Officer Cadet RAF VR(T) - Salute or not?

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
101

[quote=“tango_lima” post=15579]

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]

That was the point I made (can’t remember if it was on this thread or not).
I originally got involved with the Sqn just to set up ‘Radio’ (as a fully licensed Radio Amateur) with no intention of getting involved any further but got persuaded to apply to be a CI with a view to going into uniform but sadly have now been told I’m too old (over 50) for the uniform bit.

Now after a few months, I think the only need to be in Uniform is for certain Admin and some specific ‘military’ skills (I could well be wrong but that is how it seems as a newbie). I could even argue that with some of my MoD civil service experience I could easily be converted into some of the ‘military skills’ areas still as a CI (but would perhaps look better in uniform ;))

102

On the subject of Cadets going straight into Staff uniform I have to agree with having a break, perhaps not from the Corps but from the Squadron attended as a Cadet.

At 20 I left as a Cadet, was appointed a CI and immediately applied for a uniform position, I also moved unit (and Wing, due to university more than my desire or by request of Wing*) it took 10 months to be appointed into uniform and was obviously a CI during that time.
It was my third Sqn but my first experience “in the office”, I had a fresh start and although could build on my experience as a Cadet at two other units, was a CI with no known history or expectations. I was adopted into the Staff team as a member of Staff rather than as an ex-Cadet and having no prior experience with the Staff I was working with stepped up to the role of Staff and their level, rather than “rest of my laurels” (as some ex-Cadet CIs tend to do) as my “laurels” were not know in this unfamiliar unit and Wing.

I personally didn’t enjoy being a CI, but it did teach me an appreciation and understanding of the position. I know my route was unusual, moving Wings, but I think removing any links to being an ex-Cadet was the best move for me, I had to switch on and instantly adopt the professional Staff attitude and I believe made me a better Staff member as I took the role of Staff and CI seriously rather than “the next step” in my progression at the same Squadron.

*although I will add it is recommended and highly encouraged in our Wing that straight-to-staff-ex-cadets do visit another Sqn for a period of time, typically 3-6 months.

I really don’t think there is a quick fix or any real solution to the question of “what rank should newly uniformed Staff/Cadets be appointed into”, not until the role of CI and Sgt are better defined, understood and appreciated.

CIs are expected to go into uniform and looked down upon if they don’t want to, and far too often not offered the respect (or dignity!) that they righty deserve
As such there is a bad taste amongst uniform and CIs alike being seen by both parties as “just a CI”
Sgt can be/is seen as a “training” rank given it sits at the bottom of the rank structure. This is the wrong attitude and is one which is so widely experienced it is seen in this thread, going further down the rank structure as the suggested first appointment. The lower the rank the more of a “training” role people are applying to it. Appointment to Sgt, much like it is for commission should go to the right people with the right attitude.
Much like the regular SNCO who work through the ranks taking 12, 15, 20 years to reach Sgt are annoyed at seeing a 21 yr old Sgt (ATC), I am still annoyed when I see a Sgt (ATC) who isn’t up to scratch and gaining “on the job” (read “in the uniform”) training.
When I was a Sgt there was nothing to distinguish me against these “training” Sgts and frustrated me that I was tarred with the same brush.

As such I approve of the idea of a “training for uniform” rank and don’t agree that “CI” covers that requirement well enough as not all CIs can be categorised the same way.
There will always be CIs who are not suited for uniform, either though personal interest/enthusiasm, commitments elsewhere or simply age, while at the same time CIs who are working towards a uniformed position and so we have two streams of CI (much like the two versions of a Sgt) which causes the confusion of what a CI actually “is” so yes, why not have a “training rank” at least then we can better define our CIs and treat them accordingly and distinguish those who are looking for a SNCO/commission route via the “training rank

103

I do think having a separate place for those CIs who are under training to go into uniform is a great idea. Distinguish between people who are happy to be CIs, and show people that they are under training (more than the stupid system of Off Cdt or Sgt with a white band nonsense).

I also agree there should be a check list of things to achieve before you can be appointed a Sgt/Plt Off, such as:

First Aid Qual
"Specialist" course - be it AT qual, shooting qual, sports. Whatever it is it must be an NGB course that people are willing to keep up to date.
Attend a basic drill course (would be run over a weekend by wings)
an MOI course (unless this is one of your specialist quals).
A SExO course (Sqn Executive Officers). Explain roles of adj, stores, trg off and OC
Must attend 1 camp.

