you are HQAC’s Morale and Retention Officer, and i claim my £5.
regardless of the admin crap and whether this bloke should be an SNCO or a CI, two Sqn’s now have less people to drive the minibus, scrounge resources and provide staffing cover - two Sqn’s also now have OC’s with more on their already overloaded plates and who are therefore more likely than they were last week to say ‘fcuk it, i’m off…’.
well done, brilliant, excellent job.[/quote]
A very well constructed post. Have a gold star young man. :ohmy:
Perhaps we should allow people to just pitch up at ATF when they can be arsed? I mean, does it matter if its two months, a year, five years down the line? Standards and rules. They were written down before they applied and they agreed to the terms on application. It seems “exceptional circumstances” is the norm these days. How many more boilers can break/no work leave/family commitments. If you cannot do the time, don’t sign on the line my friend. Come back later when you vs and you will be welcomed with open arms.
the standards and rules are not why this bloke and his wife - an SNCO (ATC) - have left, they have left because they have treated shoddily, not given information, and not been taken aside and said, ‘look, i know you can’t get the course done this year but theres a problem with you waiting so long to get it done - given your circumstances would you consider being a CI, or even going NEP until your life is back on track and you can devote the time needed to fulfill the SNCO role…?’
just a ‘oh, we’ve already binned you, but do feel welcome to try again…’. that is why he and his Mrs have left.
this is an organisation with a cronic shortage of staff, it doesn’t pay them for their week-in, week-out work, its niggardly over paying their expences, is several months behind paying them for camps and weekends, and asks people to use their holiday time to attend courses that are for the good of the organisation. this is, i would suggest, not an organisation that can afford to piss people off with poor man-management.
you’ll note, from reading Dasonix’s post, that work is not the reason he wasn’t able to do the course in time…
i have no problem with not allowing people to carry out a role they are not trained for ad infinitum, i do have a problem with an organisation that requires the goodwill of its members chinning people off and losing two members of staff and trumpetting that as an acheivement.
Looking at some of the comments here is it an wonder it’s an uphill task to get people wanting to take a uniform role. Yes we can argue that when you agree there are certain terms, but this is a hobby and until there is something enshrined in employment law that gives those who volunteer with bona fide youth organisations a right to time off for ‘training purposes’, inline with business needs, then people not making it within a year or longer will happen.
Much of the problem with the attitude coming from HQAC is down to those with a service background knowing jack about the real world of work. If for instance you missed a course or ATF binned it, you might not be able to get on the next one as it’s full, or, people have already booked that time off, or, you haven’t got the time available. We’re already looking to book our 2015 holiday (18 months away) so I can guarantee getting the weeks I want. Maybe ATF need to schedule courses 2 years in advance on a rolling basis, and change the rules, probably set in the 60s to give people in the 21st century world of work a chance.
Some people have genuine, legitimate reasons for not being able to get onto a course within 12 months of appointment and that does not necessarily make then unsuitable, nor should they be told to poke off until they can dedicate their lives in the service of the Corps. The situation is sometimes not helped by ATF cancelling courses of course.
Conversely, some people aren’t trying hard enough and are content to mooch along - these people need more encouragement.
Maybe we do need a more distinct probationary rank in the ACO for those who are yet to attend ATF - one where the person’s opportunities are severely constrained to the point where there is a greater incentive for them to attend ATF. Give them minimal or no remuneration, no camps (already the case), no MOD90, no extra courses etc and if they are happy with that then by all means let them carry on in that capacity until they are able to attend the course. If they can’t attend the course by their renewal date then do not renew their appointment but re-grade them to CI if they wish to remain in the ACO.
BASIC clearly still needs to be mandatory and if they don’t complete BASIC in 6 months (is that too long?) then suspend them. Seeing as BASIC covers the actual important points I wonder just how important it really is to push people to ATF within the year.
Whatever the way forward, this organisation needs to handle its personnel management obligations in a professional and reasonable manner and that needs to include reminders, interviews, formal warning letters etc. if staff are coming close to missing the deadlines set.
BASIC is required for all Staff, and should IMO be completed prior to being able to apply for a uniformed position, especially given that no one walks into a uniformed post and does some time as a CI or Staff Cadet, both roles that require the CP Brief.
What GMG is that we are short of staff, and we are cutting those that don’t meet this requirement, which is fair enough, as they won’t be able to properly undertake their role without the training, yet there are individuals, myself included, that want to progress into a uniformed role, but are being prevented by Wing Staff, without explaining the reasoning or steps forward to the individual. It is the same wing staff that then say we are struggling for uniformed staff in the area.
Too often new OCs have been young and with little experience in our area, mainly because we aren’t putting enough individuals through to OASC over the past few years, meaning there is now a shortage of officers, who want a command position, with suitable experience. And the situation will only get worse unless keen individuals are put through the system. There should be more than 2 individuals who want to take on a squadron when it comes up.
Incubus, i think you have hit the nail on the head.
I am an PI (Potential Instructor) in the ACF.
