OASC Opinions

[glass_half_empty_2]

as the old and bold leave and the oasc officer becomes more dominant the types of staff that let the side down should decrease

This is a combination of blind faith, supposition and conjecture. It’s a just like voting in an election, you vote for someone who broadly supports your views/opinion and you put faith in them, hoping that things will become more to your liking, whether they do or not, will only be borne out over the coming years. Only difference we weren’t allowed a say on a change in the system. Don’t get me wrong I felt there needed to be change in the system, but it should have been at the next stage, with more emphasis on what it means to be an Officer,in the ATC and being able to deal with the many and varied curved balls that come your way. Those that are deemed lacking go away to acquire real world experience. Too much preparation for staff seems to be about marching up and down and not what really happens at squadrons.

A few people here seem to be putting their faith in OASC in turning round, what they seemingly regard as decades of decline, but we’ll only know this in a minimum 10 years, but more like 20, which is when the “improved leadership” skills OASC supposedly recognises, will come to the fore at squadron level, as they may have had a few years in the big chair and be filtering in to Wing Staff. If this decline people speak about had been real, then I doubt we would have an organisation now.

It is worth remembering that no matter how good the new breed will be compared to all of the supposed duffers who have gone before, they are still youth organisation volunteers, doing the ACO in their spare time and sneaking more and more time at work, as there are only so many “spare” hours in the day, which as a sqn cdr the ACO seems to be increasingly happy eating into. So regardless, the new breed of VR(T) will suffer the same problems wrt ACO/work/home life and other interest balance that we all struggle with. As I don’t see any part of the process / training that covers this or even mentions it fleetingly, this won’t change. Which then makes going to OASC no more relevant but more stressful than sitting down for a chat with an RC, ARC and A N Other Wg Cdr,

[noah_claypole]

GHE2 you’re completely missing the point and you should stop taking personal offence that OASC ‘probably’ sets a higher standard of Officer than the previous system did. If you’re not one of the people who let down the organisation then what are you worried about?

Additionally try comparing apples to apples for a change - time and work life balance, along with challenges an Officer faces are the same if you went through either system and therefore irrelevent - the point is that the OASC Officer is a consistent ‘product’ which the old system did not provide. End of.

[glass_half_empty_2]

OK potentially consistent (not something I particularly relish when related to people), but please let’s stop with this OASC derived VR(T) will be better, because they won’t be. By saying they will be a higher standard ergo better, is disrespectful to generations of officers who were bloody good, especially when none of those VR(T) who have been through OASC will have been around long enough to make a judgement on, one way or the other. I don’t understand why questioning this is such a problem for people, has to be better than going along with the crowd? Unless we are all supposed to just ask how high and how wide? Our management at work would think they’ve moved into a alternate universe if we just went along with everything they suggested. May be this is the difference between the military and civilian workplace. It would make our CO’s get togethers very dull indeed.
Intriguingly many of those at HQAC went through OASC and I don’t think we all feel they are all the mutt’s nuts. Which throws a question into the consistent ergo better argument for VR(T) coming through OASC. IIRC there has only been one Commandant who has been eulogised about, the others, people haven’t always been so complimentary about.

[incubus]

@"glass half empty 2" post=22967

but please let’s stop with this OASC derived VR(T) will be better, because they won’t be. By saying they will be a higher standard ergo better, is disrespectful to generations of officers who were bloody good…,

Nobody is denying that the ACO had some good officers before the OASC path was introduced, not least those officers who got their VR(T) commissions by the old method

The trouble is that there were a significant number of oxygen thieves who managed to get their commissions through the old system too because the RC thought their face would fit at the bar or some other utterly subjective group of criteria. Similarly, there were potentially excellent officers who were rejected for much the same reason.

We have moved to a system with a greater level of consistency and a higher level of confidence in the choices made. We will still end up commissioning some prats just as we will continue to reject people for seemingly tenuous reasons but there will be greater transparency and I do believe that the ratios will slide in a favourable direction.