I would give people 2 years to achieve all this, and they would be off cdts (uncommissioned) or AC (ATC). This would allow them to start wearing uniform, but only on sqns. On camps they will still be honorary CIs, so wear civvies and stay in the Sgt’s Mess with the rest.

I would also like to see them undertake a key role on a sqn once they’ve done a SExO course to gain experience for a minimum of 6 months, with support from a wing training team and the OC.

104

I wonder how the ACO survived 20-40 years ago without all these trivial suggestions.

105

Surviving and thriving are different things though aren’t they.

As you well know, the organisation has completely changed from what it was 40 years ago, and significantly from 20 years ago. Are you telling me you don’t think there’s a problem with the way the current system works?

106

[quote=“pEp” post=15607]Surviving and thriving are different things though aren’t they.

As you well know, the organisation has completely changed from what it was 40 years ago, and significantly from 20 years ago. Are you telling me you don’t think there’s a problem with the way the current system works?[/quote]

I just think we’ll get a lot further using our current structure more efficiently than over-complicating it to the point of absurdity.

107

[quote=“Baldrick” post=15608][quote=“pEp” post=15607]Surviving and thriving are different things though aren’t they.

As you well know, the organisation has completely changed from what it was 40 years ago, and significantly from 20 years ago. Are you telling me you don’t think there’s a problem with the way the current system works?[/quote]

I just think we’ll get a lot further using our current structure more efficiently than over-complicating it to the point of absurdity.[/quote]

This

108

We fear change :dry:

109

I fear shotgun wielding zombies.

110

[quote=“pEp” post=15602]
I also agree there should be a check list of things to achieve before you can be appointed a Sgt/Plt Off, [/quote]

YES, YES and YES again!
i couldnt agree more

to get promoted as a SNCO you need to jump through hoops, yet to be appointed all you need as a prerequesit for consideration is an interest.

the minimal level of experience Sgts have ranges from being a parent of a Cadet with no previous Cadet or regular service, includes those with 10, 12, 15+ years as a regular having seen various tours and deployments, yet potentially no formal qualifications to help the Sqn/ATC other than experience as a usuable “skill” right through to Ex-Cadets (FS/CWO) who know the train set, understand how it operates, and how it works
which doesnt seem very “uniform” in the same way there is a minimum requirement for FS or WO

i like the list pEp offers too, it is very achieveable, and offers a realistic “minimum” expectation from a uniformed member of Staff, they have an appreciatable skills, and a broad experience and understanding of the organisation/running of the Sqn and what occurs off Sqn/opportunites for the Cadets.

we have to justify why our 18+ Cadets should be permitted to stick around, why dont we adopt the same process to put someone into uniform?

111

[quote=“steve679” post=15595]On the subject of Cadets going straight into Staff uniform I have to agree with having a break, perhaps not from the Corps but from the Squadron attended as a Cadet[/quote]I would tend to agree, BUT: there are a large number of people timing out as a cadet who can’t drive and/or don’t have a car or access to one.

I’d love to mandate that everyone has to have a two-year break from their old unit as they transition, but it’s not always possible.

112

I know of a Wing who’ve introduced a system of 2-year ‘mentoring’ (as I understand it, basically little more than semi-regular “is it all going ok?” meetings with a WSO) for ALL uniformed staff upon appointment and at each promotion.
Apparently, this is to solve a problem…there have been issues with some staff not properly fitting into their new rank.

Surely a better way to address the problem would be to not appoint/promote people who aren’t fit for the position; instead of placing extra work load on a WSO to attempt to ‘make them fit’?

Proof, if any extra were needed, that the current system isn’t being used properly/isn’t working.

113

Umm…

114

[quote=“Baldrick” post=15608][quote=“pEp” post=15607]Surviving and thriving are different things though aren’t they.

As you well know, the organisation has completely changed from what it was 40 years ago, and significantly from 20 years ago. Are you telling me you don’t think there’s a problem with the way the current system works?[/quote]

I just think we’ll get a lot further using our current structure more efficiently than over-complicating it to the point of absurdity.[/quote]

The constant ‘patches’ to the current system to make it work are what’s making it complicated. It needs rebuilding.

