In the London Gazette today over 100 VR(T) officers either relinquished or resigned their commissions in the RAFVR(T). Admittedly some are dated from as far back as 2009 but the majority are less than a year old.
This does strike me as a large amount especially as there are no appointments. I know it is sad but I do keep an eye on the gazette regarding appointments and losses and in the last year I have seen several of these large trawl of staff leaving the ATC. Appointments do not seem to be keeping up. There seems to be a problem in retaintion of experenced staff accross the corps.
Itâs an anomaly. They werenât terminating service correctly and AOC wanted to write to each person to thank them for their service (if they left on mutual term). That caused a backlog and eventually they caught up. Promulgation was probably something than was done last as a batch.
Hmmm even so there are still a large number from this year alone!
I presume that the difference between Relinquished and Resigned is that the Officer did not re-engage at the end of their engagement, as opposed to leaving during the engagement?
Regardless of the reason the fact it seems so many Officers are either resigning or relinquishing are listed and if the number of replacements means a negtive effect, it has to be a concern.
What would be interesting to see is a year on year appt and signing on vs relinquishing/resigning for commissions would be interesting. The most interesting thing woulld be to see what effect if any OASC is having on appointments, vs the old RC chat.
[quote=âglass half empty 2â post=19249]Regardless of the reason the fact it seems so many Officers are either resigning or relinquishing are listed and if the number of replacements means a negtive effect, it has to be a concern.
What would be interesting to see is a year on year appt and signing on vs relinquishing/resigning for commissions would be interesting. The most interesting thing woulld be to see what effect if any OASC is having on appointments, vs the old RC chat.[/quote]
OASC is part of the Recruitment process and does not affect the Retention (of Officers).
Weâve been around the RC Chat vs. OASC Bouy a number of times and yes fewer Officers will probably get through, but ultimately those who do âshouldâ be less likely to embarass the RAF or the ACO (than those Officers who slipped through the net under the old system - who shouldnât have - but for various reasons, did). If weâre just looking for warm bodies, then we shouldnât be looking to make them Officers for the fun of it - there are other roles which would be more suitable.
However, it would be interesting to know whether any of the Plt Offâs were relinquished or resigned due to the fact that they wouldnât (or couldnât) go to OIC.
How many of these are retirements? And when does a âretirementâ come into effect; I assume itâs when someone decides not to sign back on after their 55th birthday!!
[quote=ânoah claypoleâ post=19252][quote=âglass half empty 2â post=19249]Regardless of the reason the fact it seems so many Officers are either resigning or relinquishing are listed and if the number of replacements means a negtive effect, it has to be a concern.
What would be interesting to see is a year on year appt and signing on vs relinquishing/resigning for commissions would be interesting. The most interesting thing woulld be to see what effect if any OASC is having on appointments, vs the old RC chat.[/quote]
OASC is part of the Recruitment process and does not affect the Retention (of Officers).
Weâve been around the RC Chat vs. OASC Bouy a number of times and yes fewer Officers will probably get through, but ultimately those who do âshouldâ be less likely to embarass the RAF or the ACO (than those Officers who slipped through the net under the old system - who shouldnât have - but for various reasons, did). If weâre just looking for warm bodies, then we shouldnât be looking to make them Officers for the fun of it - there are other roles which would be more suitable.
However, it would be interesting to know whether any of the Plt Offâs were relinquished or resigned due to the fact that they wouldnât (or couldnât) go to OIC.[/quote]
i agree it has no effect on retention but i am certain it will have an effect on recruitment.
you mention those who have been appointed who wouldnt pass nowâŚwould they even bother putting themselves forward fearing the rejection?
if OASC is working then if the same breadth of potential officers are applying now as it was pre-OASC days then the rejection numbers would stop the unsuitableâŚwould potential officer Smith apply knowing his pal Jones and Bloggs failed?
Steve has got the gist of where I was coming from.
Not sure how easy it is to do and not having access to the Gazette getting the numbers would be nigh on impossible. But it would be interesting to see how many Officers were appointed in the same period pre and post-OASC. Then tie this in with the number showing as resigning their commissions. Whether they disappear into the ether or stay on as CIs, we canât tell.
This would give an indication if we are moving towards a defecit position wrt uniformed Officers.
As CAC it seems writes to all those resigning/relinquishing Commissions, is any note taken of why they do so and is it acted on? OK itâs rhetorical.
I donât know of many who hit 55 and go voluntarily. Given that CAC is I believe over 55 or getting that way and many of our senior Officers are over 55, bit of a sticky one refusing to sign them on if they want to stay, in a fit of pique just because they are VR(T). Which is how I have read into many of the extension refusals I know of as being done.
