[quote=“pEp” post=15661][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![/quote]
Why would being over 40 be a problem? You sound like a teenager for whom 40 is a lifetime away and anyone who is 40 is old and past it.
I know many 25-35 year olds who are single and have no more time for the ATC than someone who is married, with kids. They still work, many on shift, and still have families and relationships that take up time and divert attention away from the ATC. I know a few who are single and have children. Unless you want dullards who are orphans, celebate (by choice), teetotallers and only have the ATC in their ives, you won’t ever find this apparent panacea.
The question to ask is why aren’t there more youngsters who stay the distance of the initial few years? I don’t think very many fully understand what being the CO entails and the variety and breadth of life (not just ATC) experience that is required. Plus in the modern ATC the admin burden that sits with the role. I bet today I’ll spend a couple of hours doing ATC stuff at work, be that emails or phone calls. Never happened when I first took command.
I would love to pass the baton, but unless I force the issue by resigning, going NEP or applying for a Wing post, which will only destabilise the sqn while Wing scrabble around to get someone in who doesn’t want it anyway, it’s not going to happen. Since the introduction of OASC for officers, staff on my sqn are not keen, as it’s too much like a job interview process for a hooby.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=15672]Why would being over 40 be a problem? You sound like a teenager for whom 40 is a lifetime away and anyone who is 40 is old and past it.[/quote]No one is saying that being over 40 itself is a problem.
Being a grumpy middle-aged sort who is completely stuck in their ways, refuses to do anything differently and won’t countenance the slightest change is - and it has to be said that these types seem to be more prevalent amongst that demographic.
I’m not for a moment suggesting that all older OCs are like that - there are plenty of great ones too.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=15672]The question to ask is why aren’t there more youngsters who stay the distance of the initial few years? I don’t think very many fully understand what being the CO entails and the variety and breadth of life (not just ATC) experience that is required. Plus in the modern ATC the admin burden that sits with the role. I bet today I’ll spend a couple of hours doing ATC stuff at work, be that emails or phone calls. Never happened when I first took command.[/quote]Probably because they spend their first few years being sidelined as CIs, then get a uniform and are immediately dumped upon without having the experience or the realisation of the role.
[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.[/quote]
Flawed logic imo = If the amount of experience is the desired factor, then the age of the Officer is actually irrelevent, as there is no lower age limit to an individual becoming an OC.
Therefore the actual value required = a minimum time in uniform or completion of skills/competency based criteria being acheived before being selected as an OC.
One might argue that older Officers have more life experience, so ‘might’ complete this process quicker?
[quote=“noah claypole” post=15682][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.[/quote]
Flawed logic imo = If the amount of experience is the desired factor, then the age of the Officer is actually irrelevent, as there is no lower age limit to an individual becoming an OC.
Therefore the actual value required = a minimum time in uniform or completion of skills/competency based criteria being acheived before being selected as an OC.
One might argue that older Officers have more life experience, so ‘might’ complete this process quicker? ;)[/quote]
My point was that as it currently stands, if you get commissioned at some point in your twenties you’ll almost certainly end up in charge of a unit (unless you really don’t want to!).
Because of staffing issues, WSOs are going to want to fill posts ASAP. So where the choice is:
24 YO pilot officer just returned from Cranwell, did 3.5 years as a CI
or
24 YO flying officer, has been in an officer for 4 years
Then I know which would probably be the better route.
You have mentioned this twice now GHE2 in almost as many posts. I take it then that your staff would be quite happy to be officers if they did not have to go through officer selection? They want the status without the effort that should go with such status? The introduction of OASC has been a huge leap forward in ensuring that the ACO sets the foundations for a credible, half-decent officer corps for the future and in general, it appears to be well appreciated by those who attend as we have seen on here. I can understand a reluctance to join the commissioned cadre on the grounds of too much responsibility for too little appreciation or reward as we have often discussed, but just because they do not want to go through a professionally organised and respected selection process smacks of the wrong reasons to want to aspire to commissioned service in the first place, hobby or not.
