On SharePoint:
https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/Lists/ACO%20Announcements/DispForm.aspx?ID=409&Source=https://sharepoint.bader.mod.uk/default.aspx
So, what are peoples thoughts?
Without wishing to sound negative, in theory - a well-meaning policy but in practice, I suspect it will all be a load of doo-doo.
Seems entirely common sense to me. Just because you fill a role doesn’t necessarily mean you have to hold the rank it is established at. A good rationale for a sensible policy in my opinion.
The example given describes how a post suitable for a Sqn Ldr may be filled by a Flt Lt where appropriate. Some kind of policy on appointing NCOs to posts traditionally held by Commissioned Officers would be very interesting to see.
ie. If a WO was appointed to the Sqn Ldr post, would that be as a last resort, or would it be just as acceptable as the Flt Lt holding the post?
What about ‘timed served’ Flt Lts? Surely if they don’t want OC Sqn role, they should be downgraded as Fg Offs. And could say same for old time WOs, don’t what responsibility of Sqn WO, downgrade to FS.
Generally a time served Flt Lt will fill a Squadron Officer role, where there is no maximum rank. There is no additional pay for a time served Flt Lt, but it does recognise the experience that individual has, ie 9 years service. They also have to complete additional training to gain the rank, it isn’t just a tick box exercise - they have to have done the Squadron Commanders Course.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[quote=“juliet mike” post=21489] they have to have done the Squadron Commanders Course. [/quote]…and how many powerpoint slides is that?
Generally a time served Flt Lt will fill a Squadron Officer role, where there is no maximum rank. There is no additional pay for a time served Flt Lt, but it does recognise the experience that individual has, ie 9 years service. They also have to complete additional training to gain the rank, it isn’t just a tick box exercise - they have to have done the Squadron Commanders Course.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]I didn’t…
Erm, fairly sure that’s a requirement. Back on the the Fg Off tapes 
Of course you might have done the old OSC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Generally a time served Flt Lt will fill a Squadron Officer role, where there is no maximum rank. There is no additional pay for a time served Flt Lt, but it does recognise the experience that individual has, ie 9 years service. They also have to complete additional training to gain the rank, it isn’t just a tick box exercise - they have to have done the Squadron Commanders Course.
[/quote]
If the officer would not have Flt Lt time served then they currently do & I know a number of officers who have done so (it does work out relatively rare as it needs time for them to take over a sqn, do the Sqn Cdr Course, get promoted and then step down again).
However another factor is that rank is a quick way to recognise an individuals experience and place in the chain of command. The Flt Lt (unpaid) is a good mechanism for that and most importantly, works. Just because they are not the OC of a sqn does not mean that there are not other opportunities for sqn officers. I believe IACE has a minimum rank requirement of Flt Lt and there are a variety of wing/region/corps training teams that an experienced individual can demonstrate their ability and why they would need that second band.
Throw in camp commandant positions and there is a good argument for retaining the Flt Lt (Unpaid) pool.
from a quick read this seems standard to me…i would have thought it was common sense.
if the right person is the wrong rank…but they are the right person carry on regardless.
if a person of rank has a reduced responsibility then they should sacrifice the rank that went with that role.
i confess it was only a quick skim read but the word “retention of rank” caught my eye not just in the above example (ie movement to a more junior role) but also in the state of to maintain a rank one must continue to achieve that ranks expectations.
with all the talk on NCO promotions etc it is arguably a tick box system to get to FS/WO yet once at the desired rank there is no further incentive to maintain that “minimum” standard of X number of camps, or continue to use a qualification, to keep you the involvement on the Wing team or assit the Wing in large events.
although i know it will be minority, i do fear there will still be some who reach WO who are not “worthy” because they simply dont pull their weight. they did the minimum required and now able to rest on their laurels and sods law dictates it will be these WOs that will annoy the regulars and prompted/gave further reason for a change to the SNCO structure.
there is a sub 30yr old WO in our Wing, having worked through the ranks ticking the boxes as required. there is potential for this CFAV to maintain the rank for another 20+ years yet no accountability to the continued suitability to hold the “highest rank in the ATC”
now the individual in question isnt likely to just stop being as active as they have been, but there is potential even if it will be the minority (but was it not the minority that spoilt it pre-DYER anyway?)
so although a useful reference document i think it could have gone further to include demotion that isn’t voluntary, through a change in position/role, but as a reflection/recognition of merit…
we promote on merit…should we not apply the opposite also?
(of course this opens up a larger can of worms…how happy will people be to hear they face demotion for not pulling their weight in a voluntary organisation?)
Sounds like a cracking idea to me.
Sorry, but why shouldn’t older members of staff slow down, take life easier and not have to do everything to retain their ranks. The staff in their 20s with no family, loads of time and energy should be the ones running around doing everything to earn their promotions. Those 30+ should start to be more selective in what they do, become the subject matter experts on the squadron/wing etc and therefore do less of a range of activities.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TBH this whole announcement sounds like a confirmation of a policy already in place.
Sqn Officers
Less than 2 years = Plt Off
Over 2 but under 10 = Fg Off
Over 10 = Flt Lt
‘Staff’ Officers (for lack of better terminology)
OC Sqn = Flt Lt
WSO = Sqn Ldr
OC Wng = Wng Cdr
Region Post = Rank as scaled.
