however they have no say who wears the SNCO uniform as that is not OASC…(some of whom will be those who failed OASC! - it happens) so your argument falls down
OASC - O = Officer, A = Aircrew, ie not officer, but SNCO.
we know that the wait for OASC is long enough for potential officers and probably one reason why the SNCO route has not included OASC
^^This
I can’t say I have seen any difference in how regulars have treated me or any other CFAVs be that SNCOs, Officers as VRT, or as CFC.
in my experience it is the individual who decides who we are, some glorified scout leaders, others as decided fools volunteers and some who are ex-Cadets “get us” and know what we’re trying to achieve.
Really? I’ve seen dreadful officers come through the OASC route. Probably more than I’ve seen bad ones who came through the old route. Maybe that’s because of the time lag weeding out the rubbish ones so used the old route but let’s not kid ourselves that OASC only produces good officers.
i’d like to think regulars can tell the difference between SNCOs and Officers
i will however accept this - regardless of rank the attitude in my experience is the same - a CFAV is a CFAV regardless of rank
either regulars understand what we do and accept us, or see us as a lower form of society and look down upon us all
or that Wing’s listen to the results offered.
i know of a case where someone was “not recommended for Commission” who was later appointed by Wing…
So for some it is just a tick box hoop to jump through as Wing decide anyway!
(although i am yet to hear any examples of a pass at OASC and not appointed by Wing)
The old route was truly dreadful, it was seriously an old boys network. Having been around long enough to see both I know which produces better consistency
If people don’t score highly enough at OASC, they can still be recommended and appointed a CFC with the Regional Commandant approval…
I was a chat with the Gp Capt for a VR(T) commission and I think I’ve done alright, so we might as well bring it all back “in-house” to make it more practical and convenient, standards have changed and time has moved on.
Do away with white stripes outside of Cranwell for both cadre and make OIC/SSIC the assessment courses.
Mail out shoes in advance, get the rest of your uniform on arrival, save anyone scrounging from Sqn stores or taking a day out of their life to get measured. Everyone arrives equal.
There’s no pre training that requires a uniform.
Both officers and NCOs are then internally assessed and accepted through the same process by the same team. Equality and consistency.
Apart from those who were RAFAC staff before joining up I would bet most regulars don’t know that we do OASC. Even if they did they would know it is watered down so give no credit for someone attending it.
We also have a massive amount of people still in the organisation who were pre OASC and generally I couldn’t tell the difference between the old and new people.
Personally, I loved OASC and I am strongly for keeping it, mostly from a personal development view. I sat the ‘old style’ OASC back in 2018 prior to the recent changes.
For me, overcoming OASC was a massive confidence boost and I learnt a lot about myself. It was also really good fun. It throws you in the deep end and IMO uncomfortable situations. Truth be told, I scored most in my interview and I actually believe it is what gave me my overall pass. Nevertheless, I’d happily redo OASC for the experience and to be able to give it a better shot!
I agree with @anon9987823, we wear their uniform and it is a privilege to do so, therefore they (RAF) should have a say in it. Although, I also agree that this is a huge debate now with the introduction of the CFC.
I have often argued that OASC could be more volunteer friendly, particularly towards staff whom work in education. However, it’s likely constrained by how we fit into their timescales and being lower down the priority ladder.
Overall, I think it would be sad to lose it. I feel like I’ve earned my commission, even if it is a CFC and I’m proud to have done so. I don’t mean this in a derogatory way towards those that had RC interviews, I mean on a personal level. Pride is subjective after all.
Isn’t OASC designed to look for leadership potential anyway? So you could have loads of potential but never live up to it, resulting in an incompetent officer?
For what its worth, I really enjoyed OASC. It was such a fantastic, intense and wholesome experience. I found the national approach a valuable side - so everyone is unknown to you in your syndicate - knocking out most bias.
Indeed, that is apparent from looking around both the pre-OASC and OASC cadre of CFAVs. There is little difference in the end product, their leadership capabilities are the sum of many experiences in their life and not a few days at Cranditz.
Describing someone else’s opinion as ‘utter rubbish’ is utter rubbish in itself. Surely the whole idea of a forum is to gain the views and opinions of others without being so dismissive?
We have no credibility, and frankly, nor should we. We’re playing elaborate dress up.
And even if we take your point to be valid, why is that only relevant to officers? Why aren’t SNCOs afforded the same courtesy?
The OASC process has changed so much (and will continue to change and evolve) that your experience once will be of little relevance to a cadet looking at going through the system a year later, let alone 5, 10 or more years in the future. And I speak as someone who went through that process and was a regular.
) based, supposedly, on OASC recommendation