I am yet again facing the possibility of having to move the dates for my OASC because the dates OASC initially dish out have changed again.
As I work full time in the NHS, I find difficult to get annual leave etc due to staff shortages and pressures etc.
This will be the third OASC booking I have had to change due to changes in dates. Maybe it’s time that OASC could be ran more locally at regional HQs over one day with maybe the interview stage at the end of said day or soon after. Surely this is viable, since it is now a CADET force commission and not a military one.
With the Group Captain being FTR. My thinking is they should be in the position to judge if they are the right person due to experience etc to represent the RAF…even though we arent in it…but you know what i mean
Not so sure, the many facets of the cse are all linked together. If you curtail one area, then this could cause weaknesses in others. OASC do this as a full-time tour of duty, so have the expertise / experience; if you move “externally” then I think that this would weaken the final product.
Surely the whole reason for moving to OASC model was because the Group Captains weren’t upto the task of handpicking every Officer?
If we were to start running our own OASC I’d want the course open to all staff, the WeXO’s now often don’t have any previous military service or Cadet Service they are just Civil Servants.
Why carry on doing it? We’re only RAF when it suits the RAF for us to be, we all know that. This hurdle only makes things unnecessarily difficult and gives illusions of grandeur to the walts. OASC is set up to assess leadership potential of future warfighters - which we’re not. Let’s stop feeding the narrative.
This is disgusting, and just shows how volunteers are NOT Valued by the organisation. The move of VR(T)/RAFAC to OASC was clearly to fill their down time with a reduction of RAF Officers, now that’s increasing we are being shunned to the detriment of our organisation.
I think you should post about this on the Valuing our Volunteers SharePoint Page and get input from RC(N) as the face of the Corps on this issue.
Wouldn’t work if they kept the current format. You’d have wildly differing standards across the Corps. Plus elements like planning exercise, leadership tasks wouldn’t work.
So it either needs to change entirely or stay the same at the same location.
I actually enjoyed OASC and found it put me in a great position to help the cadets who want to proceed to OASC.
Don’t get me wrong. I am actually looking forward to OASC.
It’s just hard for many to get the time off given that it is midweek and it is even harder when you do finally get leave approved for OASC, just for the dates to be changed again.
I would quite like the person do the assessing to have a clue what they are going on about.
At least with the current system the people doing the assesssing have been through the process themselves, if we took it away from the RAF and did it in house, again I would like someone who has been there and done it to do the assessing.
Most of the WeXO’s have neither been their nor done it and therefore shouldn’t be put in a position where they are involved in the selection of potential volunteers at any level.
Not really - if you want the same standard across the ACO, then no argument, it has to be centrally done at Cranwell. The Board is unbiased & has the necessary experience (& on-going checking of standards).
i am not arguing if it should be at Cranwell or not (although agree if the same standards are to be met then yes a “Central” team at Cranwell makes sense)
I am simply highlighting that if there is a requirement for the “person assessing to have a clue what they are on about” surely that person is better being a CFAV to select for a CFAV role rather than the RAF???
How many of the assessors have been a VRT/RAFAC Commissioned officer? How many were even CFAVs?? perhaps some were Cadets but does that qualify them to have a clue about the RAFAC Officer role?