It would a pretty boring site if we all agreed every time wouldn’t it. Ever heard of something called checks and balances?
Blimey, you’re worse than Michael Gove - don’t surround yourself with yes men all the time. :lol:
What about SNCO aircrew, are they an insult to regulars who have worked up the greasy pole?
Forget the connotation of the rank. It’s a position from which a person has a supervisory role in a cadet organisation, not an affront to regular service personnel.
I have yet to see a cogent reason why the system as it is needs changing.
Seen it, Read it, Know who wrote it. As I stated they will be accommodated in other appropriate accommodation. That can be either up rated or down rated accommodation. As for Hotels, they are not that expensive as this accommodation is cost capped.
At least the camp bed was provided.
Valid point and they receive their fair proportion of Banter for it regardless of reason for quickly picking up. When it comes to the cadet forces, if Service Personnel take issue, its general regardless of rank. Besides they have little to no idea of your credentials.
[quote=“bti” post=15482]I still think the ACF have got their training delivery model right with uniformed “Potential Instructors” (as has been mentioned elsewhere I think).
Select uniformed staff based on their potential (like the regulars) - then put a uniform on them ASAP so they can act in a uniformed capacity (under supervision) whilst they gain experience and complete any mandatory training at either Wg or Rgnl level, then have a “finishing course” at ATF and confirm them in appointment (i.e. on probation until this process is complete). This process should be a mandatory 6 months minimum and 18 months maximum.
So much of the training that is delivered at ATF could be delivered at Wg/Rgn (if standardised), e.g.
- Safeguarding
- H&S
- MOI
- Basic ATC & RAF GSK
- Drill
- Discipline procedures
- Dress regs
etc.
The current process is - IMHO - a complete waste of ATF’s time, resources, and expertise …ATF should be a finishing course which injects the “RAF” into the ATC and the course should concentrate on delivering training/experience that cannot be delivered elsewhere and by others, e.g. core values & standards based leadership, etc.[/quote]
I tend to agree with the sentiment but from a basis that the things we need to know about are done by people with practical experience of it on a rainy ???day evening in Anytown. The ATF course should be topline trimmed down to a 2/3 day course, with a mix of courses some over a weekend and some with the traditional Sunday arrival. Drill/dress to ensure it’s acceptable for what we do and seminars with senior HQAC staff so that CFAV know where they are coming from and vice versa. But the bulk of the ‘training’ is done at Wing/Region as suggested over a longer period.
Whilst I think that the Cpl option might have some merit, you also need to consider the ramifications for the rank whilst on a military base, be it for equivalent status, discipline issues, accommodation or messing.
Rank structure aside, on the few cses I’ve been on, it was all ranks messing, & all ranks in the same transit accommodation. One was all ranks (CI, Sgt, FO & Flt Lt) in the same 15 “man” room (on the delightful plastic mattresses on the equally delightful metal-framed beds).
As for SNCO aircrew, that’s how I started out in life before I had my brain removed to be a pilot. We ignored the banter based on the fact of higher qualifications & much more dosh! 
I did consider the messing situation - and I realised that of the six annual camps I’ve been on as staff, I’ve only been accommodated in the mess once!
So I don’t think that cpls should miss out on too much through accommodation issues.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some interesting ideas out there and I can see the rationale behind them, but its heresy to say it (and it’s been said before) why not just adopt the ACF model? Our current system isn’t too far from it as it is. They seem to have a very good training package to bring people up to speed.
I think most of the problems are created by individuals being allowed to wear a Uniform when really they either aren’t suitable (and unlikely to be) or, not quite ready to. Either way we need more robust checks in place to ensure that the right people go into uniform and for the right reasons.
Yes, as a result the number of Uniformed personnel might go down (in fact it will almost certainly), but at least we’ll have people in uniform who will be able to ‘handle’ their tapes and the position of responsibility that brings. Thus no need for any rank below SGT ATC.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=15560]What about SNCO aircrew, are they an insult to regulars who have worked up the greasy pole?