On top of that, the process itself is valuable to the candidates in numerous ways, whether they pass or fail.

[glass_half_empty_2]

No system is infallible and I would find it very hard to believe that a few regulars don’t get through OASC and IOT on a nod/wink/handshake or have people wondering on how on earth.

[Plt_Off_Prune]

No system is infallible and I would find it very hard to believe that a few regulars don’t get through OASC and IOT on a nod/wink/handshake or have people wondering on how on earth.

You are a troll and don’t deserve the pixels on a screen

[cygnus_maximus]

Not a troll Prune, I would say an utter [color=#ff0000][IDIOT] :worthy: [/color]

GHE2, is your New Year’s Resolution to [color=#ff0000][ANNOY][/color] as many people as possible?

No system is infallible and I would find it very hard to believe that a few regulars don’t get through OASC and IOT on a nod/wink/handshake or have people wondering on how on earth.

This may have happened years ago, but as with most things, especially these days, everything has to be accountable and auditable. The Boarding Officers will record their decisions, and their rationale and evidence for making them. People do wonder why some get through, but don’t believe that it isn’t questioned. I was an instructor at Cranwell and had a couple of iffy Phase 2 students; we asked for their OASC and IOT reports to check their backgrounds and used that to eventually back course them for further training.

Whilst there may be nepotism within the selection process for Regular officers of all 3 services, I doubt that even senior members of the VR(T) have the clout to achieve the same thing with the Board at OASC.

[glass_half_empty_2]

Maybe it’s a personal thing or how I was brought up, not to take offence nor nor be afraid to ask questions nor herded to just accept a consensus perspective, but why do people take offence at questions and POV that don’t just accept decisions made that affect what we are and how we do things?

[cygnus_maximus]

Because you don’t debate a point GHE2, you take a completely anti-establishment and anti-authority view every time regardless of what the discussion is. Every single time, your arguments come down to that it is the fault of HQAC or the RAF or someone in authority. You never accept what pressures they may have on them, nor do you appear to see any other perspective to an issue other than your own seemingly very blinkered viewpoint.

In common with most on here I imagine, I too like debate and that is the point of this forum, informed debate or genuinely proffered advice. People are getting fed up with your endless moaning and whinging about higher authority. OK, our leaders perhaps aren’t the best, but I have no doubt that they do what they do with the best intent and with the underlying aim of making this organisation better. Unfortunately, very often their hands are tied by organisations external to the MoD, so it would be refreshing if you tried to see that and perhaps even acknowledged it sometimes.

[Jacques]

Because you don’t debate a point GHE2, you take a completely anti-establishment and anti-authority view every time regardless of what the discussion is.

Even if his opinions can be frustrating to hear, there are plenty of CFAVs that think in a similar way. I think it’s useful (and interesting) to hear GHE2’s opinions, even if they are sometimes a bit predictable.

While we do need to be aware of pressures on senior figures from above, CFAVs have a valid role in putting pressure on them from below. We need to fight our corner.

[Plt_Off_Prune]

There’s a different between fighting your corner and spouting off. One is constructive and one is just being an oxygen thief. If someone is concerned, don’t start gathering an army of supporters and ganging up - that is tantamount to mutiny.

[incubus]

When the sycophants and the institutionalised elders drive their version of the ACO vision we can find ourselves led astray so we need people who will put their heads above the parapet and sing a different song. Beware.

[glass_half_empty_2]

There’s a different between fighting your corner and spouting off…

Thin line between the two and very often go hand in hand.

[incubus]

[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=22987]There’s a different between fighting your corner and spouting off…

Thin line between the two and very often go hand in hand.[/quote]

It is very much a case of “you say potato”, or the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.
So long as it all stays civil then I welcome debate.

[MikeJenvey]

…I would find it very hard to believe that a few regulars don’t get through OASC and IOT on a nod/wink/handshake or have people wondering on how on earth.

