An odd job role shouldn’t be a primary role, which is sort of my whole point here.
1 Like
And are they completing their minimum hours (assuming uniformed CFAVs in roles), who monitors and who is responsible for compliance.
These are individuals, whilst helping the deliver the ‘cadet experience’ at HQAC level, are needed at squadron level. How many squadrons are struggling now because of people being pulled away to a HQAC job !!
Agree, we shouldn’t have special projects roles as Primary anywhere in the tree.
1 Like
It would be good if there were published TORs for every role…
I mean, for the role to exist there needed to be a business case, so there should be TORs with that.
this is a valid point - 270+ roels at HQAC is the same as one additional staff at every 5th Squadron - or on the assumption that Wings are ~25 Squadrons in size, 5 Squadrons within a Wing get 1 extra staff member
(of course it is never this simply as there is a postcode lottery where these HQAC CFAVs are)
I have also noted an error in the list.
the RIAT roles are not primary roles except for OC RIAT, OC Eng and OC Ops.
All the other roles are “secondary duties” except for those two weeks in July when all the roles come “alive” as a primary duty
And you really think this will make a notable difference?
1 Like
i don’t recall suggesting i did…i am simply doing the maths.
however i would suggest that in each Wing there is bound to be 2-3 Squadrons who are “struggling” and so an additional dedicated and competent* CFAV attending once a week is likely to lessen the burden for that unit
*on the basis they are suitable for a HQAC role they must have some positive qualities
1 Like
But what will they not be doing for HQAC if they do that? Not everyone has the capacity to do both.
1 Like
I completely agree
i am simply reacting to, and expanding on the points made by @Eeh_Bah_Gum here:
while it is accepted not everyone at HQAC can or indeed wishes to work at a local level, it is a large number of volunteers “at” HQAC which if possible to “deploy” local could have an impact if placed strategically
I would expect the HQ people to also have impact at other levels within the org. The focus is on local, ie them attending a unit but everyone on my team is also secondary in some other way within our speciality.
Most are on SATTs, Regions or Wings within an SME role and double hatting supernumerary elsewhere.
This may be unique to the shooting and fieldcraft world as we need to maintain currency that a HQ direct role won’t allow us to do easily.
JL vs HQAC battle ex? That alone would justify bringing back JL!
I would like to see more “movement” in the structure. So (where they want to of course) squadron commanders can go do a tour (2 years) on a project at Wing, Region or HQ. Learn more about how the RAFAC operates, then return to unit with that knoweldge. Those already holding those HQ roles could also rotate back to squadrons every 4 years for a 2 year tour to ensure they stay “rooted”. The RAF officer cadre has a good mixuture of command tours vs staff tours - and it may help prevent burn out.
3 Likes
I think this is an excellent idea. It is probably better than having people stuck on Sqns and stuck in wing roles for an indefinite period.
Taking the idea further you could have someone take on a Sqn exec role and a secondary / deputy sme duty before a Command tour, then a primary SME duty, second Command tour, then a Sector Commander or wing staff job.
Appreciate there are some RTLs where that might not work, but a good WO as the 2IC could provide continuity?
They slightly messed it up (for officers) by removing time served Flt Lt / forcing people to drop ranks.
Someone somewhere would be bound to argue that an SME should revert to Fg Off or that a Sqn Ldr who has been, say, a sector commander, can’t keep the rank when they do another Sqn tour.
We are all acting unpaid now anyway so why go through that!
I would like to propose to the powers that be, that although we go up and down in rank with roles, unless that is for being a naughty officer, then “formal” uniform stays ranked at the highest rank held for 1 year (as per the criteria for retaining rank) - so if you’re a sqn ldr for a year and go back to a sqn, you can revert to fg off, however your No1s and Mess Dress can stay ranked at highest rank. Afterall, this only affects Officers - a WWO steps down but reatains WO.
1 Like
I’d go further and say that Flt Lt should be retained, acting unpaid. Fg Off is a training rank in the parent service.
By all means have a minimum criteria - officers already have to spend a year in command to get promoted and 18 months in post seems increasingly common. So 3 years in rank or 3 years in command?
As you say WOs get to keep rank. So they could get promoted to take on an SME role then go back to a Sqn in a non exec role and keep the T&Ls.
AFAIK CCF also still have time served rank retention if not time served promotions.
8 Likes
Good luck getting someone to agree to be ED for that!
Sorry - ED?
Exercise Director
1 Like
Sorry - I hadn’t realised which post it was a reply too - durrr 
2 Likes
You have to get past peoples belief that stepping down isnt a demotion, but a reduction on duties/responsibilities.
With great power comes more barcode…or something like that.
1 Like