That’s a good point. Unfortunately, the RAFAC does attract people who build cliques and treat their field of responsibility as a private members’ club, where they enjoy absolute authority and deny access to CFAVs they don’t like. Still, there is a need for formal quals in the RAFAC.
I am not nor have ever been a fan of “local” SMEs solely because of the cliquey and attention seeking behaviours, also they get too obsessive . We’ve seen this on Wing wrt FMS, which destroyed FMS once the main players deserted the coop.
I don’t see it like that per se, but if there was a compulsion as you say it would do nothing but improve things for the cadets in terms of their understanding and as I say the staff, who with an input of knowledge become more confident in the subject(s). People have commented about he classification system and poor instruction for years. But this can be laid on HQACs doormat as they gave up on it as can be seen by not keeping the books updated and going to the online non learning and exam system.
When it comes to the engineering / technical subjects (inc STEM) are we not affiliated to the RAF, who should be able provide courses and if not sub it external. The better way of learning would be spending time being taught by people who teach it and then spend some time getting hands on. This what happened when I did the Air Nav, time in a classroom ending the week in a “sim” being fed info and plotting a course doing all the maths. Not easy but I walked away with a degree of confidence and furnish some interesting activities for cadets to better their understanding.
If you get into things like currency for classification subject matter with say having to redo it it becomes a chore and is there really a need? How many things where we have to redo them every pre-set period do people show any real enthusiasm, if it’s not something they are personally interested in?
An updated SNCO promotion matrix has just been added to Share point
1 Like
There have been some minor tweaks since the draft, but ultimately I think it’s a better approach and a good move in general.
1 Like
I like emphasis on managerial role for WO and the need to require a board for promotion… Anyone can tick the boxes but being able to articulate the reasons why and lessons learned from completing the matrix is a different kettle of fish
The board surprised me when I heard that it was going to become the case for all. Previously the Commandant had been against the idea of boarding FSs.
I’m quite happy with the idea myself, we had been working on the basis locally that we would board if there was question over a particular applicant. It’s useful to be able to talk directly to the person about their application, rather than just relying on paperwork and a statement from their OC.
We’re still more open than our colleagues; The SCC for example require completion of a national selection course for the equivalent of FS. But I like the emphasis now being on continuously performing at a higher level, rather than just boxing off a selection of activities at some point in the past.
I want all my FSs to have skills that set them above the average Sgt and I want them to be responsible for developing the junior staff in those areas. This moves us in the right direction.
Which Commandant?
I think locally we board as standard, which frustrated me as that wasn’t the policy/process.
Brings us back to the question of Officer promotions though
Air Cdre Keeling.
He had previously compared to the RAF and noted that they don’t board for general promotions.
But of course, they have the person working 5 days a week and following a defined progression path which perhaps gives them a greater opportunity to get a feel for the candidate.
We often don’t have that luxury, with OC Wing and the Wg WO being expected to make a decision about someone whom they may have never (or rarely have) seen in action.
I’m certainly happier that selections will be fairer across the board as a result of everyone getting the opportunity for a face-to-face element to the process.
I also think that attending a formal board is no bad thing when we are looking for people who can step up to take additional responsibility, and who can hold their own in front of an audience.
Great news.
Sadly doesnt prevent the one or two imbecilles locally to me who have just squeaked through their promotion on the shakiest of grounds… thanks to good ol tick box matrix.
Nvm.
Promotion from plt to Fg should include a board.
Fg to flt, no, as this is on cmd appt now.
Flt to Sqn ldr maybe, but again that’s on appt to a staff role, that usually includes a board anyway.
I’m going to be controversial here.
I think Flying Officer should be appointment based also.
I.e. Joe blogs is an officer but holds know specific role on Sqn and just rocks up to teach first class… Probably pilot officer is the right position to do that…however Ben Smith is the Sqn Adj I think these type of deputy/squadron leadership team posts should warrant Fg Off rank
1 Like
I would be fine with that.
But then what about FS?
Shouldn’t that then be appointment based also?
5 Likes
I’m not sure that works out.
Part of the reason we have the ranks is to allow us to work with the regulars and “borrow” their time and resources. A Pilot Officer gets shat upon from a great by height by pretty much everyone, whilst a Sgt is pretty well respected by all. Officers need to be a Fg Off to have credibility, imo.
3 Likes
Yes… Similarly if a Sgt is the Adj, they should be eligible for FS.
Personally, I think the Senior SNCO post on a Air Cdt Sqn (I. E. The current SWO) should be FS but that’s a whole different conversation. WO reserved for larger Sqn establishments/sector/wing roles etc I’m sure that would piss a few people off but would make “career” progression in the rafac more defined
3 Likes
I think that is very likely the way it will go. They appear to have laid the groundwork already:
Approval will only be given for promotion into a vacant post at the next higher rank or new appointments previously agreed by the RC and Comdt’s WO
Indeed, this is written generically and does not refer specifically to promotion to WO. Though, as far as I am concerned presently, for FS a suitable ‘post’ would be any where they are taking on the appropriate level of responsibility. There is currently no list of approved posts to promote into.
1 Like
Makes logical sense… I did hear something along the lines of if this sorta style is implemented if you manage x years as a WO or FS you keep that rank… 8 years of the top my head
That’s something I have muttered about too in the past. It’s what the SCC do with their WO2 and WO1. 8 years in rank and one retains it. If less than 8 then one reverts upon leaving post (unless stepping into another WO2/1 post).
There is definitely a conscious line of thought around limiting the number of WOs we have kicking about (quite right too). Quite how it will play out there is unknown.
1 Like
i think that is only controversial as it can be seen as a box to tick…be it officer or SNCO.
to get a small crown or thicker bar i need to be the Adj/TO/other executive role…
some who won’t get it any other way than simply box ticking may well take up the role for a period of time suitable to gain the rank…
the obvious counter to this is not many CFAVs who are Adjs step down and become “general staff” and also mention of minimum time at rank to retain it…
i like the idea, but i fear in our organisation there are always people finding ways around the rules…
1 Like
I think you will get that with any solution tbh
. At least with post holding it actually encourages people to adopt posts to keep the operation ticking over
Which is fine as long as I can keep my Flt Lt on the same basis rather than be demoted as I would be under the current system.
2 Likes