Impossible for the time I was there. The students’ progress at DIOT was documented to the “n’th” degree; with regular performance reviews that were read by the “Front office” staff (the 2 adjutants, trg off + the sqn cdr). Whilst there was no requirement to do so at the time, I got a small rubber stamp made up - “Certified I have read & understood” for all reports that I read out to my students, then they signed by the stamped text - no dispute at review boards about “Nope, I wasn’t told about that weakness…”

On numerous occasions, someone from the Front Office would be watching a leadership exercise with your flight or observing other activities; they certainly knew who the stronger/weaker students were. In the latter part of the course, there was a “swap over” of flt cdrs = a fresh look at the students. Once, whilst doing a room inspection of another flt (no prior information about the students), I told one student (after a 2 min look at him & his room) in no uncertain terms, that he was “swinging the lead” - it was eminently clear, even in such a short time, that he just doing enough to get on by = insufficient effort; his flt cdr had been telling him this for 4 weeks!

Equally, there were no such thing as "you must graduate “x” students for each of “y” branch. If they didn’t make the grade, it was either extra trg on Recourse Sqn, or, hand your kit in & goodbye.

The only minor comment about standards - the student input varied slightly throughout the financial year. As a generalisation, the best students were those who arrived in early autumn - they had got their academic results first time & had always wanted to join the RAF (highly motivated, been in the ATC, had the best potential, etc!)

At the other end = those who perhaps hadn’t got their required academic scores & who then opted for the RAF as a second (third) career choice (maybe not able to enter university, etc); this latter group also coincided with the “intake” linked to end of the financial year with the recruitment organisation - they did have targets to meet = some candidates who wouldn’t have been considered at the start of the recruitment year (lots more higher calibre people ahead of them), would get put through to OASC.

Consequently, whilst everyone "passed’ OASC, those that hit OASC at the end of this recruitment period might well end up with a slightly lower OASC Board grade than the first group.

Probably somewhat different now looking at the number of different slots required for each branch.

[cygnus_maximus]

I appreciate where you’re coming from Incy, but a debate should be a discussion during which opposing arguments or counter opinions are put forward. When those opposing arguments or opinions are exactly the same, regardless of the subject under discussion, it gets a bit tedious.

[noah_claypole]

Maybe it’s a personal thing or how I was brought up, not to take offence nor nor be afraid to ask questions nor herded to just accept a consensus perspective, but why do people take offence at questions and POV that don’t just accept decisions made that affect what we are and how we do things?

I can assure you that I was brought up similarly, but I was also told that if I didn’t like something, or had a problem, then to think of a solution and do something, rather than just whinge about it.

[glass_half_empty_2]

Because you don’t debate a point GHE2, you take a completely anti-establishment and anti-authority view every time regardless of what the discussion is. Every single time, your arguments come down to that it is the fault of HQAC or the RAF or someone in authority. You never accept what pressures they may have on them, nor do you appear to see any other perspective to an issue other than your own seemingly very blinkered viewpoint.

I would just like to feel we had people with some gumption at the top end of the organisation. I can appreciate that there are pressures etc from the RAF, wider MoD and external bodies, BUT it would be nice to feel someone has stuck their neck out to challenge things, because to just accept it would mean that the cadets and or volunteer staff would be adversely affected. Maybe I am expecting too much for senior officers to query those above them or to even consider how we will be affected into account. But it just seems it comes down from on high and that’s that, regardless of whether it’s going to work or is it sensible given that we operate 2 nights a week for 2-2½ hours (effective 1½ - 2) and occasional weekends. What might be fine for the armed forces doing things “9-5” as such, with allowances made to do / attend things, might just be inoperable for us. As a result activities suffer and volunteer staff become disillusioned, demotiavted etc. There isn’t or doesn’t seem to be a review process where the views of the likes of us are sought. We always do a review of what we have done at the squadron each year, what has / hasn’t worked and what we can do to try and improve things. Which includes the cadet NCOs who give a good/bad/lke/dislike report from the cadets. We do a similar thing at work, we did last year’s review at work last week. Yet we don’t get or see that process from HQAC, it’s just you will do this/that and no consideration of the impact.

