We had a cadet, who was a QAI, design and put together a flying and gliding progress spreadsheet for use at squadron level. It was a brilliant and easy to use tool that would have been most useful at squadrons who maybe didn’t have an aviation SME.
As well as it being an ‘idiots guide’ to the ATP’s, it kept track of who was ‘in date’ medically, both AV med form 1 and F6424. Gave warnings of when cadets were about to go out of date medically, thus giving them time to get a fresh medical in time for upcoming slots.
It also kept track of which AEF sorties cadets had completed, allowing staff to easily check on wings claims and avoiding the unnecessary delay and embarrassment when cadets got to AEF and didn’t know which sortie they were on next.
The OC sqn was so impressed with it, he told the cadet to pass it on to the WAvnO for consideration of the CofC. It was passed on and that was the last the cadet heard about it. It just died with Wing. We still heavily rely on it at the squadron and the cadet, (who should have had an award!) has left.
I’ll ask the ex-cadet if he is happy for us to share it again, create a blank copy of the one we use and share. How do you add an excel attachment to a post?
Whatever happened to those amazing folk who penned the candidates guide to a VR(T) commission??? That was an amazing publication which was dropped in the laps of HQAC and ignored.
To be fair though, what we’re discussing is neither new, nor unique to RAFAC. The only way it will change is with an colossal culture shift. And it’s not going to be a quick fix.
The company I work for have a hashtag that colleagues of all work levels, from stores and offices can use on yammer (I’m not saying use yammer - that would be dangerous in this org!)
This hashtag is to share ideas to simplify life, improve business operation or even products the company may not be selling but the board review it quarterly and the achievable and realistic ones are actioned where possible and business case says they’re a good idea.
Just food for thought that a multinational company is open to hearing ideas from the minions on the front line so the rafac could easily adopt an initiative
I am the first to be ultra critical of this organisation that I have a lot of love for. And it is because of my love for it, and wanting it to be the best it can be which makes me ultra critical.
In its defence, an organisation the size of the RAFAC is always going to be painfully slow to adopt change. The further up the chain you go the more regressive and the harder things become to change.
Not helped by the fact lots of numpties seem to be post holders that have considerably different ideas and can’t see how unhelpful they are… even in the face of facts and data (apparently this is not unique to the RAFAC, these people infest every walk of life)…
On a squadron level we can all pretty much run things how we like, within reason. And so we find ways of working that fit well.
It’s just when we butt up against the numpties; those saying that CFAV A.Nother has to go on the wing radio weekend to sign off blue comms, despite being an air traffic controller… Then some idiot goes and sells all the gliders for a song… Then someone else decides to add yet another layer of admin to something simple. I have no doubt these break slammers mean well, they’re just wrong.
And for as long as the organisation is as big as it is, it will always suffer and be its own worst enemy. Unfortunately our decision makers lack the dynamism of its coal face volunteers…
One thing that could go so easy to remedying it in my opinion is to assign everyone at every level a squadron, where minimum hours each year should be 24 to be spent on that squadron. Even if it just means once a month the decision makers are in a room with squadron staff for a few hours who are able to point out what works and what doesn’t.
It won’t totally cure the organisation. That would take the above and a few personality transplants. But it would go some way…
Apparently you can signed off with all sorts of quals which would deem you suitable and “competent” (as per the acto), but if the person that puts you on the list and sends the badges won’t put you on the list unless you’ve done their course… no dice. Silly.
We’ve resorted to just buying our own blue badges and not worrying about them too much!
I agree there is an element of daftness on the Cyber front for this. I teach significantly more complex things to people who don’t speak english as a first language but can’t teach our syllabus.
The volunteers often moan that HQAC never take in to account their day jobs and then volunteers write policy like that.
The Bader Team and the VSDT are not aviation specialists and if good ideas are not passed to us along with a requirement, we wouldn’t necessarily know what to spec out.
As ever, we welcome all suggestions which can help improve the platform.
As ever, the standard exclaimer applies: All development is subject to our weighting and scoring methodology which will help the Command Board prioritise the development work. Once received, I will make sure it is brought to the attention of the Bader Developers for further discussion but it needs to come to me from a creditable source via email, not via an open internet forum.
I found a copy of that the other day @Batfink It’s not that out of date either!
Don’t worry, I appreciate that. It was more a dig at the organisations inability to plan and deliver at a high level on things that to most would seem very obvious.
Our WRCO is pretty pragmatic and will just accept the grid (TG form something). It’s stupid to expect the longer form on top of that.
What I think they should do is an e-exam for CFAVs & instructor cadets to be able to instruct radio. I’d also overhaul the syllabus but that’s a different story. The current syllabus isn’t particularly difficult to learn at blue/bronze level so is easily self-studied online; the majority is just procedures and prowords. While I appreciate the point about other qualifications, it’s still clearly essential to know the cadet procedures.
If you can be let loose on senior subjects with no formal training or e-exams then what’s different from radio? If an instructor feels confident, understands cadet procedures, let them get on with it.
Where an instructor could even teach Advance Radio and Radar - as we know our classification goes towards an aviation BTEC… Same instructor can’t “officially” sign off on blue radio as the wing bod hasn’t wasted a weekend of their time.
This is exactly the sort of rubbish that needs stamping on.
Like having a civilian aerospace instructor and PPL holder on squadron, who can teach;
Principles of Flight
Airmanship
Air Navigation
Aircraft handling and flying techniques
Basic principles of pilot navigation
It’s worth bearing in mind how poor the knowledge of most instructors is in classification subjects though. As much as letting anyone instruct it would be great in an ideal world, in reality people will teach it because they’ve been forced to, even if they have no knowledge of the subject.
You are right, there needs to be some quality assurance in place.
But Turbo is right in some subject areas you could be the most quald up and educated person in that field but still need to be “authorised” or attend a train the trainer course or even be in a seperate part of the organisation.
It’s not that out of date either!