Regardless of the value of having OASC, that should be seen as just the start, you cannot simply select people and then leave them to their own devices, the next stage after OASC has to be a proper officer development process to take the credibility to the next level. Such development has to include weekend courses (at Region or Wgs as necessary) and distance learning where appropriate, but equally important is proper mentoring whilst actually serving on a Sqn. As MattB rightly says, we too often throw our newly-commissioned officers in at the deep end with early Sqn command and wonder why they either fail, or become disillusioned. In 1982, I was given a Sqn after a year of commissioned service and to be honest, I didn’t have a clue what I was doing, I just happened to be the only officer on the Sqn at the time. Luckily, I had a very good WSO who helped me a lot, but without him, I probably would have sunk. Multiply the admin pressures by at least ten fold to today levels and I do not envy our new Sqn Cdrs, particularly the younger ones.
I realise it would take a huge change in mindset across our volunteers and the CoC but we must also get away from leaving people in one location for the entirety of their VR(T) careers and only ‘post’ them in extremis. Equally, Sqn command should go to the person most worthy by ability, not availability. By all means move newly-appointed officers to a different Sqn to settle to their role, but develop them when they are there. We should also have a distinct career path for those who have been identified as potential Sqn Cdrs. And yes, I do mean identify our brightest and best people early on and develop them appropriately; Sqn Adj, then Sqn 2i/c to Sqn Cdr or whatever route we see fit. However, I also realise that at the moment we probably do not have the base numbers to achieve the utopia I have outlined, but at least we can start sowing the seeds for it and get our people in the frame of mind to accept it.
I really think that people get too hung up on the rank and structure argument, when what will really make the difference, instead of tinkering at the edges, is to sort out the induction, training and development of staff.
This really needs more attention and guidance from the top down, but should be delivered botton up, starting at Squadron, Wing and maybe Region level, before culminating in the National Level HQ delivered courses.
My wing is doing reasonably well at this, up to uniformed appointment I believe, and is hopefully going to continue to develop this. However I think there should be much more support for development afterwards.
[quote=“mike whiskey” post=15689]I really think that people get too hung up on the rank and structure argument, when what will really make the difference, instead of tinkering at the edges, is to sort out the induction, training and development of staff.
This really needs more attention and guidance from the top down, but should be delivered bottom up, starting at Squadron, Wing and maybe Region level, before culminating in the National Level HQ delivered courses.
My wing is doing reasonably well at this, up to uniformed appointment I believe, and is hopefully going to continue to develop this. However I think there should be much more support for development afterwards.
MW[/quote]
I absolutely agree with you MW. The trouble is, that without the higher-level direction and policymaking, we get a huge variation in standards and content across the Corps. I actually think my Wg is pretty good at delivering staff training too (might be the same one!), but it could do much better, and we still miss things and don’t mentor junior staff anywhere near as much as we should. We also appoint on availability, not ability.
HQAC need to set the policy and standards, and design the initial career developmental training for lower formations to deliver. The higher-level development courses need to remain at ATF, with OACTU delivering the officers’ basic course.
It’s not stuck their ways, it’s looking at something from a position of experience knowing that it has been tried before and didn’t work then. Initially you give it a go and next time you do, but when it gets to the point where it’s just wheel reinvention for the sake of it, you do get into the grumpy-mindset as you have better things to do with your time. Lord knows how many graduate management trainees I’ve seen who all come along every other year, with the same ideas and it didn’t work first time and as nothing has really changed it ain’t gonna work now.
I’m sorry but the highlighted text doesn’t help matters. If this is what they’ve allowed themselves to become, then that’s their fault and no one elses and if they go into uniform and end up as suggested, they have no one but themselves to blame. You don’t get on in life sitting their with your thumb stuck where the sun don’t shine, waiting for it to happen. You have to get out there and do things, find things out and generally get stuck in and take full advantage of all opportunities. As I CI I went on camps, I went on courses and just did things at the sqn just because I am naturally inquisitive (no one will say no you can’t), so much so by the time I went into uniform as WO and then Commissioned I had accrued a reasonable level of knowledge and experience. I don’t personally think that I would have gained it had I gone straight into uniform from cadet as I would have been pigeon-holed and pushed down a particular path. Looking back I feel being a CI gave me a degree of freedom to explore the ATC, without being shackled to one thing.
I’m interested in the people who keep saying: ‘Why change the current system?’ and ‘Can’t we just make the current system more efficient?’
Because I don’t know what the current system is.
Are staff cadets probationary staff or just older cadets?
