Then you need to change the process, not the people delivering it. In my mind, regulars have no business being the sole selectors of CFAVs. In days passed the ACF was like that, except that it wasn’t CFAVs doing the selection, it was the TA selection board, and the standard wasn’t good, or at least not right for a cadet organisation. Since the change to the CFCB, things have improved many times over.
2 Likes
i also heard that with the reduced number of the MOD = RAF there is a reduced recruitment intake
with fewer officers comes fewer OASC selections to run.
with fewer courses run comes assessors not staying “current” as the skills are practised less frequently.
two birds one stone option was to push the RAFAC potential Officer recruits through the process - thus creating more courses and Directing Staff are kept “current”
seconded.
although i appreciate there are transferable skills, someone who makes a good RAF Officer Candidate doesn’t necessarily make for a good RAFAC Officer and vice versa.
yet the “selection” process is the same - ok watered down for the RAFAC but still taking the RAF model and moulding it to suit RAFAC needs
Exactly what happened, but say it too loud and it bursts the bubble of the RAF wannabes, who think it was done to improve quality of VR(T)/RAFAC officers.
1 Like
The biggest problem is the RAF Officer gets several more years training, but an RAFAC officer has to be the fully formed beast, as within 2 years they will be running a squadron and dealing with everything that comes through the door.
We have to accept that the initial and senior course don’t do the job, but spending anytime learning the ropes (prior to commissioning) on an ATC sqn is seemingly regarded a no no. This is impression so many older cadets given, as they think (or have been allowed to think) they are the bee’s knees and know it all after being a cadet for a few years. Mention going to CI for a few years is beneath them.
what difference is this to being a Scout Master?
they get no training, no “selection” and i would assume and interview and DBS check.
there isn’t the same structure in terms of progression (promotion) but the skills must be the same/similar:
volunteer youth worker, spending time and effort developing the youth of today in the area of “expertise”* in some cases leading and mentoring other leaders/colleagues in their volunteering role
other than the uniform and the name and responsibility of acting as a representation of the RAF which adds a degree and expectation of military efficiency and professionalism- is there a chasm of difference between the two roles?
*in this case the appropriate flavour of interest of the organisation. Be it Scouts, RAFAC, ACF, St Johns, Fire, Police or other Cadet/Youth organisation - dare I say sports teams too!
I think Scouts do some sort of modular course for people wanting to be leaders.
1 Like
Scout selection includes initial interview (usually informal), DBS, references, additional checks at Scout Association HQ, and a period as a ‘provisional’ leader. Then a formal interview with the Scout District Appointments Committee (District - roughly equal to sector), and approval of appointment by District Commissioner (= WSO). You then have to complete obligatory Safeguarding, Safety, 2 introductory training modules and First Aid (one day). They then become a Section Assistant.
If the volunteer wants to be a leader or assistant leader, they complete a further 14 modules - some online but most typically an evening or a half day each - within 3 years. The learning is assessed (verified) by a training manager.
There’s a separate process for running overnight camps (2 day residential plus assessment - though it’s optional.
Folk grumble about how long it takes, but it is fairly effective.
3 Likes
I agree I don’t see the need for OACS at all. But if they insist on it it could be done on in a wing with RAFAC staff and maybe the regional cond who’s RAFR and who could act as chairperson thus way one person only fly’s/ travel.snd save costs
i always thought the wing board then region board was enough…yeah some questionables ones got through…but youll get that with oasc i guess
2 Likes
It was and was good enough for decades. But we couldn’t foresee the collapse of the RAF and grabbing onto the Air Cadets like someone grabbing hold of a lifebelt, after a ship has sunk.
I don’t think it was good enough, but the old-boy network seemed to like it.
1 Like
What was wrong with it?
What is identifiably better about those that have gone through OASC vs the old system, if you compare people of the same peer group?
I haven’t seen any additional “quality” given the additional hoop. People come onto squadrons and are exactly the same as everyone else. Crappy days at work, family, real life all get in the way of Air Cadets…
I know a couple who thought they were something above all of us old timers. But now, they have got married and have small children and it is interesting to see how they have got off their perch.
1 Like
I know several very good potential officer candidates who are put off because of stories from OASC - there are people who have been rejected, with the report being written by someone who didn’t seem like they understood the candidate was going to be a VR(T) officer
All of the people I’ve met thus far about whom I think “how on Earth are you an officer?” Have come through under the old system.
Granted there are far more of us than the new lot, but from what I can tell it seems to be filtering out the hopeless. At the end of the day, how was the board system meant to work? Interviews are good as a part of the selection process, but you can’t asses someone’s leadership ability by having a chat.
1 Like
God knows why someone wouldn’t be ‘fit’ to be an Officer in the Air Cadets and what criteria for rejection would be.
Does anyone know, outside being either too young or couldn’t be bothered on at OASC.