So if you step down from a ‘Staff’ Officer post you revert to you time served rank. Retiree are a different matter but a bit irrelevant. It sounds like someone somewhere has been asked to take on another post and they have refused as it would result in them dropping down a rank. If you want the rank then fab but take the responsibility with it.
Also those who are really keen and get all their qualifications (which can be done in 10years) what are they going to do for the rest of their 20 odd years of service if there are no more qualifications for them to get?
I thought time served was 9 years. Happy to be corrected, although mine will have just gone up to 369 days if it is 10 years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmm not sure
Perhaps you get it at nine years but it takes HQAC a year to process the paperwork
[quote=“Chief Tech” post=21541]TBH this whole announcement sounds like a confirmation of a policy already in place.
Also those who are really keen and get all their qualifications (which can be done in 10years) what are they going to do for the rest of their 20 odd years of service if there are no more qualifications for them to get?[/quote]
1 line - absolutely agree
2 bit - in my mind it isnt the gaining of qualifications but the effective use of the qualifications already held.
after spending two-four weekends on shooting quals, a month on BEL (or more if higher) or on SPA, a week at Cranwell for DI…the list goes on
was that time well spent by instructors and trainee but years of “payback” with the use of that qual?
or are they a WI who conducts half a dozen WHTs a year and hasn’t taught a lesson in 3 years?
It will be interesting to see how it works in practice if it’s forced. If someone was forced to take a “demotion” or not promoted, is there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I know several people who have “stood down” voluntarily and taken a lower rank. Some will say good, BUT what was never required was an explanation as to why they were doing so. The same when people resign. I can imagine this would not sit prettily with some reading it.
For this to work properly they need to look long and hard at the lot of the volunteer and take views across the Corps about what it means in terms of personal sacrifice to be a volunteer member of staff and mould policy to reflect this. It’s all well and good having a policy but if it proves in itself to be a barrier or a way of creating barriers, then it’s not a good policy. I wouldn’t trust some in the Corps to not use it as a barrier. You can have people doing all the courses etc and get treated like something you would avoid treading. There are people around who have qualifications etc and seem to be needed for every activity and do it to ensure the cadets get a good experience, but get no thanks. I don’t know if promotion in a volunteer organisation is enough of a carrot or thank you, because promotion brings it’s own expectations.
One of the things they need to look at it in this respect is what is the real world benefit to the individual of taking a promotion and or more responsibility in the ATC? I’ve not been promoted at work because of anything I do in the ATC, but because of my experience and knowledge of the work we do and reciprocally for any ATC promotion.
I get a growing feeling that and I will say it and keep on saying it, the RAF is increasingly looking harder at the ATC as it is larger than the host and sowing seeds of policies (I don’t think the ACMB has the combined nous to come up with this on their own) to make the ATC feel/look more like the RAF. The term establishment as used in this policy suggests a ceiling on numbers in certain ranks/roles and moving one out the way to make way for another supposedly more deserving soul or shifting staff around more freely than is currently practiced. This while it sounds fine in theory has the very real prospect of losing the real ethos of a voluntary organisation and seeing people leave. OK there are those who will say good because they were probably dead wood. BUT you can only cut away so much dead wood before adversely affecting structural integrity unless you have new wood to replace it. It an ATC context how long does it take to get one new member of staff to a point where they can fill the role? What happens in the interim?
Take a situation that you have two range qualified staff both Sgts. Currently this works well for obvious reasons. One of them is up for promotion, but you already have a FS and in order to get the promotion they are told they need to move squadrons. They don’t want to and feeling bullied/harassed they leave the Corps, despite your best efforts to keep them. How long before you get another?
This is just plain common sense and it is surprising that it hasn’t been done to date.
The key themes I got from it were visability and setting expectation. Visibility for the newer Officers as to where their ‘career’ could take them and expectation for those who are in posts who either fall, or are pushed from their perches (through inefficiency) and wish to stick around.
Looking at my Wing, this would be a welcome bonus - there is a definite lack of opportunity for JO’s, both in visability of what is available (to aspire to) and the fact that a number of people are kept indefinitely (through extensions) in Wing Posts (when there are a number of suitable candidates who could also perform the role).
What is surprising is how (all) posts have been advertised to date in my Wing - some are and some aren’t. Seemingly the ‘less attractive’ options are advertised, where the cream isn’t - IMO.
I find it intriging that people might want to go onto Wing. I couldn’t personally think of anything worse. I’ve been asked and declined on 3 occasions, they don’t ask anymore.
I think that if you are going down the line of people best suited to a role, then it should be whoever regardless of “rank”, that includes CIs and SNCOs. Who knows this might even encourage recruitment and retention.
I still think that forcing people into positions / roles and “demoting” people is a dangerous route to go down and is not entirely in keeping with the ethos of volunteering in a youth organisation. If someone thinks they can do a better job than me they are more than welcome to take over at my squadron. The role of Sqn Cdr is not what it was and I think a lot of people know this or find out very, very quickly once they are in the role. I imagine the same could be said of Wing posts. Why are there so many long standing people in roles such as Sqn Cdr or Wing Staff … no one really wants to do them or does and looks to get out asap. Probably why a local CO who was effectively pushed into the role went NEP as soon as he could come up with a reasonable excuse and came back as Sqn Officer elsewhere, with the caveat of not being anything else.