Forget the connotation of the rank. It’s a position from which a person has a supervisory role in a cadet organisation, not an affront to regular service personnel.
I have yet to see a cogent reason why the system as it is needs changing.[/quote]
I have to agree with Perry here, the problems with the current system are not due to the actual system, more an attitude of misuse. We have a perfect entry ‘rank’ already. It’s called Civilian Instructor.
All of the problems we have are due to the fact that CIs are undervalued and under respected. Make all staff serve a period as a CI and watch respect for the role increase. Pushing 20 year olds straight back into uniformed service means they don’t see a break between cadet service and staff service. Too many Sgts (and I say Sgt as in my experience 20 year old Pilot Officers are significantly rarer.) go from being a CWO one day to a Sgt the next and their attitude does not change one iota.
The transfer from cadet to Adult staff should have a break and and we always try and move an indevidual (where possible) from their original unit to one close by, for a short period if only to see a different way of doing things. It gives the cadet a break in their peer group and if they opt to return to there original unit, they have a different view and perspective of the cadets and staff.
If an adult comes in through the door they are supposed to spend a year as a CI learning the organisation? before they can apply for NCO or VRT. This may put off a few staff.
If you have a problem with the attitude of a cadet transitioning directly to uniformed staff at age 20, you have failed to handle period of Staff Cadet service correctly.
I still don’t buy the ‘spend some time as a CI and everyone will respect them more’ argument at all.
(a) Virtually every uniformed member of staff has spent at least some time as a CI, even if it’s just a few months or a year waiting for a board. I did, and so far as I could tell I was still exactly the same person, just wearing different clothes.
(b) CI should be an end in itself, not a step to other things. If nothing else, if no one who didn’t want to be a CI had to spend time as one, it might stop quite a lot of the badgering of CIs to go into uniform.
I don’t really see why we need to push 20 year old cadets straight into uniform with no break. I expect very different things from a 20 year old CWO than I do any Sergeant(ATC). Because the two roles are completely and intrinsically different.
To see staff cadet service as purely a probationary period for adult staff misses the point that they are still CADETS who are the product. The staff exist to serve the cadets, the cadets do not exist purely to bolster the staff.
I don’t really see why we need to push 20 year old cadets straight into uniform with no break. I expect very different things from a 20 year old CWO than I do any Sergeant(ATC). Because the two roles are completely and intrinsically different.
To see staff cadet service as purely a probationary period for adult staff misses the point that they are still CADETS who are the product. The staff exist to serve the cadets, the cadets do not exist purely to bolster the staff.[/quote]
I think the point is: they shouldn’t be.
Being a ‘cadet’ and being an adult are incompatible.
I also totally disagree that CI is an ‘entry rank’. CI should be for people with specialist non ‘military’ skills and knowledge or something you ‘retire’ to after being in uniform.
[quote=“Baldrick” post=15576]To see staff cadet service as purely a probationary period for adult staff misses the point that they are still CADETS who are the product. The staff exist to serve the cadets, the cadets do not exist purely to bolster the staff.[/quote]Isn’t that the point though?
The staff cadet should be 50/50, so the step to 100% adult staff shouldn’t be such a big one. That’s certainly what it was like when I was an instructor cadet - mostly staffing things, but also getting to do stuff for me occasionally (such as shooting, fieldcraft and flying).
The AAFC have a good staff rank structure as it is basically the same as the regulars
Personally I don’t believe that an introduction of additional staff ranks will change much at the moment, as I think the problem lies in the way the whole system of staff promotion is viewed.
It seems to me that people are being appointed and promoted under the current system who aren’t suitable.
My first step to ‘fixing’ things would be to tighten up the criteria.
The SNCO promotion ‘matrix’ (not really a matrix) is better than the ‘time served and here you go’ situation we had before but I think it’s still an inadequate, simple ‘box-ticking’ exercise.
“Attend a blues camp” - Check.
