The big issue here is that the number isn’t really that big as primary post holders.
A lot are secondary already or double hatting. For example I have a HQ primary post and a supernumary which should be a primary post.
The review is definitely required, there is a lot of wastage amongst our ranks, I am a firm believer that most of the Regional roles could go straight away.
I think it’s an either-or type thing. For example I don’t think we need 36 WATTOs, 6 RATTOs (and some SMEs) plus HQ SMEs. I think you could get rid of all the WATTOs, but increase the number of regional ATTOs, and make them specific. Or similarly get rid of all the RATTOs, but increase the number of HQ AT support staff.
I really think each region should have a RATTO plus 3 assistants for example, and then bin of WATTOs. This would work well with other roles too.
That’s just an example, but there’s certainly room to move things around I think.
That depends on what you are expecting from your WATTOs. Are they just there to review applications and sign things off or are they there to deliver AT at Wing level and as an enabler?
Arguably it would be better to have regional AT teams (in a similar to SATT model) made up of NGB providers to deliver more local entry level quals, and leave the higher level stuff to NACATCs.
But then we still have Wing Shooting Officers to deliver and authorise activities locally.
I think this is the exact thing that needs to be looked at, and properly defined. As currently you’ve got some WATTOs delivering NGB quals across their region and you’ve got others who do naff all, and only approve applications when prompted.
I think this approach will vary from role to role too. Some things are probably better having many lower level staff, others will benefit from many higher level staff.
There are two issues
i. There are not enough CFAV to fulfil all roles
ii. There is a significant minority who are double hatted and even triple hatted.
Point one is a historic problem of recruitment and retention. The ATC has never been good at either but the situation is getting worse.
Point two, this is unsustainable in the long run. There is an issue where the ATC is changing and posts have not kept up. There are no space and cyber WSO or RSO establishment but we are not an Air, Space and Cyber organisation. Do we need sector Commanders with no other role?
Higher risk activates need greater oversite. There is a need for Wing and Region accountability for authorising events where staff have to examine all activates at either a wing or region level ACP 20 now ACP 19 has not kept up with the changes happening on the ground in slow time and not there is going to be a review of all staff posts.
I am all for the best person for the Job but we are a hierarchical military based organisation. It is one thing for a highly qualified CI to lead a Kayaking exped on the river Severn, is is another for a CI to hold the duty to examine and approve SMS application and be expected to hold very senior staff to account,.
Totally agreed about Sector commanders, they could easily be at least double hatted or if not become sector “administrators” and take some of the admin burden out of Cyber, WATTO, 1st aid etc such as the badge issuing and the like
I’m sure we could go for some Amazon-like solution that prints certificates and sends out badges. The logistics of sending them out to RHQs/WHQs is already significant surely.
The rank means nothing for this case.
If you have a CI who holds WMCI, is a paddle sport performance coach, along with MIAS L3 etc etc, then there’s no reason why they can’t be the person approving and holding others to account.
Which would be a valid argument if we require wattos to hold qualifications sufficient for them to give tech advice, but we don’t.
Or even better have a national based training team that is not region centered and works from a proper SOTR.
Indeed, although I suspect that would get quickly become aligned regionally (ish) just because of the knowledge of the venues required - much wider than shooting / FC.
But in my option the Regional shooting officer role is pointless and could be culled
When I became a CCF Contingent Commander, I saw for the first time the extraordinary list of ‘extra-regimental employment’ the ACF had - basically the same thing - in each ACF County. I had no idea at the time that the ATC had the same thing: the CCF, meanwhile, has struggled on until recently with nothing similar, until the establishment of CCF TEST Mentors ?10 years ago, and a handful of national posts (myself included). We just did everything ourselves, or, of course, with help from the TEST SNCOs, but the latter have increasingly been sidetracked to supporting CEP and admin rather than actually training cadets.
It astonished me (and still does) that in a voluntary youth organisation, some of those volunteers never spend any time with actual youths.
Now, you might ask yourself if any of this matters, if those volunteers are to receive nothing for their time and expenses, of course…
When looking at approvals you don’t want a single person available causing bottle necks on for things to be authorised or a blockers which is where the region role comes in.
Just thinking about who approves what bader event,
PIPEs (Risk to life)- WExO
AT - WATTO (+TSA?)
LFMT - Wg Shooting Officer
Road Marching - WRMO
Fieldcraft - Wg FCTO
Sports - Sports Officer
Radio/Cyber - Wg Radio Officer?
First Aid - Wg FAO
The first three tend to be high risk to life or in the case of pipes don’t fit into the normally boxes suitable for Sqn approval.
A good WATTO will be looking at developing sqns AT capacity, a poor one just ticks boxes & bounces back anything they don’t want to take responsibility for. Personally I would scale the Wg role at Flt Lt & region at Sqn Ldr. Wg Shooting Officer I would probably be as it currently is or scale the same as WATTO.
Roadmarching is its own niche topic so you could have each Wg with a RMO one of whom doubled hat as region RMO.
Fieldcraft is an odd one depending on what the new syllabus states but ideally low level training not in the field should be approved at Sqn level with Wg approval for anything that’s deployed for longer than a Sqn parade night. Again you could do a “first amongst equals” where one Wg Fieldcraft officer double hats as region FCO.
The last three….its mainly administrative so perhaps those roles should be more of auditing & compliance than approval?
Yes sports has a risk but vast majority of time it’s low level rather than complex or dangerous activity.
It kinda feels as if each role needs to be HAYED process to work out where it sits.
I think there should also be a distinction between paid rank & unpaid rank so you can be ranked as a Sqn Ldr but can only claim Flt Lt VA.
As such I think we need to take in the personal expenditure expected for some of the roles e.g. I would expect RATTO to be paying out for more professional memberships or personal kit for courses than a WATTO.
Yes we do. The Bader POC role is more than just password resets. At a minimum they should be delivering user training on bader suite as well as managing the wing or regional SharePoint site.
Agreed, should be folded into OC SATT.
Depends on what they are doing, which varies massively by Wing, in many they end up Commanding Squadrons where there is no OC.
Personally I would do away with Sectors as they currently exist, make smaller sectors of no more than 4 Squadrons and the best OC is also the Sector Commander as a Sqn Ldr.
Ive always seen the Sector Commander role as perfect for those who cannot give the time during parade nights but have still got time to give (often still over the 12 hours but at other times of the day). Perfect for young staff who have been an OC and then become parents. Its avoids the need to go NEP or leave altogether, and offers a different type of volunteering which fits into home life. A former OC has the skills for the role, but may well not have the skills or interest to be an SME at any level.
Absolutely. As an archery instructor i had to send my archery events to the wing sports officer for approval who bounced my RA. I am the one with the qualification and he does not hold an archery instructor licence. It felt totally wrong.