absolutely!
it reflects badly on Wings for sending poor candidates/candidates who don’t succeed, as well as giving the individual a negative having put the effort in (even if it simply getting there) so within everyone’s interest to send the right people - that is decided by interview (although predict some people that is just a formality) so what does OASC offer…??
and what does it offer our Officers which are SNCOs are exempt?
Direct Entry SNCOs to the Royal Air Force, notably NCA but apparently also now ASOS, are required to go through OASC.
What is the actual reasoning whereby commissioned candidates for service with RAFAC are required to be boarded via OASC, and re-hangered at OIC: but appointed RAFAC ASNCOs are not (either at filter or during SSIC)?
Is it just the sheer logistics of numbers? I have heard repeated rumours (unconfirmed) that the OASC ‘production line’ has had masses of headroom for years, so there’s a contradiction happening here.
Or is there another underlying reason?
this adds to my questioning.
previously which ever flavour it was a board by Wing (sometimes Region as well depending on when/circumstance) and appointed sent off to Cranwell for training.
Now it is the same, but Officers are selected with a pass/fail result yet the SNCOs remain on the same system.
Does this imply that Local boards were not strict or consistent enough for Commission and so needed a central location where the bar would be fix. (yet the standard of SNCOs was fine to not need the same interference)?
or
Does this imply that the standards of the Officers coming through these local boards was poor, and a “better” system of selection was required? (which in turn indicates that the quality of SNCOs coming through the local boards is fine)
or
Does this imply that standard of appointed Uniformed CFAV needed improving, but sending all RAFAC uniform candidates would flood OASC and so officers is the best compromise, as we can accept “low standard” SNCOs/would rather select for Officers?
or is it as simply as is often reported on ACC (and again by Wilf_san), the OASC staff were under-worked due to lower recruitment and adopting the RAFAC Commission candidates would help fill the gaps?
No one considered the RAFAC SNCOs as “direct entry” so didn’t include them/felt that OASC would be too much for SNCO candidates (or too much for OASC)/there is no need to raise the standard of the RAFAC SNCOs…!?
Tbh I question how stringent some wing filters are.
Some people on my OIC had never done drill and some had worn their blues once. Yet you have to be signed off as competent in drill before you arrive at Cranwell for OIC… mystery!
I’d assumed it was set up while we still had the “2 streams”; when SNCOs were ATC, and Officers were RAFVR(T). Therefore the RAF didn’t care if the SNCOs were at x standard.
But OASC at Cranwell doesn’t affect that.
does that imply then that as we are all “Civilians” there is less justification for OASC?
why pass a military test to be a civilian leader?
Not so much imply, but directly question, yes.
Especially now RAF recruitment has gone back up a bit compared to the slump of a few years ago. Let’s give them their capacity back and skip that step, it doesn’t add anything.
Yeah, I know. I was just talking about wing filters generally. 
Confidence is the main positive I took from OASC.
I would 100% advocate to keep it and it still gives a sense of earning the commission rather than just being given it by talking the talk.
What was the outcome Valiant for these people at OIC, did they perform poorly at drill? Did any not graduate ?
Everyone graduated. You are marked non-competent, competent, highly competent and outstanding. If you are marked non competent in an area then you are just given feedback to improve.
We had some people who were marked non-competent, e.g in drill, and they still passed OIC.
The course is absolutely brilliant.
i had a very similar experience.
I’ve not known anyone fail OIC (or SSIC), but performance can be woefully reported on with lots of "non-competent"s
OIC/SSIC are training courses, not pass/fail selection courses - the selection process (be that a board or board and OASC) has already been done and the end result is simply finishing the course.
Presumably those makes None Competent have to repeat that element locally?
It seems on that those who should be setting the highest standards can graduate without achieving them.
I don’t think it is a requirement.
Although I have heard something along the lines of, someone that was graded graded non-competent in drill, was not allowed on public parade until deemed competent. However I take stories like that with a pinch of salt.
Yet others it’s like SAS selection
2 on my OIC failed.
But that was in 2012. Pre snowflake.
Sounds like we were on the same course!
(We’ve heard back as of Monday)
Also heard back now too - so off to OIC it is then…!
I’ve heard lots of horror stories about OIC - you’ll need time to do homework etc in the evening… But looking at the course break down in the notes on sharepoint it seems that you turn up, do the training, learn something, and enjoy yourself. In the evenings a little bit of uniform prep and review your notes for the day - I wonder if some people like to make it sound more traumatic than it actually is! (much like they did for OASC!!!)