You don’t have to be any good. You could turn up, be utterly useless for a week, and get a tick for promotion to FS.
I’d suggest making FS (ATC) the standard top rank. Everyone can achieve it if they work hard.
Make it 6 years at Sgt, specific skills and/or qualification which bring something extra to the table, and perhaps even a course.
WO (ATC) should be reserved for a limited number of specific posts. To get to WO one should be absolutely top of their game. This is not the case currently.
This would mean that many people would stay at Sgt. Fine. Those who are good at the role would make FS, and the WOs in the Corps would be experts in their field.
The key should be Suitability, not just Eligibility.
If the LaSER review had been implemented well, that’s what we could have had by now. All it seems to have done is to take the old situation of having too many WO’s who don’t carry off the rank, and delay it by 8 years. It will have reduced the number of those WOs but the problem is still there. 300 poor WOs for example is better than 3000 poor WOs, but it’s still 300 too many. At the same time it’s also introduced a host of FS who don’t carry the rank either.
I think the Sea Cadet Corps have got it right in their progression from PO to CPO to WO; which as I understand it, is much like the system I’ve suggested above.
We make cadet promotions based upon merit.
With a number of vacancies we assess the suitability of the eligible cadets and appoint/promote the ones most deserving.
Why shouldn’t we do the same for Staff?
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=15557]…then see a 20 year old “SNCO” saunter into their mess.
[/quote]
20 year old SNCO aircrew?
As long as said 20 year old SNCO is respectful to those who call the mess home and is not acting like a tool then I don’t see the issue.
I have never been made to feel anything less than welcome by regular SNCOs when I have been staying in the mess, which I am sure is down to simply observing the above.
And surely it’s a lot better than having a 20 year old WO walk into the mess as in the past which is something I’m really glad can’t happen any more.
Agree. It’s very much a case of individual character.
I’ve followed other wings onto camps and met with a cold reception from the locals because the previous lot had annoyed everyone. I’m sure we all have.
It wasn’t just limited to young SNCOs. I know of time served WO(ATC) who’ve upset everyone they come into contact with.
I’ve almost always been able to ‘build bridges’ by talking to people like a normal person. Giving them the respect their position deserves but (I hope) coming across as a regular guy, rather than one of those weird ‘cadet instructors’.
I find the problems at either end of the scale are those who lord it up like an arrogant fool with an undeserved sense of self importance; and those who come across as totally subservient.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=15585]I’d suggest making FS (ATC) the standard top rank. Everyone can achieve it if they work hard.
Make it 6 years at Sgt, specific skills and/or qualification which bring something extra to the table, and perhaps even a course.
WO (ATC) should be reserved for a limited number of specific posts. [/quote]Agreed - I’ve always said that WO should be linked to Sqn Ldr - if the post has (or at least should have) a Sqn Ldr (or higher) boss then there is a post for a WO; eg sector WO, wing WO or WO on a very large unit.
1 Like
[quote=“born middle aged” post=15586][quote=“Racing Stick” post=15557]…then see a 20 year old “SNCO” saunter into their mess.
[/quote]
20 year old SNCO aircrew?
As long as said 20 year old SNCO is respectful to those who call the mess home and is not acting like a tool then I don’t see the issue.
I have never been made to feel anything less than welcome by regular SNCOs when I have been staying in the mess, which I am sure is down to simply observing the above.
And surely it’s a lot better than having a 20 year old WO walk into the mess as in the past which is something I’m really glad can’t happen any more.[/quote]
I know of messes where there have been huge issues with NCO aircrew and air traffic controllers. To the extent in at least one case of the mess basically becoming subdivided into the Sergeant’s (aircrew) Mess and the Sergeant’s (ex-Corporals) Mess. They had separate aircrew and ex-corporals functions…
And NCO Aircrew have gone through Halton, Cranwell and trade training, plus whatever other experience they might have. That’s very different from someone who’s been at ATF for a few days.
Fully agree with your conclusion on respect, etc, though.