I do know that people when rejected aren’t sent a copy of the report. They apparently meet with the Wg Cdr. allowed to read it and sworn to secrecy as to its content, which is rather childish.
I don’t see the join between the two strands where you look and think they are better. Regardless of the system we all deal with the same rubbish, that goes with the rank badges.
My board was the RC, ARC and a Wg Cdr, and asked me a lot of different things. As for juding leadership etc that was done by your CO and Wing Staff before even going forward. Given how many went through that system and the Corps didn’t collapse as all the officers weren’t worthy, as you say we out number the new ones and the Corps still hasn’t collapsed due to our doing, these people didn’t do too bad a job.
Leadership in the ATC isn’t so much leadership as reinforcing that this is how it’s done and we have to do it and if you don’t like it, the door’s there.
I knew of many who got binned in old system, at one board and had to wait 6 months before another one. Many of them were ex-CWOs who were regarded as being too young to have the responsibility within the Corps. But now with a systematic process, unless someone screws up, it comes down to the interview which is open to all the same prejudices. A CI (older chap} who I knew who went through OASC got binned as he told me, he didn’t seem to have enough respect for the board members. This bloke was a head of department in a large company dealing with a budget of £3 million and managing 40 staff, who although he never said, probably didn’t see the board members as being better than him and probably beneath him, apart from the president. As far as he was concerned he’d answered all the questions competently, but didn’t do too well in the hangar, due to a dodgy knee. But in terms of leadership and dealing with people, far more experienced than the 20 year olds who passed with flying colours and lots of fetlock tugging. Even confronted with a Group Captain now, I don’t regard them as better than me, just someone who’s done alright for themselves, like the board members I’ve known since they were trainees.
1 Like
I saw a report like that about 5 years ago for a member of staff at the sqn I was at at the time.He went to OASC a young man (early 20s) full of confidence and wanting to succeed.He came back a shell destroyed by quite frankly the worst report ive ever read in either my service in the RAF or ATC. The person who wrote it signed it as a Flt/lt. God knows how he got that far with the skills he displayed whilst raising that report.The narrative was quite frankly appalling and basically said (in upper class language) that the candidate was “thick”.The powers that be wonder why people dont want to go forward to OASC well that report told me everything I wanted to know.If i ever meet that person I d love to give him some forceful lessons in man management.
Maybe it is if you’re no good at it.
2 Likes
Not sure of the minimum rank for boarding at OASC now, but it used to be sqn ldr (perhaps with a flt lt as the “junior” member).
I did the Personnel Selection Officers’ Cse (PSOC) some years ago, so was “qualified” to sit on an OASC board. However, the main aim of completing the cse was to prepare for DIOT as a flt cdr.
The PSOC trg was very detailed & thorough; it went through all the technicalities of the then 3 day OASC selection procedure; the interview / hangar exercise aspects got great emphasis.
Now, whilst in no way saying that it could be impossible for a badly composed write-up to leave OASC, but from sitting in as an observer of numerous interviews, group / individual exercises & hangar exercises, there were more than a few candidates who seemed on the outside to be confident & a potential “good egg.” However, they failed miserably when asked even basic questions in their interviews or put under the slightest pressure in the other exercises. Of course, that was for “full-time” RAF candidates. Most candidates only go there once, so don’t have a benchmark to refer to; I went there 3 times, once for flying scholarship, once for what turned out to be my successful selection as AEOp (now WSOp), & a few years later, the last visit to go as pilot. For the first time, albeit at a tender age, it was very, very daunting. It wasn’t much better for the second time!
A point to note, it is also a comparatively old-fashioned way of assessing / selecting people, not experienced by that many of the modern generation. Typically, for commercial organisations, whack in your CV + “motivational letter” for any initial filter, & then maybe go for a short interview. Years ago, I did practice “pre-Uni selection” interviews at one of my kid’s schools, & generally went through the OASC style of interview (initially ask about the person / background, then move on to why they want to join ZZZ); one of the careers teachers was also present. More than a few students complained afterwards that It was a horrible interview - much to the surprise of the teacher & me! The feedback given to them (by the teacher!) was that they were far too shallow, & that they needed to prepare in much more depth for probing questions, motivational reasons, research about Uni, etc. In some cases (I had pre-interview notes on each student, so would do a few mins research on their preferred Uni / cses / location, etc), I knew more about their Uni than they did!! This was for students sometimes going for actual Uni interview within a day or so…
I hate watching TV “interviewers” who always ask direct questions - “Do you like XXXX?” You will probably only get an direct answer - yes or no - then have to ask more questions to probe further. PSOC was really strict on the need to always ask indirect questions - what / why / when / how, etc - then follow up on the information given in the answer. It was something the snowflake students had never experienced.
In particular, when at DIOT, we eventually got to know out students’ board gradings; subjectively, I would have said it was 95+% accuracy versus actual performance at DIOT. Having had a few “problem children” at DIOT, I was certainly relieved that OASC seemed to conduct very accurate filtering.
1 Like