Is BASIC supposed to be delivered at Wing or by squadrons? Is it ok for someone to work through it as self study or do they have to do it as part of a group?
Are CIs a stepping stone to uniformed roles and an opportunity to develop new staff or is CI a role to be respected in its own right?
Is the Padre a member of staff?
Are SIs members of staff or ‘helpers’?
How involved in the squadron are members of the civilian committee? Should they hold DBS checks?
What actually makes someone a ‘CFAV’?
etc…
We don’t need to try and fix the system. We just need a system to start with.
It’s not stuck their ways, it’s looking at something from a position of experience knowing that it has been tried before and didn’t work then. Initially you give it a go and next time you do, but when it gets to the point where it’s just wheel reinvention for the sake of it, you do get into the grumpy-mindset as you have better things to do with your time. Lord knows how many graduate management trainees I’ve seen who all come along every other year, with the same ideas and it didn’t work first time and as nothing has really changed it ain’t gonna work now.
I’m sorry but the highlighted text doesn’t help matters. If this is what they’ve allowed themselves to become, then that’s their fault and no one elses and if they go into uniform and end up as suggested, they have no one but themselves to blame. You don’t get on in life sitting their with your thumb stuck where the sun don’t shine, waiting for it to happen. You have to get out there and do things, find things out and generally get stuck in and take full advantage of all opportunities. As I CI I went on camps, I went on courses and just did things at the sqn just because I am naturally inquisitive (no one will say no you can’t), so much so by the time I went into uniform as WO and then Commissioned I had accrued a reasonable level of knowledge and experience. I don’t personally think that I would have gained it had I gone straight into uniform from cadet as I would have been pigeon-holed and pushed down a particular path. Looking back I feel being a CI gave me a degree of freedom to explore the ATC, without being shackled to one thing.[/quote]
Woah, woah, woah. You’re blaming the CI for the uniformed staff sidelining THEM?!?! How on earth is that the CIs fault?
Er no.
If a CI or any member of staff feels sidelined the question they have to ask is, what am I doing.
What I am saying is that what seems to implied in many areas you take some responsibility for your own training and development. You will do it at work, so why not in the Corps? It is said to csdets on here when they ask how to get on, the message is invariably, make a pest of yourself, go to camps, do activities, go on courses etc etc and get seen in the right way. Surely the same applies to new staff?
I could have, quite easily, sat back 30 years ago when I became a CI, but no I got involved. Not because I was told or directed, but because I wanted to, had I not it could have become very dull, very, very quickly. Not suggesting for one minute it was always interesting, nor there wasn’t some degree of monotony as that’s life.
All the staff I have and have had get the same message, sit around and wait and that’s what will happen and life will become very dull and I will moan at you. Show me that you want to get involved and you will be and encouraged to do so. Part of my role is develop staff not spoon feed them and wipe their backsides.
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15694]Because I don’t know what the current system is.
Are staff cadets probationary staff or just older cadets?
[/quote]
Older Cadets, with potential to be Staff…their potential determined by on case by case basis
for us it is Wing delivered and thing that is the correct route
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15694]
Are CIs a stepping stone to uniformed roles and an opportunity to develop new staff or is CI a role to be respected in its own right? [/quote]
both
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15694]
Is the Padre a member of staff?[/quote]
yes - in effect a "traditional CI"
ours turns up at Sqn on average 3-4 times a month and obviously runs the “Padre’s hour”
Staff, they have a staff “profile” on SMS etc
a case by case basis.
DBD checks only if working regularly with the Cadets…which isnt really the role of a CivCom imo
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15694]
What actually makes someone a ‘CFAV’?[/quote]
now that is a question!
[quote=“tango_lima” post=15694]
We don’t need to try and fix the system. We just need a system to start with.[/quote]
[quote=“MattB” post=15683][quote=“noah claypole” post=15682][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.[/quote]
Flawed logic imo = If the amount of experience is the desired factor, then the age of the Officer is actually irrelevent, as there is no lower age limit to an individual becoming an OC.
Therefore the actual value required = a minimum time in uniform or completion of skills/competency based criteria being acheived before being selected as an OC.