115

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=15640]I know of a Wing who’ve introduced a system of 2-year ‘mentoring’ (as I understand it, basically little more than semi-regular “is it all going ok?” meetings with a WSO) for ALL uniformed staff upon appointment and at each promotion.
Apparently, this is to solve a problem…there have been issues with some staff not properly fitting into their new rank.

Surely a better way to address the problem would be to not appoint/promote people who aren’t fit for the position; instead of placing extra work load on a WSO to attempt to ‘make them fit’?

Proof, if any extra were needed, that the current system isn’t being used properly/isn’t working.[/quote]

I completely agree.

I would say however (outside those who shouldn’t be in the uniform in the first place) that there should be some more support, training and mentoring for Pilot Officers. Otherwise how can anyone (namely Wing Staff) catagorically say that they are of the ‘standard’ to be promoted to Flying Officer?

It would seem that we rely on the individual not incurring any negatives which would stop/delay the promotion, rather than positives which support a promotion! :ohmy:

116

Quite.

There does need to be a greater emphasis on staff development, thought ideally it shouldn’t be used as a post-fix for people who’ve been promoted above their competency.

117

I think we would have a lot fewer units around if we had to wait for people to volunteer to become OC’s of units. :whistle:

118

Can I throw in a controversial statement:

We should be commissioning people as young as possible, to increase the level of experience that they get as a commissioned officer before becoming an OC.

Let’s face it, quite often the 25-35 single officer is in the best position to be in charge - they have the spare time and energy to devote to the role, and hopefully sufficient experience to do it well. Some of the best OCs I’ve known have fitted into that bracket. And some of the worst are those that have been doing it for 20 years and are stuck in a rut (although I am by no means saying that all highly experienced OCs are like this, before anyone jumps on me!)

119

Most appointments / promotions are approved by WSOs on the say so of a Sqn Cdr, because the Sqn Cdr sees them on a regular basis and will know them better than someone who pops in every once in a while. Who would people confide in some WSO who doesn’t really know them or their Sqn Cdr? The over-riding problem is that you work with someone and they ‘fit the bill’ and you support the move. Then something changes in their lives and all of a sudden they change. This happens in the real world and I imagine people would relish someone to suggest how you overcome this.

I find it intriguing that the suggestion is that people do as much, if not more in some ways for a hobby than they would have to for their paid employment. What is needed to borne in mind that the ATC, like it or not, is a spare time activity and people will put in as much as their work and family allows, something I feel people seem IMO to forget. I had a very frank exchange with my SWSO when I was a WO on that point. Even as a Sqn Cdr I cannot insist that people turn up and or do things and then get all snotty about it when they don’t. You need people to staff the sqn, push too hard and they walk away and you are up the creek. The ATC needs people in uniform (unless it changes the rules) to operate, more than people need to be in a uniform for their ATC experience. Put too many not exactly insurmountable barriers in their way and even if they are the most suitable person, if they feel it’s too much aggro for not a lot of reward, they won’t do it. How many Wings are in a position of being near (within 10%), at or over-establishment for uniformed staff? Every year for as many Commanding Officers’ Conferences I have been to, as a Wing we haven’t been anywhere near establishment for Officers WOs and later SNCOs. This repeated around the Corps and tells its own story IMO.

While yes there may be a need to do something, suggesting more stringent processes isn’t neccessarily the way. I’ve got 2 CIs who would make fine Officers, but don’t want to go through OASC, as it seems a little too much like going for a job to enjoy a hobby. They can do everything that they want to as CIs.

The only way to enforce things down the uniformed path, is to do away completely with Civilian Instructors and only have uniformed staff.

120

[quote=“MattB” post=15658]Can I throw in a controversial statement:

We should be commissioning people as young as possible, to increase the level of experience that they get as a commissioned officer before becoming an OC.

Let’s face it, quite often the 25-35 single officer is in the best position to be in charge - they have the spare time and energy to devote to the role, and hopefully sufficient experience to do it well. Some of the best OCs I’ve known have fitted into that bracket. And some of the worst are those that have been doing it for 20 years and are stuck in a rut (although I am by no means saying that all highly experienced OCs are like this, before anyone jumps on me!)[/quote]

I think it’s certainly true to say that the average age of OCs across the corps is probably 40+ which I think can lead to a problem. There’s definitely room for experience but we should look to have more younger staff of all kinds in the corps first!