As for VR(T) going through OASC why wasn’t this put in place decades ago? Was capacity at OASC an issue? The RC chat for commissioning didn’t suddenly become, 3-4 years ago, a poor way to select VR(T). It had been questioned for years, yet the decision to change to using OASC was seemingly a sudden one.
A critical analytical eye cast over the decision, would (or should) ask why, after
a) reductions in the RAF’s flying fleet was announced and as a consequence related services meaning a need for fewer Officers
b) a series of options looking at losing ATC Regions (none of which happened) which would have meant fewer RCs
it was announced that OASC was how VR(T) would be selected?

I wonder what did the future hold for OASC after the cuts announced after the election in 2010? I would speculate that chats had didn’t think it looked particularly viable and needed something to justify it existence without too many (if any) job losses, enter stage right the VR(T). Whether it’s the right process as it stands for us needs to be analysed, reviewed and published. Given that people say it’s a transparent, accountable process, this should be easy.

[Baldrick]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons somewhat.

I heard that even now, even if OASC approve a candidate, the applications and OASC results are put before a sort of ‘duty’ regional commandant who has final say and can reject those that OASC say no to.

Whether they can accept those OASC reject is another question.

[MattB]

[quote=“cygnus maximus” post=22985]Because you don’t debate a point GHE2, you take a completely anti-establishment and anti-authority view every time regardless of what the discussion is. Every single time, your arguments come down to that it is the fault of HQAC or the RAF or someone in authority. You never accept what pressures they may have on them, nor do you appear to see any other perspective to an issue other than your own seemingly very blinkered viewpoint.

I would just like to feel we had people with some gumption at the top end of the organisation. I can appreciate that there are pressures etc from the RAF, wider MoD and external bodies, BUT it would be nice to feel someone has stuck their neck out to challenge things, because to just accept it would mean that the cadets and or volunteer staff would be adversely affected. Maybe I am expecting too much for senior officers to query those above them or to even consider how we will be affected into account. But it just seems it comes down from on high and that’s that, regardless of whether it’s going to work or is it sensible given that we operate 2 nights a week for 2-2½ hours (effective 1½ - 2) and occasional weekends. What might be fine for the armed forces doing things “9-5” as such, with allowances made to do / attend things, might just be inoperable for us. As a result activities suffer and volunteer staff become disillusioned, demotiavted etc. There isn’t or doesn’t seem to be a review process where the views of the likes of us are sought. We always do a review of what we have done at the squadron each year, what has / hasn’t worked and what we can do to try and improve things. Which includes the cadet NCOs who give a good/bad/lke/dislike report from the cadets. We do a similar thing at work, we did last year’s review at work last week. Yet we don’t get or see that process from HQAC, it’s just you will do this/that and no consideration of the impact.

As for VR(T) going through OASC why wasn’t this put in place decades ago? Was capacity at OASC an issue? The RC chat for commissioning didn’t suddenly become, 3-4 years ago, a poor way to select VR(T). It had been questioned for years, yet the decision to change to using OASC was seemingly a sudden one.
A critical analytical eye cast over the decision, would (or should) ask why, after
a) reductions in the RAF’s flying fleet was announced and as a consequence related services meaning a need for fewer Officers
b) a series of options looking at losing ATC Regions (none of which happened) which would have meant fewer RCs
it was announced that OASC was how VR(T) would be selected?

I wonder what did the future hold for OASC after the cuts announced after the election in 2010? I would speculate that chats had didn’t think it looked particularly viable and needed something to justify it existence without too many (if any) job losses, enter stage right the VR(T). Whether it’s the right process as it stands for us needs to be analysed, reviewed and published. Given that people say it’s a transparent, accountable process, this should be easy.[/quote]As far as I know, the ability to put people through OASC is a result of their having spare capacity.

So it may well have been that HQAC were looking to upgrade the process and then the solution sort of dropped into their laps.