One might argue that older Officers have more life experience, so ‘might’ complete this process quicker? ;)[/quote]
My point was that as it currently stands, if you get commissioned at some point in your twenties you’ll almost certainly end up in charge of a unit (unless you really don’t want to!).
Because of staffing issues, WSOs are going to want to fill posts ASAP. So where the choice is:
24 YO pilot officer just returned from Cranwell, did 3.5 years as a CI
or
24 YO flying officer, has been in an officer for 4 years
Then I know which would probably be the better route.[/quote]
Matt I know what you’re saying, but your logic is flawed.
In this example you would just end up with 21 YO Sqn Commanders, as it is unlikely in the scenario you suggest (if the Wing are so desperate to press new Officers into Command) to allow your Young Flying Officer 4 years grace before being ‘selected’ for Command.
Easy to say, hard to do, when there is not exactly a waiting list for the job ob Sqn Officer, let alone a surplus of Squadron Officers around.
I certainly believe that Officers should be allowed their ‘appreticeship’ at Pilot Officer, and Flying Officer before being asked to take on a command. I would argue that they should be at least ‘second tourists’ having done their first five years before it happens, but you need someone to do the job, and you select from those you have.
Ultimately the only answer is to increase the number of staff available, which means both the traditional approach of trying to recruit more staff, and also the harder to crack issue of retaining those we have, both by supporting Sqn OCs so they don’t get dissolutioned and leave, or cut back their committment, but also by supporting staff coming through the system so that they are happy and confident to step up when the time is right.
I’ve spoken to a lot of NCOs who feel they will never take a commission as they don’t want to be lumbered with a command or stuck in the office. People would not get stuck, nor feel lumbered if we had the staff to support them.
Controversially I think we also need more Wing staff to ensure Sqnadron Staff are supported, but again, you can’t do that until you have the numbers to start with.
There are a number of comments around what we currently call Staff Cadets, but as someone who did the old Staff Cadet, I don’t regard what we have currently as actually being able to take on any sort of ‘Staff’ role. They haven’t earned or achieved anything tangible and aren’t anywhere near as knowledgable as old style Staff Cadets were. Even Instructor Cadets aren’t really up to much. I’ve got two (Staff Instructor cadets no less) and when I told them what I wanted them to do (via the TO), which was parts of the Basic and Leading Cadet syllabus, they haven’t really delivered. I sat in on lessons and given these are Master Cadets their subject knowledge was poor and classroom control was appalling.
If we want to properly develop the older cadets, we should go back to the old style ACP42 Staff Cadet (call it something else maybe) but a defined process to achieve the highest classification, that requires them to prepare on a range of areas. In my day I had to know all of the ACPs, structure of the Corps and RAF, staff roles and responsibility and do a 10 minute lecturette on a syllabus subject. The actual ‘exam’ was conducted by a WSO and consisted of an interview, selection of questions from ACP42a and the lecturette and it was a pass/fail. Our CO wouldn’t let us go for it until he was sure we were ready and that was around 12 months. Maybe being old I still expect Staff/Instuctor Cadets to be knowledgable on all the areas I mention and you know what they aren’t. This isn’t the cadet’s fault, but the fault of the CTO and others with responsibility for training, that have dumbed down the classification system to the point where it has little or no value and for reasons best known to someone else, binned the old Staff P2.
Maybe we should carry on with the classification/exam system and all staff new (including old cadets) to the Corps should do the old style Staff Cadet, before being allowed to go for a uniform or maybe ALL do it, but with no strings attached. But it should be a self-study and research process. This would mean looking at Sharepoint, as we no longer have real books to use.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=15723]There are a number of comments around what we currently call Staff Cadets, but as someone who did the old Staff Cadet, I don’t regard what we have currently as actually being able to take on any sort of ‘Staff’ role. They haven’t earned or achieved anything tangible and aren’t anywhere near as knowledgable as old style Staff Cadets were. Even Instructor Cadets aren’t really up to much. I’ve got two (Staff Instructor cadets no less) and when I told them what I wanted them to do (via the TO), which was parts of the Basic and Leading Cadet syllabus, they haven’t really delivered. I sat in on lessons and given these are Master Cadets their subject knowledge was poor and classroom control was appalling.