The exit-point from the VRT at 55 years is an interesting one. Iâm sure Iâve read somewhere that this venerable age is not uncommonly the time when some ex-military pilots actually join the VRT. Itâs also the maximum age at which someone with previous (relevant?) military service can still join the RAuxAF (now trading as âRAF Reservesâ), so thereâs a curious paradoxâŚperhaps viewed as too old to be part of the ACO adult staff cadre, but potentially young enough to commence service in the active reserves?
Anyway, I suspect that the organisation would always extend a good/contributing staff member, so I think this is a non-issue.
Hopefully the apparently-large exodus of Officers is just a statistical correction, as Plt Off Prune suggests. That would make sense. There a few names in there that I think I do recognise, so, Iâm sorry to see them go (I would say that none have been ârecent sightingsâ for me, however. And therein may lie a tale or two).
GHE2, why do you think youâve no access to the Gazette? Of course you do (indeed, by definition, you must). Either online or from almost every reference library in the UK.
However, rather than trawling and re-collating the live commissioning information, the current establishment roll-call of the entire RAFVR(T) (along with the named balance of commissioned and warranted officers serving in all the UK Air Forces of the Crown) is of course already officially documented in the Air Force List. Or at least it was- either BTI or WE177 pointed out to me on ACC that nowadays âThe Listâ is not actually printed and published anymore, in book form, by HMSO. I think my most recent copy is the 2012 edition. I understand that itâs now only available via DII, but I wouldâve thought thereâd be sense in extending that useful information set out into Bader as well: perhaps that should be formally suggested, itâd do no harm?
Iâm not in a position to know what the outflow/intake disposition is for establishment slots nationally for VRT Officers, but, I do know for sure that the entire revised filter/selection/training system is well-intentioned overall, and bound to result in good candidates.
If weâre talking stats at all, regarding Officers, itâs possibly worth mentioning that Iâm fairly-certain that itâs been a long time since the most [strike]common[/strike] numerous category of Air Force Officer entered upon the Air Force List has been anything other than the members of the Training Branch of the RAFVR. I donât have an old (or recent) copy of âThe Listâ accessible at present, but I could try to provide some historical (and more-recent) stats on that, at some time in the future, if I ever get the opportunity. And hopefully Iâll be wrong. But the quantity of Officers serving on regular commissions, combined with those on active reserves commissions (especially these days) will not be a large numberâŚso saying, true quality always wins over quantity.
wilf_san
if the last 6 years or so of Wing Conferences is anything to go by i would say that this is not new informationâŚto me anyway.
Wing have been bleating for years that we have a shortage of Staff generally and in particular Officers in a position to take on a OC role.
we seem to have an adequate number of officer to keep our heads above water but not enouigh âyoung bloodâ to come up through the ranks and take the OC position.
we have been told in â10yrs timeâ i think it was a third of the OCs would be timing out through age (and i dont think it was reaching 55 but noticably older) yet there was little development or recruitment of young officers to be prepared into the OC roleâŚstory of the Corps prehaps?
[quote=âsteve679â post=19257][quote=ânoah claypoleâ post=19252][quote=âglass half empty 2â post=19249]Regardless of the reason the fact it seems so many Officers are either resigning or relinquishing are listed and if the number of replacements means a negtive effect, it has to be a concern.
What would be interesting to see is a year on year appt and signing on vs relinquishing/resigning for commissions would be interesting. The most interesting thing woulld be to see what effect if any OASC is having on appointments, vs the old RC chat.[/quote]
OASC is part of the Recruitment process and does not affect the Retention (of Officers).
Weâve been around the RC Chat vs. OASC Bouy a number of times and yes fewer Officers will probably get through, but ultimately those who do âshouldâ be less likely to embarass the RAF or the ACO (than those Officers who slipped through the net under the old system - who shouldnât have - but for various reasons, did). If weâre just looking for warm bodies, then we shouldnât be looking to make them Officers for the fun of it - there are other roles which would be more suitable.
However, it would be interesting to know whether any of the Plt Offâs were relinquished or resigned due to the fact that they wouldnât (or couldnât) go to OIC.[/quote]
i agree it has no effect on retention but i am certain it will have an effect on recruitment.
you mention those who have been appointed who wouldnt pass nowâŚwould they even bother putting themselves forward fearing the rejection?[/quote]
No and to my mind they shouldnât - we have to have a minimum standard and if an individual cannot meet that standard, then they should not pass.
I find this point weak Steve - the crux here is why Jones and Bloggs have failed. I would suggest that OASC with their collective experience and consistent assessment methods are more likely to get it right than wrong.
Smith needs to consider that OASC is looking for Leadership and Management qualities - if you donât have the gumption to give it a go (regardless if you think Bloggs and Jones are of the âright stuffâ or not) for yourself, then nobody else is going to get you through the process and something of a âfollowerâ role is more suitable. Perhaps actually you could argue that OASC has done its job without even doing anything (in the case of Smith) - they have fallen at the first hurdle - if you have no belief in your own capabilities, why on earth should you expect other people to?!