Before i am even allowed in uniform i have to do a BIC (Basic Induction Course). Then further training (which took 6-7 months 2 nights a week and one 10 day annual camp of training) before i am allowed to then do my week adult induction course. During this time of training you are not to parade at your detachment and when you do (as my training is finished but waiting for a course), you are not allowed to train any cadets without direct supervision of a qualified NCO or Officer until you have your Sgt stripes.
As for your points:
minimal or no remuneration - I get paid the same as an Sgt for the training days i do.
No MOD90 - Not until qualified
No Extra Courses - All course requirements state that ITC/AIC must be completed before even applying
It certainly seems that the ATC could take a page out of the ACF’s book, i know when i was a Sgt(ATC) i had one real interview and then i was a Sgt, “Basic” was all i did and i was then able to do as much as anyone who had attended ATF.
You have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we’d have SNCOs (and officers) poncing around in uniform, untrained for years. OK, that’s probably what a good proportion of them want, but it’s not what the organisation needs.
Whilst I agree that Wg/Region/HQAC appear to have been heavy handed in the cases mentioned in this thread and it’s unfortunate that some people will be unfairly (in their eyes) chopped, but did the individuals concerned take all reasonable steps to make sure the CoC was actually fully aware of their position? Dasonix says that he wrote to his Wg; did he confirm receipt of his letter? Did he copy it to his WSO? Did he ask for acknowledgement in writing that he would not be able to do his SSIC until outside the prescribed timescale? If the answer to those questions is no, I unfortunately have little sympathy. If we were dealing with HMRC, Local Government or many others, we would make sure that people absolutely understood our situation, and we would ask for and expect acknowledgenment of communication; do the same with the ACO CoC. Remember the old adage, don’t assume, check.
[quote=“incubus” post=13313]Some people have genuine, legitimate reasons for not being able to get onto a course within 12 months of appointment and that does not necessarily make then unsuitable, nor should they be told to poke off until they can dedicate their lives in the service of the Corps. The situation is sometimes not helped by ATF cancelling courses of course.
[/quote]
it took me 18 months to attend ATF, i was appointed during my sandwich year of university study and 5 months later was back in university in final year. when my 12months anniversary date came along i was 6 weeks away from finals and permitted to put off the course until after my exams.
sure enough September that year i attended ATF
[quote=“incubus” post=13313]
Maybe we do need a more distinct probationary rank in the ACO for those who are yet to attend ATF - one where the person’s opportunities are severely constrained to the point where there is a greater incentive for them to attend ATF. Give them minimal or no remuneration, no camps (already the case), no MOD90, no extra courses etc and if they are happy with that then by all means let them carry on in that capacity until they are able to attend the course. If they can’t attend the course by their renewal date then do not renew their appointment but re-grade them to CI if they wish to remain in the ACO. [/quote]
i like this idea.
there are hoops to jump through to gain promotion in teh SNCO branch which if arent ticked Staff remain at Sgts/FSs and no shame should be felt by a Sgt which 8 years experience, they choose to be a “Sqn SNCO” rather than the bigger picture.
so why not apply the same hoops (or hoop, attend ATF) before “promotion” to a “Full” Staff member. restrictions on what they can do off Squadron and no remuneration would be a start, else we are permitting people to conduct a role (and get “paid” for it) which they havent been trained.
[quote=“incubus” post=13313]Maybe we do need a more distinct probationary rank in the ACO for those who are yet to attend ATF - one where the person’s opportunities are severely constrained to the point where there is a greater incentive for them to attend ATF. Give them minimal or no remuneration, no camps (already the case), no MOD90, no extra courses etc and if they are happy with that then by all means let them carry on in that capacity until they are able to attend the course. [/quote]AC ATC…
or just be a bit less hidebound about people moving between roles as their circumstances allow?
instead of the ‘stick’ approach above (brilliant idea by the way - penalise a volunteer, make them feel like a second class citizen in an organisation crying out for staff: you wouldn’t work with Pprune and Nimrod at HQAC’s Morale and Retention desk would you?..), how about a much simpler option. all staff join as a CI, they can then apply to become either VR(T) or SNCO, and are apponited to that role only upon completion of the relevant training/selection course?
much simpler, no noses out of joint, and if someone wishes to take 15 years to progress from applying to become a uniformed member of staff to undertaking the course and then being appointed then thats up to them…
For some in the Corps Cranwell is a heck of a journey, and as we have seen a week off work can be problematic. Would it be practical to run SSIC on a Regional basis, possibly as a series of weekend courses ? Could be delivered by a Regional Training Team or a mobile Central Training Team(s).