If we want to properly develop the older cadets, we should go back to the old style ACP42 Staff Cadet (call it something else maybe) but a defined process to achieve the highest classification, that requires them to prepare on a range of areas. In my day I had to know all of the ACPs, structure of the Corps and RAF, staff roles and responsibility and do a 10 minute lecturette on a syllabus subject. The actual ‘exam’ was conducted by a WSO and consisted of an interview, selection of questions from ACP42a and the lecturette and it was a pass/fail. Our CO wouldn’t let us go for it until he was sure we were ready and that was around 12 months. Maybe being old I still expect Staff/Instuctor Cadets to be knowledgable on all the areas I mention and you know what they aren’t. This isn’t the cadet’s fault, but the fault of the CTO and others with responsibility for training, that have dumbed down the classification system to the point where it has little or no value and for reasons best known to someone else, binned the old Staff P2.
Maybe we should carry on with the classification/exam system and all staff new (including old cadets) to the Corps should do the old style Staff Cadet, before being allowed to go for a uniform or maybe ALL do it, but with no strings attached. But it should be a self-study and research process. This would mean looking at Sharepoint, as we no longer have real books to use.[/quote]
It’s looking bad. GHE2 and me agreeing again! Lol. The thing is GHE2 is absolutely right. In my Sqn I’m quite lucky my Instructor Cadet is a Sgt who is very knowledgable. Sadly, I think this might the rarity which if it is, is a terrible shame. Like GHE2 I was one of the old type Staff Cadets and that really meant something both in our Sqn and WIng. A lot was expected of us and we truly were expected to be members of staff. For young adults, this was big responsibility. Maybe this new system has removed the responsibilities. And, as GHE2 mentions, maybe the responsibility really is something that they have that is tangible.
[quote=“Racing Stick” post=15724][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=15723]There are a number of comments around what we currently call Staff Cadets, but as someone who did the old Staff Cadet, I don’t regard what we have currently as actually being able to take on any sort of ‘Staff’ role. They haven’t earned or achieved anything tangible and aren’t anywhere near as knowledgable as old style Staff Cadets were. Even Instructor Cadets aren’t really up to much. I’ve got two (Staff Instructor cadets no less) and when I told them what I wanted them to do (via the TO), which was parts of the Basic and Leading Cadet syllabus, they haven’t really delivered. I sat in on lessons and given these are Master Cadets their subject knowledge was poor and classroom control was appalling.
If we want to properly develop the older cadets, we should go back to the old style ACP42 Staff Cadet (call it something else maybe) but a defined process to achieve the highest classification, that requires them to prepare on a range of areas. In my day I had to know all of the ACPs, structure of the Corps and RAF, staff roles and responsibility and do a 10 minute lecturette on a syllabus subject. The actual ‘exam’ was conducted by a WSO and consisted of an interview, selection of questions from ACP42a and the lecturette and it was a pass/fail. Our CO wouldn’t let us go for it until he was sure we were ready and that was around 12 months. Maybe being old I still expect Staff/Instuctor Cadets to be knowledgable on all the areas I mention and you know what they aren’t. This isn’t the cadet’s fault, but the fault of the CTO and others with responsibility for training, that have dumbed down the classification system to the point where it has little or no value and for reasons best known to someone else, binned the old Staff P2.
Maybe we should carry on with the classification/exam system and all staff new (including old cadets) to the Corps should do the old style Staff Cadet, before being allowed to go for a uniform or maybe ALL do it, but with no strings attached. But it should be a self-study and research process. This would mean looking at Sharepoint, as we no longer have real books to use.[/quote]
It’s looking bad. GHE2 and me agreeing again! Lol. The thing is GHE2 is absolutely right. In my Sqn I’m quite lucky my Instructor Cadet is a Sgt who is very knowledgable. Sadly, I think this might the rarity which if it is, is a terrible shame. Like GHE2 I was one of the old type Staff Cadets and that really meant something both in our Sqn and WIng. A lot was expected of us and we truly were expected to be members of staff. For young adults, this was big responsibility. Maybe this new system has removed the responsibilities. And, as GHE2 mentions, maybe the responsibility really is something that they have that is tangible.[/quote]
Agreed.
Who thought the loss of the interview for Staff Cadet (ie: yellow lanyard) and just replacing it with CMOI was a good idea?
Bringing it back for Staff Cadets now (what were Instructor Cadets) would probably make a lot of sense.
