotion which usually is akin to a punishment so I would walk.


I wouldn’t suggest it is removed, however no longer awarded, so that all Flt Lt’s & above are in an established post and all others are Fg Off’s as this keeps the CoC aligned


I’d heard that reverting to Fg Off unless in command of a Sqn, wasn’t being made retrospective prior to the date of implementation?


I saw this the other day and to be quite honest other than substituting the FS/WO heading the actual requirements look the same.


Even then it would still cause issues in the future, it just seems unnecessary and to be a deliberate slight. (Take away the paid element by all means to keep the budget straight, but allow people the dignity of maintaining their rank).


How about the latest wizard wheeze from our friends in the bubble at HQAC. This obviously falls under the title of how to hack off new volunteer staff.CI probationary period has been extended from three to six months.They admit this is nothing to do with any sort of plan just to give them more time to clear the backlog.Absolutely pathetic and they also make clear until CIs are cleared after six months they cant do anything course wise unless its MOI or basic.Well I can see a lot of people voting with their feet here.It takes long enough to do the paper chase as it stands.What a bunch of incompetents these people are.Anywhere else this sort of crap practice would result in the big E.


Completely agree. I’m at a loss to understand why they want to do away with time-served promotion and make us different to our parent service.

Valuing our Volunteers?



It does seem an odd choice, given that Flt Lt (acting, unpaid) doesn’t actually cost the Corps anything.


Reminds me of a large public organisation i used to work for. It took so long for them to process job applicants that loads of people just went and found something else. It took several years for the penny to drop!!


Fortunately for them they are effectively answerable to no one (or no one that matters) and can essentially do anything they want (or more correctly not do anything while getting paid handsomely) and have no come back or reprisals and won’t hear the words “You’re Fired”.

The irony is that the sort of incompetence’s the HQAC display are and will be used against volunteers and there are many in the volunteer cadre who will actively pursue other volunteers. There are some on here who will seek to pillory and deride fellow volunteers, which I feel is at the very least discourteous.


This seems like a great way to transition to Sqns run by Flying Officers… I wonder if that’s in the wind?

“Assisted the wing in organising a camp” as a requirement for Flt Lt?
We have that for WO and I think it’s not a terrible idea; as for WO I’d expect a candidate to be stepping up to a post where he or she should have demonstrated ability to command subordinates. WOs should be line managing SNCOs and CIs in their field.

But for a Flt Lt to be happily running a Sqn, why should they need to have assisted at Wing level?
When one considers how many Squadrons we have that’s an awful lot of Officers “assisting” Wing events.


It does suck a bit if you are in a wing that doesn’t organise that many camps and doesn’t need a whole lot of help in doing so when they do. It leads to a flexible interpretation of “helping to organise” and of “camps”.

surely helping to run a squadron IS assisting at wing level!


When you put it that way I can’t disagree with you!! :slight_smile:


When it comes to Wing Camps, unless there is a ‘coup’ or ‘putsch’ or ‘death in the family’, Wing Camps are run / organised by the same people year in year out and it is very much a clique. If you suddenly pitch up to help it’s difficult to not get stuck with it for years, when all you’ve wanted to do tick a box. The FS on my squadron is looking at the matrix and wondering if WOs worth it, as they have no desire to organise a wing activity. Not doing so doesn’t make them a lesser person. I’ve never organised a wing activity and not noticed that I’m missing anything from my abilities. When it comes to these things there are many ‘stick chasers’ in the younger ones who are willing to run themselves ragged for belly rub as they are too naïve to see beyond their noses and that this organisation has spawned into one where the powers will chew you up and spit you out without a second thought.

How many people have matrices like this for work promotions (outside the public sector)? People apply for the jobs, get interviewed or not and it goes on from there.
The problem with ATC promotions is that there is no real value to the individual, unless they are in love with the idea of the rank and playing on it… OK you get a few quid for a day, but that is a pittance (in terms of hourly rate) when you consider the responsibility etc that can go with it. My work contract is for 5 day 40 hour / week including 30 minute lunch. If I work weekends I get TOIL as we don’t do overtime anymore.


A further reply from RC (N)

to clarify, my point was that all future policy will be properly announced and introduced formally through an IBN process, such as the recent ones you have seen on SharePoint. As you rightly point out, trying to police SharePoint, when most have access is almost impossible given our resources, so we have brought in a new ‘policy on policy’ to avoid things being misunderstood or highlighted across the volunteer network prematurely. The point I was trying to make is that if anyone finds stuff on SharePoint that hasn’t been introduced via the new policy then it isn’t formal policy. I was not saying that the matrix currently on SharePoint was ‘plain rubbish’ but rather not the properly staffed and implemented one…

He also said I could edit that as I saw fit because it’s not his intention to patronise, insult or question. He’s only trying to help (and don’t forget he doesn’t work at HQAC - he can’t control what someone uploads to SharePoint and has actually started a process to properly inform us of policy decisions (although my questioning hat would argue why we didn’t get a policy announcement to say that there is a change to policy announcements :wink:).

He’s also sent me a letter he sent to all in his region and to other RCs for onward transmission about questioning our processes, and being brave enough to ask why we do things a certain way as he’s aware wings put their own requirements on things unneceunnecessarily, as do regions, and he wants to empower us to question that.


Also to add: at the end of the day SharePoint is a document hosting site.

I saw that being uploaded and jumped to a conclusion which is wrong. It’s being stored there presumably so people don’t keep emailing large files to work on but can simply link to it, in preparation for a roll out of an actual promotion matrix in October.


BZ to the guy - proper engagement with grass-roots people, to circumvent the WHQ-spin.[quote=“pEp, post:59, topic:3136”]
I saw that being uploaded and jumped to a conclusion which is wrong. It’s being stored there presumably so people don’t keep emailing large files to work on but can simply link to it, in preparation for a roll out of an actual promotion matrix in October.

Yes - but if this is how they are using it then they are using it incorrectly. Sharepoint has all manner of permissions, and if this is truly a working document it should be in an area hidden from view for those not involved. It should not be appearing in the ACO Key Documents library.

Edited to add: I suspect they have uploaded this ‘working copy’ as a place setting, because ACP20 now refers to it and they didn’t want people being referred to a non-existent form. My earlier point still stands, however, in that if it is not current, it should be watermarked as draft.


Yes you’re right, it should be marked as draft in some way. That’s a good suggestion for the VoV team?