Noah it is wrong to take a stance that putting people off is a good thing. For every Officer we lose in a Wing we need 3 potentials to go to OASC to ensure that we get continuity and retention / longevity of service of that individual, pretty much as we did before.
It is dangerous to draw up a perception that a because someone manages to get through OASC they are going to be a better Officer. Itâs a process and if you go along with playing the game in mind, chances are youâll come through it.
Also the reason why people are put off might also not be as clear cut as you assume and because they have been put off we somehow win as an organisation and or they are a lesser person for not giving it a go. As has been said many times, there is nothing special about getting through the process and what you become, no perks, kudos etc. You are the whipping boys and generally pooed upon.
I know that this moving away from the OPâs point about retention, but unless you recruit, you have nothing to retain and there is no point in having a whizz bang selection process if not enough come through it.
Not wanting to make this an OASC bashing thread, but for me now (Iâm VRT and Sqn OC) if I was starting out, I wouldnât go for OASC, and just stay as a CI or SNCO. Reason being is Cranwell is at least a 14 hour drive there and back, would involve at least one day off work (unpaid!) and I just couldnât justify that. Undoubtedly the recruitment process had to be standardised and improved, but I still have my reservations.
As for Staff retention, we have got to cut paperwork and red tape. On every level, it is becoming harder and harder to do everything in the Corps at the moment. I could easily spend a vast amount of my time when Iâm not at work doing ATC related work, and still not do it all. More and more demands are being placed on us, and there is no real extra help, be it financially or materially to help us. I have met more and more staff who are so fed up and thinking about jacking it in itâs really sad (Iâve even had those thoughts at times), especially when I think how the organisation has changed and what it has become since I got involved in 1999. I mean no disrespect or offense to anyone here, as I know there are good people at all levels, but just like in my civilian employment, there seems to be a large marzipan layer in our management who are making life hard, as so long as that exists, the top and bottom who want to drive change will never breach through.
I say donât worry about recruitment at the moment, sort the morale and feelings of the existing staff first! Whatâs the point in recruiting new staff if all they meet are fed up, grumpy, miserable, thinking of leaving staff?
After Scottish independence, we wonât be letting you lot join our Armed Forces anyway, so donât let the drive worry you.
that was the point i was trying to make, which i can understand may not have come across.
with OASC in place ppl are failing who otherwise wouldnât have done previously (and rightly so to maintain a minimal standard)
with Jones and Bloggs failing, who in Smithâs eyes were âdead certsâ then there is an increase level of doubt in Smithâs own abilitiesâŚ
it is in this situation i can understand there being a reduced recruitment/interest to become commissioned.
Today in the gazzette no VRT in or out.
I have gone back several weeks for numbers in and out. Back until 1 apr paprt from last week there are more appointments than losses.
17 Jun
appointed to commission 1
Commissions terminsted 14
10 Jun
Appointed to commission 8 inc 4 at Fg Off
No left
3 jun
None in or out
27 May
appointmemt to commission 9
none out
20 May
none in or out
13 may
appointment to commission 5 4 Fg Off 1 Plt Off
6 May
Appointment to commission 14 Plt Off
30 apr
None in or out
23 apr
appointed to commission 14
Commissions resigned 1
15 Apr
none in or out
8 apr
appointed to commission 3 Fg Off 10 Plt Off
out 0
1 Apr 0 in or out
I wouldnât trust those figures as an accurate representation of inflow / outflow.
I have been led to believe that the personnel office is so behind in appointments paperwork they are barely actioning resignations at all.
MW
[quote=âmike whiskeyâ post=19427]I wouldnât trust those figures as an accurate representation of inflow / outflow.
I have been led to believe that the personnel office is so behind in appointments paperwork they are barely actioning resignations at all.
MW[/quote]
The appointments are up to date, an O Cdt from my wing did oic in March and was gazzetted in April.
The issue of resignations relinquishments would explain there was a lump of over 100 if they are so behind.
I may be reactivating an old subject but something came to mind today.
In my workplace we run annual engagement surveys and this becomes a focus for management actions in the following year.
Is it time the RAFAC did the same? I appreciate that there should be a commitment that the result should be listened to and it would involve a cost as it should be run by an independent body but it could be quite revealing in reflecting the try challenges volunteers face, whether they feel supported and if they agree with the direction of the organisation to name just a few.
What are your thoughts?
Fairly sure someone suggested something similar to RC North on the VoV (?) page but she was rebuffed with the excuse that HQAC would need to employ professional psychologists to design and run it or some such. The OP then responded saying she was a psychologist in her real job and would be happy to run it, not sure where it went from there.
1 Like