Does anyone know the script for uniformed staff at overseas squadrons, do they need to travel to ATF or do they complete courses locally ?
or just be a bit less hidebound about people moving between roles as their circumstances allow?
instead of the ‘stick’ approach above (brilliant idea by the way - penalise a volunteer, make them feel like a second class citizen in an organisation crying out for staff: you wouldn’t work with Pprune and Nimrod at HQAC’s Morale and Retention desk would you?..), how about a much simpler option. all staff join as a CI, they can then apply to become either VR(T) or SNCO, and are apponited to that role only upon completion of the relevant training/selection course?
much simpler, no noses out of joint, and if someone wishes to take 15 years to progress from applying to become a uniformed member of staff to undertaking the course and then being appointed then thats up to them…[/quote]
They would in that example be completing courses as CIs and not be in uniform for any of the course which will change the mindset.
if only the British military had some experience of people arriving at an establishment as civilians and leaving as military…
you’re right, its an insurmountable barrier. or, alternatively, they could just put their uniforms on when they get there, do the course and pass out with the admin being done while they are there. one might almost think that someone judged fit to become an SNCO(ATC) with all the resonsiblity that entails couldn’t possibly manage to act in a military manner without technically being military - despite that being what they do.
what matters in real life, rather than in the red tape obsessed minds of some, is when people get trained and when they are inflicted on the ACO in that role. the course dynamics aren’t really that big a deal to the rest of the world.
I got the impression as per missives from ATF, that SSIC and OIC aren’t training courses and OSC in my eyes didn’t “train” me either. To that end they are no more than an admin step.
There needs to be sea change in regarding what we do as educating rather than branding what happens as training. If you go away and come back with a qualification that permits you instruct, then that would mean you’ve been trained. We aren’t (with 1/2 exceptions), so much trained by ATF as attend a series of talks lasting about an hour on a broad range of subjects. I tend to regard ATF like a driving test, without the instruction before the test, that is you attend ATF tick the box and are then sent out into the ATC world and in some cases create havoc. I didn’t learn to drive until I’d passed my driving test, all the driving lessons did was enable me to pass the test, but we don’t get this latter step in the Corps.
On my WO and OIC me and couple of other old hands ‘trained’ others how to do their uniform, ACTC/ATF staff didn’t and by the look of it neither did people on their sqns.
Maybe rather than a week away there should be a series of weekend sessions done on a modular basis, of which you have to complete minimum x from y assessed modules with “homework” to be done jointly at home and sqn and culminating in a passing out parade done on a 2/3 . These would be the same for all with maybe 1 or 2 modules more targeted at the different streams. There is no particular timeframe, but you don’t get the full rate of pay, until you have completed the modules. They would be advertised around the local Wings and you could attend another Wing’s course if you so desired. You would have to be a certified CI to do it and part of the process would require attending a UK Annual Camp, as this would be able to tick the behaviour/conduct in a mess box.
Many Wings already do pre-uniform courses and if they were beefed up a bit they could form the basis of this. It could be overseen by the CVQO and some sort of qualification dished out as a result.
“There needs to be sea change in regarding what we do as educating rather than branding what happens as training. If you go away and come back with a qualification that permits you instruct, then that would mean you’ve been trained. We aren’t (with 1/2 exceptions), so much trained by ATF as attend a series of talks lasting about an hour on a broad range of subjects.”
My bold.
I have to say that I agree here. On my SSIC alot of the sessions were discussing topics (H&S, CP, structure of the ATC/RAF etc) that I had already heard 3 times previously on BASIC, pre uniform selection and pre ATF courses. I think in all honesty that I learned more from the WO and other NCOs on my unit and in the wing. I’m not saying that I got nothing out of ATF but a tick in the box (far from it), but I think that the course (and the process leading up to it) as it stands is in need of overhaul.
I think that there should be a building block approach in the way we train NCOs which ensures that they meet a minumum standard before they are let loose as a fully flegded Sgts. I like the idea of completeing a series of weekends covering a range of subjects which could be completed at wing level. This could then be complimented by putting what they have learned into practice on sqn under supervision of more experienced staff. Once they have completed all the necessary modules and when the candidate feels they are ready (a sensible time limit needs to be applied of course) they could then book and go on a revised course at ATF to consolidate all they have learned.
This approach might help to raise the quality of the SNCOs the Corps gets and would be fairer to the individual as the building block process might help them to not feel to out of their depth. Other benifits could be that SNCO candidates could complete modules in subjects like; drill instruction and basic fieldcraft. This is not to try and limit the role of NCOs to particular topics but rather to give a basic level of knowledge and experience of as wide a range of core activities as possible (and stick it to the drill and fieldcraft empire builders ).
One other thing that could be done with the above is to tie it all into an entry level qual from CVQO.
Not a perect solution I know but I think it would be a vast inproement on current training methods.
[quote=“glass half empty 2”]
Maybe rather than a week away, there should be a series of weekend sessions done on a modular basis…[/quote]
[quote=“born middle aged” ]
I like the idea of completing a series of weekends covering a range of subjects which could be completed at wing level.[/quote]
I have advocated this approach for ages. There’s so much that we expect both of our SNCOs and Jnr Offs that a week simply isn’t enough. The existing course that our Reserve colleagues undertake at OACTU (ROIT) has this approach; compulsory modules over several months finished off with a residential period at Cranwell. We need to do a similar thing. However, every time that I’ve mentioned having pre SSIC or OIC weekend modules or self-study/distance learning elements, it’s been challenged with the usual ‘we’re volunteers’ and ‘we don’t have the time’ comments.
).